SUB-COMMITTEE STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE (F) DATE AND TIME THURSDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2011 AT 10.

00AM VENUE HENDON TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS, HENDON NW4 4BG PLEASE NOTE TIME OF MEETING TO: MEMBERS OF STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE (F) (Quorum 3, to include at least two Independent Members) (Those attending in Bold) Independent Members: David Sparrow (Chairman) (apologies) Councillor: Claire Farrier Substitutes for Independent Members: Michael Barber Stephen Ross Deborah Sanders Bernd Koschland Substitutes for Councillor Member: Jack Cohen Wendy Prentice Lord Palmer Agnes Slocombe Ron Rosenhead (Vice Chairman, In the Chair)

Tanya Ossack

Andreas Tambourides

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an Agenda is attached. Head of Governance: Aysen Giritli Governance Service contact: Chidilim Agada 020 8359 2037

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE

ORDER OF BUSINESS Item No. 1. 2. 3. Title of Report ABSENCE OF MEMBERS DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS HEARING FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ALLEGATION THAT A MEMBER MAY HAVE BREACHED THE COUNCILS CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS ANY ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT Page Nos. -

4.

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Hendon Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting, please telephone Chidilim Agada on 020 8359 2037. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942.

FIRE/EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed porters. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lift. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so.

AGENDA ITEM: 3 Meeting Date Subject Report of Summary

Page nos.

Standards Sub-Committee (F) 24 November 2011

Hearing following an Investigation into an allegation that a Member may have breached the Councils Code of Conduct for Members (SSA002/10) Director of Corporate Governance (Monitoring Officer) This report asks the Sub-Committee to consider the findings of an investigation as directed following initial assessment and in accordance with the Councils determinations protocols.

Officer Contributors Status (public or exempt) Wards affected Enclosures

Director of Corporate Governance (Monitoring Officer) Senior Governance Advisor Public All
Enclosure A: Investigation Report Enclosure B: Determinations Protocols & Criteria Enclosure C: Determination hearing procedure Enclosure D: Pre-hearing forms Enclosure E: Skeleton Argument of the subject Member

Enclosure F: Correspondence between London Borough

Barnet and the Parties

For decision by Function of Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate)

Standards Sub-Committee Council Not applicable

Contact for further information: Seye Aina, Senior Governance Advisor 020 8359 7156, seye.aina@barnet.gov.uk

1. 1.1

RECOMMENDATIONS That the Standards Sub-Committee hear the case presented and reach a decision as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct. That, if the Standards Sub-Committee find that there has been a breach, they make a determination as to appropriate sanction and instruct officers to publicise the decision in accordance with the protocols. That, if the Standards Sub-Committee find that there has not been a breach, they instruct officers to publicise the decision in accordance with the protocols; unless the subject Member exercises his right to prohibit this. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 6 September 2010 - Standards Sub-Committee A referred this matter for local investigation. 21 September 2011 Standards Sub-Committee F held a consideration meeting in respect of this matter. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES Not applicable. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES All consideration of findings that any Member may have breached the Members Code of Conduct must be dealt with according to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and associated Regulations. All Members must be treated equally; as must all complainants, who may come from any and all sectors of the community. The Code of Conduct includes a general obligation that Members must not do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of the equality enactments (as defined in section 33 of the Equality Act 2006). Whilst Section 33 is referred to in the current Code of Conduct, the provisions of Section 33 have now been superseded by the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, where the equality enactments are now contained. The requirement of the Disability and Discrimination Act 2005 to make reasonable adjustments to assist complainants or Members would be met in any applicable cases. However, no such requirements have been identified in this case. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS None. LEGAL ISSUES The procedures for the hearing are conducted in accordance with the requirements of The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 and all other empowering

1.2

1.3

2. 2.1

2.2

3. 3.1 4. 4.1 5. 5.1

5.2

5.3

6. 6.1 7. 7.1

legislation. Where relevant, there are further legal references contained in the main body of the report and background papers. 8. 8.1 CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS Article 9.04 of the Constitution provides (among other things) that: The Standards Committee will have the following roles and functions. (k) To appoint a minimum of three Sub-Committees, each of no less than three persons and including at least two Independent Members, drawn from the Standards Committee to carry out any of the roles and functions set out in paragraphs [l] to [p] below.

(p)

Following an investigation and receipt of a report by the Monitoring Officer or Officer appointed by the Monitoring Officer to carry out such investigation and prepare such report into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, to make a decision as to whether or not, on a balance of probabilities, there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct and, if there has been, to consider whether it is appropriate to impose a sanction and, if so, to decide upon a suitable sanction, or, alternatively, whether it is appropriate to refer the case to the First-tier Tribunal (Local Government Standards in England) formerly the Adjudication Panel for England if the sanctions available to the Standards Committee are deemed insufficient. The Standards Committee has appointed sub-Committees to carry out its roles and functions related to the assessment, review and referral of allegations regarding breach of conduct and those related to determination and application of sanction in such cases. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On 12 August 2010, the Monitoring Officer received, a complaint from Councillor Kate Salinger dated 4 August 2010. The Senior Governance Advisor acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 17 August 2010. The complaint alleged that Councillor Andreas Tambourides breached the following parts of the Members Code of Conduct:Paragraph 3(1) You must treat others with respect; Paragraph 3(2b) You must not bully any person; Paragraph 3(2c) (iii) You must not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely to be involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings in relation to an allegation that a member (including yourself) has failed to comply with his or her authority's code of conduct; Paragraph 5 You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute; Paragraph 6(a)

