Ethical standards clinic
The subject member has told me that the date of the hearing is
inconvenient and asked for an adjournment. No grounds have been
given for the adjournment, so what should I do?
Section 6(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct)
(Local Determination) Regulations 2003 provides that a hearing must
be held within three months of receiving the ethical standards
officer’s report or the date of the monitoring officer’s completed
report. This is a statutory obligation upon the authority and every
effort possible should be made to hold the hearing within this
statutory period.
In some cases, the date arranged for the hearing will be
unsuitable for the subject member or members of the standards
committee. It is advisable to fix the date for the hearing as soon
as possible following receipt of the ESO’s report or the date of
completion of the monitoring officer’s report to enable any persons
required to attend or with a right to attend the opportunity to
indicate their availability and allow time to re-organise.
It is wise to obtain the reasons for the adjournment request as
it may be unnecessary for the hearing to be adjourned. For example
one of the subject member’s witnesses may only be available for
half the day, and it may be possible to make special arrangements
for that witness’s evidence to be heard.
In some cases an adjournment of the date will be requested and
there will still be available dates to hold the hearing within the
three month deadline. However, in some cases an adjournment of the
date may result in the revised date being outside of the three
month deadline. If the reason for this is due to unexpected or
unforeseen circumstances occurring, the hearing could be held
outside the three month time period (see Dawkins v Bolsover
District Council [2004]). Examples of unexpected or unforeseen
circumstances include:
- the subject member is ill or is to admitted to hospital;
- one of the witnesses is ill or unable to attend for some other
reason;
- the subject member’s representative is unexpectedly
unavailable;
- the standards committee member is engaged in work which he or
she cannot avoid.
If the subject member’s request appears to be a delaying tactic,
the committee would be justified in refusing to adjourn and
continuing with the hearing date arranged. In circumstances where
the subject member has said he or she is ill, the Committee would
be able to satisfy themselves as to whether they should adjourn and
would be able to seek a certificate from the subject member’s
doctor.
Key phrase: no legislative requirement that Standards Committees
are to be politically balanced
I’m setting up arrangements for the standards committee hearing
and the chair of the Committee has asked whether the Committee
needs to be politically balanced when holding hearings. What advice
should I give him?
There is no legislative requirement that Standards Committees at
ordinary meetings or hearings are to be politically balanced.
Members serving on Standards Committees are expected to rise above
their political interests and judge each case according to the
merits alone. This issue was considered by the Adjudication Panel
for England’s case tribunal in November 2006 at an appeal hearing
against Test Valley Borough Council’s Standards Committee decision
concerning the conduct of Councillor Dowden of North Baddesley
Parish Council.