8.2

9. 9.1

9.2

You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage; Paragraph 6(b)(ii) You must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes). 9.3 The allegation relates to a news article alleged to be from the website of the London Daily News. The complainant alleges that Councillor Andreas Tambourides forwarded the news article to all Conservative Councillors on Barnet Council and at least one member of the general public. The allegation was presented for an initial assessment by Standards SubCommittee A on 6 September 2010. The Sub-Committee identified paragraphs 3(1), 5 and 6(b)(ii) of the Code of Conduct as matters to be referred to the Monitoring Officer for Local Investigation. On 11 October 2010, the Monitoring Officer appointed Mr Hem Savla as an investigator in this matter. Standards Sub-Committee F had a consideration meeting on 21 September 2011 to consider the investigators report dated 27 June 2011. The Standards SubCommittee resolved that a date for a hearing should be set. The pre-hearing forms (D) as recommended by Standards for England (SfE) guidance and the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the subject member are to follow. At the hearing the following documents are to be presented: Enclosure A: Investigation Report Enclosure B: Determinations Protocols & Criteria Enclosure C: Determination hearing procedure Enclosure D: Pre-hearing forms Enclosure E: Skeleton Argument of the subject Member This meeting of the Standards Sub-Committee F is therefore convened to conduct a hearing into whether or not Councillor Andreas Tambourides has breached the Members Code of Conduct. The Sub-Committee is asked to consider the evidence presented to them at the hearing. The hearing should be conducted in accordance with the Determinations Protocols and Criteria (Enclosure B) and with reference to the Determination Hearing Procedure (Enclosure C). Once the presentation of the evidence is concluded, the Sub-Committee will adjourn to consider in private whether or not there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct as alleged. Decisions will be made on the balance of probabilities and not that of beyond reasonable doubt. The Determinations Criteria (Enclosure B) should be referred to throughout the process but particularly when determining whether or not there has been a breach and when applying a sanction. Having reached a decision as to whether breach has been found or not, the SubCommittee will return and the Chairman will announce the determination to those present. If the determination is that there has been no breach then the subject member will be asked if he wishes to prohibit publication of the usual decision notice. If the determination is that there has been a breach then the subject

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

9.8

9.10

9.11

Member will be invited to present mitigating factors to be taken account of in applying sanction. 9.12 The Sub-Committee would then adjourn for a second time and consider, in private, whether a sanction should be applied and, if so, what it should be. Again, once a decision had been reached the Sub-Committee would return and the Chairman would announce the decision. A decision notice will be produced reflecting the decision of the Sub-Committee on this matter in accordance with the determinations protocols. In the case of breach being found, the decision notice would include full details of the subject Members right to appeal. A member subject to a standards committee finding may apply in writing within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision to the President of the First Tier Tribunal (previously the Adjudication Panel for England) for permission to appeal against that finding.

9.13

10.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS Standards for England Guidance on Local Investigations and Other Action Standards for England Guidance on Standards Committee Determinations Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.

Enclosure A

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

REPORT

Case Reference: SSA 002/10

Report of an investigation under Sections 57A and 66 of the Local Government Act 2000, pursuant to a referral by a Standards Sub Committee of 6 September 2010, carried out by Mr Hem Savla as instructed by Mr Jeff Lustig the Monitoring Officer for the London Borough of Barnet concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides (subject member).

DATE: 27 June 2011

Contents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Executive summary Councillor Andreas Tambouridess official details The relevant legislation and protocols The evidence gathered Summary of the material facts Councillor Andreas Tambouridess additional submissions Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct 7.3 7.4 7.5 8 Conduct under Paragraph 3(1) Conduct under Paragraph 5 Conduct under Paragraph 6(b)(ii)

Finding

Appendix A

Schedule of oral evidence taken into account

Appendix B

Schedule of documentary evidence taken into account

Appendix C

Chronology of events

Page 2 of 20

1 1.1

Executive summary Summary of allegation

1.1.1 The complainant (Councillor Kate Salinger) alleged that Councillor Andreas Tambourides forwarded to all Conservative Councillors on Barnet Council and at least one member of the public, a news article alleged to be from the website of the London Daily News; the article was forwarded in its entirety in order to denigrate and ridicule her to other Conservative Councillors and anyone else the email may have been forwarded; and stated that the alleged actions by Councillor Tambourides are a breach of Paragraphs 3(1), 3(2b), 3(2c)(iii), 5, 6(a) and 6(b)(ii) of the Members Code of Conduct. 1.1.2 The initial complaint recorded on the Allegation about Member Conduct Form was dated 4th August 2010 and received by the Council on 12th August 2010. 1.1.3 The Standards Sub-Committee (A), on 6th September 2010, conducted an assessment of the complaint and identified the following relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct, which may apply to the alleged conduct: Paragraph 3(1) - You must treat others with respect; Paragraph 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute; Paragraph 6(b)(ii) - You must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes).

The Standards Sub-Committee (A) referred the matter to the monitoring officer for investigation.

Page 3 of 20

1.2

Summary of investigation outcome

1.2.1 The legal adviser to Councillor Andreas Tambourides has raised a jurisdiction point asserting that the Code of Conduct does not apply to the circumstances of this complaint because his client was not acting as a Member, see Appendix B, items 6 and 12. It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides was acting as a Member and in particular his role as part of the Councils Conservative Group in relation to the matters which are the subject of the complaint. The reasons for my view are: Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail containing the link to the London Daily News article dated 15th July 2010 to all Conservative Councillors. Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail soon after the controversial Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the Members allowances scheme. Councillor Andreas Tambourides stated that the purpose for sending the article was to provide the Conservative Councillors with information that would be helpful to them to take decisions.

1.2.2 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides breached Paragraph 3(1) of the Members Code of Conduct (you must treat others with respect) for the following reasons: No attempt was made by Councillor Andreas Tambourides to check if issues in the article about Councillor Kate Salinger were correct before sending out the link to the article by e-mail. The e-mail sent to all Conservative Councillors was sent in his capacity as a Member.. Even though the e-mail was sent from a personal web based e-mail account it was sent to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate Salinger, with a link to an article that contained unsubstantiated, unfavourable and inaccurate references to Councillor Kate Salinger at a time when there had just been a

Page 4 of 20

This action appears to have been designed to cause embarrassment to Councillor Kate Salinger, possibly with a view to discredit her character at this sensitive time and possibly to undermine her position within the Conservative Party.

1.2.3 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides did not breach paragraph 5 of the Members Code of Conduct (you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute) for the following reasons: There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides brought the office or the authority into disrepute. There is no evidence that the actions of Councillor Andreas Tambourides either reduced the publics confidence in his ability to fulfil his role as a Member or adversely affected the reputation of members generally, in being able to fulfil their role. In relation to the complaint there was no evidence of dishonesty, threatening or violent behaviour on the part of Councillor Andreas Tambourides.

1.2.4 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides breached paragraph 6(b)(ii) of the Members Code of Conduct (you must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes)) for the following reasons: The investigation by the Councils Infrastructure Team in Commercial Services confirmed (Appendix B, item 9) that the Councils internet connection was used to gain access to the web

Page 5 of 20

10

The timing of the e-mail suggests that the purpose of sending the email was most likely to harm Councillor Kate Salingers reputation and to embarrass her and possibly influence the entire debate on Members allowances taking place at the time.

The e-mail with the link to all Conservative Councillors was sent in his capacity as a Member with the intention to damage Councillor Kate Salinger politically and therefore Councillor Andreas Tambourides made use of the Councils resources improperly for political purposes.

Official details of Councillor Andreas Tambourides

2.1

Councillor Andreas Tambourides was elected as a Member of Barnet Council in 1998 and subsequently in 2002, 2006 and 2010 for a term of four years. He served as a Mayor in the municipal year 2005/6.

2.2

Councillor Andreas Tambourides currently serves on the Planning and Environment Committee, the Standards Committee and the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee. He presides as the Chairman of the East Area Planning Sub Committee and the Licensing Committee. He is a substitute member on the Audit Committee and the Appeals Committee.

2.3

Councillor Andreas Tambourides was provided a full information pack on 7th May 2010 that included information on access to the Code of Conduct for Members on the Councils website. All Members were invited to a development session on the Code of Conduct on 7th July 2010 but the records show that Councillor Andreas Tambourides did not attend. There is no record of Councillor Andreas Tambourides attendance at the previous training on the Code of Conduct held in July 2007.

Page 6 of 20

11

The relevant legislation and protocols

3.1

The Council has adopted a Members Code of Conduct in which the following paragraphs are included: Paragraph 3(1) - You must treat others with respect; Paragraph 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute; Paragraph 6(b)(ii) - You must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes)

3.2

The complaint was assessed by and referred to the Councils Monitoring Officer for investigation by the Standards Sub-Committee (A) in terms of Section 57A (2) of the Local Government Act 2000.

The evidence gathered

4.1

Appendix A lists an account of oral evidence obtained.

4.2

Appendix B lists an account of documentary evidence obtained.

Summary of the material facts

5.1

The details of the complaint are set out in the Executive Summary above.

5.2

The complainant, Councillor Kate Salinger, was interviewed (with her representative Mr John Perry) on 12th January 2011. The responses to
Page 7 of 20

12

5.3

The subject member, Councillor Andreas Tambourides, was interviewed (with his legal representative Mr Stephen Hocking) on 21st January 2011. The responses to interview queries, where relevant, are extracted under paragraph 7 below.

5.4

Barnet Councils Assistant Director - Legal, Ms Margaret Martinus, was interviewed on 3rd February 2011 and 9th June 2011. The responses to interview queries, where relevant, are extracted under paragraph 7 below.

Councillor Andreas Tambouridess additional submissions

6.1

Whilst there was no additional submission from Councillor Tambourides his legal advisor, Mr Stephen Hocking, raised a preliminary issue in his letter of 23 March 2011 in which he claimed that the Barnet Code of Conduct applies only to acts of a councillor in an official capacity. My view on this specific point is set out in 1.2.1 above. Mr Hocking also included in his letter of the 23rd March four specific questions which were all requested under Freedom of Information Act, see Appendix B, item12. These representations were dealt with by the Councils specialist officers on information governance. Mr Hocking requested on 6th May 2011 a review of claimed exemptions within the FOIA responses and that review was carried out and the outcome reported to Mr Hocking on 19th May 2011, see Appendix B, items 13 and 14.

6.2

6.3

Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct

Page 8 of 20

13

7.1

The approach to the investigation was to resolve the following queries in relation to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by the subject member:

a) Establish the actions of Councillor Andreas Tambourides and whether they fell within the scope of the Code of Conduct. b) Establish whether the alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides can be construed as a lack of respect toward Councillor Kate Salinger. c) Establish whether the alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides brought the office or authority into disrepute. d) Establish whether Councillor Andreas Tambourides used or allowed others to use Council resources for political purposes.

7.2

If the findings and evidence demonstrated that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides came within the scope of the Code of Conduct and resulted in Councillor Kate Salinger not being treated with respect, or that his actions brought the office or authority into disrepute or that he used or allowed the use of Council resources for political purposes then this would be contrary to the respective paragraphs (see section 3.1 above) of the Members Code of Conduct.

7.3

Evaluation of conduct in relation to treatment with respect

7.3.1 At the interview on 12th January 2011, Councillor Kate Salinger Stated that there were two key paragraphs in the article (Appendix B, item 2) that were relevant to the complaint she lodged. The first is the paragraph 10 (of the 13 paragraph article) which stated that A senior member of the Conservative party commented on the stance of Conservative Councillor Kate Salinger who abstained in the vote to increase the allowance of members despite the groups support for the motion, and said that she was already a marginal figure and her actions have ostracised her entirely and she is now history. The second is the paragraph 11 which stated that
Page 9 of 20

14

Stated that at the time when the link to article was sent in the e-mail she was the Chairman of the Childrens Services Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee and member of the Corporate Parenting Advisory Panel and therefore was not consigned to history. She further stated that this information is in the public domain and Councillor Andreas Tambourides would have been aware of this.

Stated that the statement in paragraph 11 of the article is incorrect and that she has never been nor was subject to any contact with the Councils lawyers and that her conduct has never been in question in the past. Further she informed me that on 9th August 2010 The London Daily News subsequently published an apology for this error in the article; see Appendix B, item 4.

Stated that the article (i.e. link to the article) was sent to the Conservative Councillors and the others knowing that the article contained unsubstantiated statements which were designed to slur her character, honesty and integrity.

7.3.2 At the interview on 21st January 2011, Councillor Andreas Tambourides Stated that he had read the article when it was published on 15th July 2010; see Appendix B, item 2. Stated that he had sent the link to the article by e-mail, on 15th July 2010, to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate Salinger; see Appendix B, item 3. Stated that he could not recall sending the information to officers or any other person. Stated that the reason for sending the article to the Conservative Councillors was to provide them with this information so that it would be helpful to them to take decisions.

Page 10 of 20

15

Stated that the e-mail was sent to Councillor Kate Salinger for information but, following the advice from his legal advisor, would not explain as to what effect he had anticipated by sending the article to Councillor Kate Salinger.

Stated that there was no intention to denigrate and ridicule Councillor Kate Salinger. Stated that he had not received any responses to his e-mail containing the link to The London Daily News article. Stated that he was aware of the apology posted on the website by The London Daily News. Stated that the recipients of his original e-mail on 15th July 2010 were not alerted to the apology from The London daily News. Stated that he had presumed the article to be accurate when asked if he had checked whether the article contained any misleading or inaccurate statements before sending the link by e-mail. However, he would not explain when asked if he thought that by sending the link to an article containing possible inaccurate statements about the recipient could be considered intimidating and therefore seen as bullying.

7.3.3 Before the scheduled interview with Councillor Andreas Tambourides I received a letter dated 17th January 2011 from his legal advisor, Mr Stephen Hocking, who was of the opinion that: The e-mail falls completely outside Andreas Tambouridess role as a Councillor and the investigation should be stopped on that ground; see Appendix B, item 6, paragraph 1. The e-mail in question was not signed in the name of Councillor Tambourides it was signed by Andreas Tambourides as a private individual; see Appendix B, item 6, paragraph 2a. I sent a letter to Mr Hocking on 18 January informing him that it was my intention to continue with my investigation and interview, see Appendix B, item 7.

Page 11 of 20

16

7.3.4 At the interviews on 3rd February 2011 and 9th June 2011 (see Appendix A, items 3) Ms Margaret Martinus, the Assistant Director Legal, confirmed that as far as she was aware Councillor Kate Salinger had not been contacted by Council lawyers in relation to the Councillors conduct. neither she nor anyone in the Legal Services, as far as she was aware, had been contacted by Councillor Andreas Tambourides in relation to the article in question.

7.3.5 Facts established include the following: Councillor Andreas Tambourides confirmed sending the link to The London Daily News article dated 15th July 2010 [entitled Barnet Tories stand firm on pay vote cost neutral, no increase to tax payer] to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate Salinger; see Appendix B, items 2 & 3. Councillor Andreas Tambourides confirmed that he did not send the link to the apology published by The London Daily News on 9th August 2010. Councillor Kate Salinger did not receive any apology from Councillor Andreas Tambourides for circulating the link to the article dated 15th July 2010 containing the incorrect statement, see Appendix B, item 11. At the time when the e-mail linking article was sent Councillor Kate Salinger was the Chairman of the Childrens Services Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee and member of the Corporate Parenting Advisory Panel. The London Daily News posted an apology on their website in relation to the eleventh paragraph in the article. The London Daily News article included statements, at the tenth and the eleventh paragraphs of the article, which were personal about a Councillor and not just about issues being debated at the time by the Council.

Page 12 of 20

17

Councillor Andreas Tambourides is a long standing councillor, elected in 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010. He served as a mayor in the municipal year 2005/6.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides plays a prominent role as a councillor and at the time he sent the link to the article in his e-mail he served on the Audit Committee, the Planning and Environment Committee, the Standards Committee and presided as the Chairman of the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee and the Licensing Committee.

The e-mail with the link was sent soon after the controversial Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the Members allowances scheme.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides said that the e-mail was sent to Conservative Councillors to help them to take decisions.

7.3.6 Conclusion evaluation of you must treat others with respect It is my view that Councillor Kate Salinger was not treated with respect by Councillor Andreas Tambourides. No attempt was made by Councillor Andreas Tambourides to check if the issues in the article about Councillor Kate Salinger were correct before sending out the link by e-mail. For the reasons stated previously Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail in his capacity as a Member. Even though the e-mail was sent from a personal web based e-mail account it was sent to all Conservative Councillors with a link to an article that contained unsubstantiated, unfavourable and incorrect references to Councillor Kate Salinger at a time when there had just been a controversial Council meeting dealing with the Members allowances scheme. Councillor Kate Salinger was the only Member of the Conservative Group who abstained rather than vote for the increase in the allowances at the Council meeting on 13th July 2011; see Appendix B, item 10. This action could reasonably be regarded to have been designed to cause embarrassment to Councillor Kate Salinger, possibly

Page 13 of 20

18

with a view to discredit her character at a sensitive time and possibly to undermine her position within the Conservative Party.

7.4

Evaluation of conduct that brings office or authority into disrepute

7.4.1 At the interview, Councillor Kate Salinger stated that Councillor Tambourides should have checked the accuracy of the statements referring to her before sending out the article.

7.4.2 At the interview, Councillor Andreas Tambourides stated that there was no need to check the accuracy of the article as he presumed the article to be correct. He further added that there was no intention on his part to ridicule Councillor Kate Salinger when he sent the e-mail to the Conservative Councillors.

7.4.3 In relation to the complaint being investigated there was no evidence of dishonesty, threatening or violent behaviour on the part of Councillor Andreas Tambourides.

7.4.4 Conclusion evaluation of you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides did not bring the office or the authority into disrepute. There is no evidence that actions of Councillor Andreas Tambourides either reduced the publics confidence in his ability to fulfil his role as a member or adversely affected the reputation of members generally, in being able to fulfil their role.

7.5

Evaluation of whether Councillor Andreas Tambourides used or allowed others to use Council resources for political purpose

7.5.1 At the interview on 12th January 2011, Councillor Kate Salinger stated that Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the link to the article in order
Page 14 of 20

19

7.5.2 At the interview on 21st January 2011, Councillor Andreas Tambourides Stated that he sent the e-mail to all the Conservative Councillors from home. Stated that he did not use the Councils internet to send the e-mail from his web based e-mail account. Stated that he had sent the link to the article by e-mail, on 15th July 2010, to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate Salinger; see Appendix B, item 3. Stated that the reason for sending the article to the Conservative Councillors was to provide them with this information so that it would be helpful to them to take decisions.

7.5.3 The investigation by the Infrastructure Team of Commercial Services of Barnet Council confirmed that the e-mail received by Councillor Kate Salinger on 15 July 2010, which contained the link to the article and sent by Councillor Andreas Tambourides, was sent through the Councils internet connection; see Appendix B, item 9.

7.5.4 Facts established include the following The e-mail in question, which was sent from a private web based email account, was sent from Barnet Councils internet connection. The e-mail with the link was sent soon after the controversial Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the Members allowances scheme. The e-mail was sent to all Conservative Councillors. Councillor Andreas Tambourides said that the e-mail was sent to Conservative Councillors to help them to take decisions.

7.5.5 Conclusion evaluation of you must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such

Page 15 of 20

20

It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail in his capacity as a Member and used the Council resources for personal political purposes. The absence of the title Councillor in the e-mail when it was signed off with Andreas does not appear to imply he was acting outside his capacity as a Member particularly when he was communicating with Conservative Councillors. Signing off with ones first name when communicating with fellow Councillors does not appear unusual and does not imply acting outside his capacity as a Member. The investigation confirmed that the Councils internet connection was used to gain access to a web based e-mail account to send the e-mail with the link to the article. The e-mail was sent during the period when there were Council meetings discussing Members allowances and it could reasonably be regarded that the purpose of sending the e-mail was most likely to harm Councillor Kate Salingers reputation, to embarrass her and undermine her position within the Conservative Party.

Finding

8.1

It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides has breached Paragraphs 3(1) and 6(b)(ii) but not Paragraph 5 of the Members Code of Conduct.

Page 16 of 20

21

Appendix A
Schedule of oral evidence taken into account

Evidence 1 Interview Notes Complainant 2 Interview Notes Subject Member 3 Interview Notes Barnet Council Head of Legal Services

Source Councillor Kate Salinger meeting of 12th January 2011. Councillor Andreas Tambourides meeting of 21st January 2011. Ms Margaret Martinus meetings of 3rd February 2011 and 9th June 2011.

Page 17 of 20

22

Appendix B
Schedule of documentary evidence taken into account Evidence 1 The Complaint Source Allegation about Member Conduct Form dated 4th August 2010 submitted by Councillor Kate Salinger. 2 The article in The London Daily News dated 15th July 2010 3 E-mail dated 15th July 2010 from Councillor Andreas Tambourides 4 The apology from The London Daily News dated 9th August 2011 5 Potential Breach of Code of Conduct 6 Letter dated 17 January 2011 raising jurisdiction point from legal advisor of Councillor Andreas Tambourides 7 Reply to legal advisor of Councillor Andreas Tambourides 8 Confirmation of e-mail from Councillor A Tambourides A: Councillor Kate Salinger dated 13th January 2011. B: Councillor Brain Salinger - dated 24th January 2011. C: Councillor Graham Old dated 22nd January 2011. My reply - dated 18th January 2011. Decision of Standards Sub Committee (A) of 6th September 2010. Mr Stephen Hocking dated 17th January 2011. Councillor Kate Salinger link by e-mail 13th January 2011. Councillor Kate Salinger - with the Allegation about Member Conduct Form dated 4th August 2010. Councillor Kate Salinger - dated 13th January 2011.

Page 18 of 20

23

Evidence 9 Barnet Councils Corporate Services Investigation Report Infrastructure Team Leader 10 Council decision on 13th July 2010 on members allowances 11 Councillor Kate Salinger confirms no apology from Councillor A Tambourides 12 Letter dated 23 March 2011 raising jurisdiction point. 13 Letter dated 6th May 2011 requesting review of FOIA response. 14 Letter dated 19th May 2011 result of review.

Source Mr Andy Goddard report dated 27th January 2011.

Council Decision 13th July 2010.

Councillor Kate Salinger dated 10th February 2011.

Mr Stephen Hocking

Mr Stephen Hocking

Ms Sian Hughes

Page 19 of 20

24

Appendix C
Chronology of events
Event Council Elections Date 6th May 2010 Councillor Kate Salinger and Councillor Andreas Tambourides elected. Information Pack with Code of Conduct distributed to Members Member Development Session Council Meeting vote on Allowance Payments to Councillors Article Published in The London Daily News Article forwarded by Councillor A Tambourides The London Daily News publishes apology to Councillor Kate Salinger Council Meeting vote on Allowance Payments to Councillors 14th September 2010 9th August 2010 15th July 2010 at 12.00 14th July 2010 7th July 2010 13th July 2010 7th May 2010

Page 20 of 20

25

Enclosure B(i)

Protocols for the Determination following investigation of an Allegation that a Member may have breached the Barnet Code of Conduct
Interpretation In these protocols and the associated Determinations Criteria: APE is the Adjudication Panel for England assessment means the assessment of an allegation that a Member may have breached the Barnet Code of Conduct. the Code or the Code of Conduct means the Barnet Members Code of Conduct as adopted by the Council on 26 June 2007. complainant means the person who has made the complaint. consideration meeting means a meeting held following completion of the investigation report to consider whether a hearing is required and, if so, matters pertaining to its arrangement. Democratic Services Officer means the Officer responsible for administrating the meeting, including taking a note of proceedings and providing constitutional advice. Elected Member means a person who is a member of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet who is appointed to the Standards Committee. Ethical Standards Officer or ESO means a person appointed by the Standards Board for England to conduct investigations under section 57 of the Local Government Act 2000. hearing means a meeting of a Standards Sub-committee to hear evidence and make a determination following an investigation into an allegation that a member may have breached the Code of Conduct. Independent Member means a person who is not a Member or an Officer of any relevant authority and is appointed to the Standards Committee. Investigator means the person appointed by the Monitoring Officer to conduct an investigation into the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct and to report on the findings resulting from that investigation. It may also include the Head of internal Audit and Ethical Governance who in practice appoints the Investigator on behalf of the Monitoring Officer and would supervise the investigation. Legal Adviser means the Officer responsible for providing legal advice to the Standards Sub-committee. This may be the Deputy Monitoring Officer or another legally qualified officer of the Council.

the Monitoring Officer is a statutory position currently held by the Director of Corporate Governance. All references to the Monitoring Officer may include the Deputy Monitoring Officer or another representative when s/he is acting on his behalf in respect of the functions assigned to the statutory role. relevant parties means the subject Member, the complainant, the Investigator and any others who need to be kept informed. review means the review of an assessment of an allegation that a Member may have breached the Barnet Code of Conduct. SBE is the Standards Board for England Sub-committee means a Standards Sub-committee considering a report on an investigation in respect of allegations that a Member may have breached the Code of Conduct. subject Member means the Councillor, or other member of a Council committee, about whom the allegation being considered by the Standards Sub-committee has been made.

General Issues Confidentiality For a Standards Sub-committee meeting convened for the purpose of undertaking an initial consideration of the Investigators report, the provisions of schedule 12A to the 1972 Act apply (unlike to a Standards Sub-committee making an initial assessment or a review of an initial assessment). Therefore, there must be public notice of the meeting and the business to be conducted there. The Standards Sub-committee may be asked to exclude the press and public and consider the report as exempt and, if this is the case, the report will not be made public before the meeting. As with all exempt information, the Sub-committee must decide whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In line with SBE guidance, in most cases, the public interest in transparent decision-making would outweigh the subject members interest in limiting publication of an allegation that has not yet been determined. In the interests of natural justice, the Standards Sub-committee meeting conducting the hearing will normally take place entirely in public and all papers will be made publicly available in the normal manner for Council committees. Although, again the provisions of schedule 12A to the 1972 Act apply and the business may be conducted as exempt if there is reason to do so and the Sub-committee so decides. Members of the Sub-committee should not discuss the case with anyone who is not a member of the Sub-committee appointed to determine the case; either before or after the meeting. Discussions with other Members of the Sub-committee should only take place at the formal meeting. This does not preclude discussion in general terms for training or other business within the terms of reference of the Standards Committee.

Similarly, Officers should not discuss the particulars of the case with anyone else other than for professional purposes until it is in the public domain and should then respond to enquiries from press and public appropriately. Member Conflict of Interest Members sitting on the Sub-committee must be vigilant about any personal and prejudicial interests that may arise under the Code of Conduct and deal with them appropriately. If there is an interest, or sufficient reason to believe that an interest may arise, the Member concerned should normally decline to sit on the Sub-committee and a substitute will be appointed. Any Member (elected or independent) who is one of the following should not participate in the determination process: A complainant Someone closely associated with a complainant A potential witness or victim relating to the allegation made by the complainant Someone closely associated (through personal friendship or otherwise) with the subject Member (ie beyond a normal Council colleague relationship) Someone closely associated with a witness

Members must consider whether they have a potential interest at all stages of the determinations process but the pre-hearing summary is the key stage to check for this. Pre-determination Members sitting on a Sub-committee must take care not to be influenced, or to be seen to be influenced, by anything outside the papers and advice presented to them at the consideration meeting or determination hearing. Examples of other potential influences include, but are not limited to, media coverage and previous knowledge and experience of the subject Member. Officer Conflict of Interest Any Officer who has previously advised the subject Member, or the complainant, about any of the issues giving rise to the complaint should not normally take part in the determination in any way; this includes not advising the Standards Sub-committee or attending the hearing other than perhaps as a member of the public. Officers should not advise or otherwise take part in the process when they have an interest in the case which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the judgement of the Officer in carrying out his/her role. The Monitoring Officer will not normally take a specific role in the process (but is not precluded from doing so) and will instead normally provide a guiding hand to the whole process. If any Officer is unable to fulfil a role because of conflict with a previous role taken in the process, or any other conflict of interest, or absence, then established deputising arrangements would be implemented.

Composition of the Standards Sub-committee Standards Sub-committees shall comprise three members; being an Independent Member as Chairman, a second Independent Member as Vice-chairman and an Elected Member. A Standards Sub-committee will be selected primarily on the basis of availability and rotation. Substitute Members may sit on a Sub-committee where a standing Subcommittee member is unavailable but substitutes must be like for like and must not change the make-up of the Sub-committee (e.g. another Independent Member must substitute for an Independent Member and can not substitute for an Elected Member). Point of contact The Governance Manager will usually be the point of contact for the subject Member and the complainant for the duration of the process.

Assessment and Investigation Assessment Assessment of the allegation would take place in accordance with the Assessment Protocols. Investigation If the Sub-committee making the assessment orders an investigation they may direct that this be conducted by the Monitoring Officer or ask the SBE to appoint an Ethical Standards Officer. The investigation by the Monitoring Officer will always return to the Standards Committee but, while the Standards Committee will be informed of the outcome of an investigation by the SBE, the ESO may or may not ask for the Standards Committee to make a determination.

Consideration meeting A Standards Sub-committee meeting with a membership that does not include any members who made the initial assessment of the allegation, or a review of that assessment, will usually be convened to consider the investigators report for one or more of the following purposes: If the Investigators finding is that there was no failure to comply with the Code: to decide whether or not to accept that finding. If the Investigators finding is that there was a failure to comply with breach of the Code, or, if the Investigators no breach finding is not accepted: to consider any potential issues that may arise during the pre-hearing process; to consider how to manage any anonymity granted to complainants or requested for witnesses; to consider whether the Standards Sub-committee should hear the case or whether the APE should hear the case.

The meeting considering the investigators report in this way will be conducted entirely separately from the meeting at which the hearing is conducted. However, the Standards Sub-committee making the consideration will usually have the membership as that intended to undertake the determination hearing.

If at this stage, the Standards Committee decides that it accepts a finding that there was no failure to comply with the Code then no hearing will be held and such a decision notice will be issued (see below). In all other circumstances the case will proceed to a hearing.

Pre-hearing Processes Setting a date for the hearing A meeting of a Standards Sub-committee to conduct a hearing will be arranged within three months of the date on which the Monitoring Officers report on the outcome of the investigation was completed, or, within three months of the date that the Monitoring Officer received the ESOs report. It must also take place at least 14 days after the subject member receives a copy of the report from the Monitoring Officer. If the matter is not heard within three months of the completion of the investigation report due to unavoidable delay then it must be heard as soon as possible. The aim will be for the Sub-committee to complete a hearing in one sitting and the appropriateness of evening or daytime meeting will be considered in relation to the complexity of the case and other relevant factors. If a case has to considered in more than one sitting these will scheduled as close to each other as possible. Officers will propose a date for the hearing to the subject Member in consultation with the Chairman of the Sub-committee. Consulting the subject Member When being advised of the proposed date of the hearing, the subject Member will also be notified of the hearing procedure and advised about his/her rights. S/he will also be asked to indicate whether s/he: will attend the hearing; wants to be represented at the hearing by a solicitor, barrister or any other person; disagrees with any of the findings of fact in the investigators report and to provide reasons for any such disagreements; wants to give evidence at the hearing, whether verbally or in writing; wants to call relevant witnesses to give evidence at the hearing; wants any part of the hearing to take place in private and for what reason; wants any part of the investigation report or other written evidence to be withheld from the press and public and for what reason;

Consultation with other parties Views will be sought from all parties as to whether they are content that the hearing should take place in public and if there is dissent in this regard then legal advice will be sought. The following should be ascertained prior to the hearing: any disagreements on points of fact in the investigation report; the relevance of any such disagreements to the matters on which the Subcommittee will be deciding; whether evidence about any such disagreements will need to be heard ;

This consultation will be conducted primarily by Officers and through written correspondence.

Investigators report The relevant parties will already have had the opportunity to comment on the Investigators draft report before it was finalised but, once it has been agreed that the case should proceed to a full hearing, a copy of the final report will be sent to the subject Member to enable him/her to prepare for the hearing Clarification of witnesses The relevant parties will be asked to provide outlines of the evidence their witnesses intend to give and from these the Standards Sub-committee will decide how many witnesses may reasonably be required. Pre-hearing summary At least two weeks before date set for the hearing, the Standards Sub-committee will receive a pre-hearing summary providing the following: the date, time and place of the hearing a summary of the allegation; an outline of the main facts of the case that are agreed; an outline of the main facts of the case that are not agreed; whether the subject Member will be attending the hearing and what his/her representation will be a list of proposed witnesses, subject to the Sub-committees power to rule on this at the hearing.

Agenda for the hearing The agenda and papers will be despatched at least five clear days before the meeting. The papers will generally include a report summarising and contextualising the complaint and advising the Sub-committee as to the options before it. This report will only contain factual information and not opinion. It may contain reference to some of the other issues covered below where they have been identified as potentially applying. As an appendix to this report will be the investigator report concluding with his/her opinion and appended to this will be any documentary evidence. The agenda will also contain these determinations protocols and their associated criteria. There will not normally be any other business on the agenda for the Sub-committee meeting.

At the Hearing Persons Present The meeting will commence in public even if there is an item to consider the exclusion of the press and public on the agenda at some point. Those present will include: the three members of the Standards Sub-committee, the Legal Adviser, the Democratic Services Officer, any other agreed officer(s) representing the Monitoring Officer and the investigator.

The subject Member, the complainant and any witnesses are also likely to be present but the hearing can take place in the absence of any of these if the Sub-committee so decides. The subject Member may be represented or accompanied during the hearing by a solicitor, counsel, or, with the permission of the Standards sub-committee, by another person. Conduct of the hearing The Chairman will open the meeting and ask the Monitoring Officer, or his representative, to introduce the report. S/he will then ask for any preliminary legal advice and then lead the Sub-committee through any procedural matters. Legal or procedural advice may be offered or requested at any time and the hearing may be adjourned by the Chairman at any time to take legal advice in private. However the substance of any legal advice should subsequently be shared with the Subject member (if present) and others present. Members of the Sub-committee may question any of the people involved, including witnesses, at any stage. The Standards Sub-committee must conduct itself in a demonstrably fair, independent and politically impartial manner. The need to maintain public confidence in the Councils ethical standards must be borne in mind. All concerned should treat the hearing process with respect and with regard to potential seriousness of the outcome for the subject Member, for the Council and for the public interest. The hearing conducted by the Standards Sub-committee is not a court of law and does not hear evidence under oath. Decisions will be made on the balance of probabilities and not that of beyond reasonable doubt. The determinations criteria should be referred to throughout the process but particularly in determining breach and applying sanction. Disruption Appropriate warning will be given in the case of any disruption. If disruption persists then an adjournment may be called and the individual concerned may be ordered to leave. If the person causing a disruption is the representative of the subject member then permission for such representation may be withdrawn. Hearing the evidence The Sub-committee may not need to consider any evidence other than the investigators report (or ESOs report) and supporting documents. It may agree to hear witnesses if more evidence is required or if the witness evidence relates to findings of fact on the report that are disputed. Witnesses as to character are also permitted but will be encouraged to present their evidence in writing where possible. Questions to witnesses will normally be directed through the Chairman. The Investigator will introduce his/her report, present evidence, challenge contrary evidence and be available to answer questions. If there is any disagreement about findings of fact in the Investigators report then the Investigator will be invited to make representation to support the findings of fact in the report, this may include calling any necessary supporting witnesses.

The subject Member will then be given the opportunity to make representations to support his/her version of the facts and, with the Sub-committees permission, may call any necessary witnesses to give evidence. The subject Member will be allowed to present his/her case as s/he sees fit as long as the Standards Sub-committee views it as reasonable within its own procedures. The Standards Sub-committee may limit the number of witnesses as long as such a decision is taken reasonably and fairly. The Investigator shall be allowed to challenge any evidence. Evidence will be presented by the relevant parties, or their representatives, and witnesses called as agreed prior to the meeting. New disagreements over factual matters and new evidence will only be allowed to be raised at the hearing in exceptional circumstances. If the subject Member disagrees with any relevant fact, without having given prior notice, the sub-committee will invite an explanation as to why this was not raised earlier and consider whether to allow the subject Member to continue in accordance with the determinations criteria. The subject Member will be invited to give any relevant reasons why the Sub-committee should decide that s/he has not failed to follow the code. The subject Member shall be asked to make any final relevant points in conclusion. Making the determination Once the presentation of evidence is concluded, the Sub-committee will consider it in private, whether by adjourning to another room or by asking the subject Member, the Investigator and any witnesses to leave the room. The Monitoring Officer, legal adviser and Democratic Services Officer will remain with the Sub-committee. In private, the Sub-committee will then make a determination as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct. The determination will be made in accordance with the agreed determination criteria and based on the balance of probabilities. The Subcommittee will re-join the relevant parties and the Chairman will announce the determination in respect of whether or not there was failure to comply with the Code. If the decision is that there was no failure to comply with the Code then the subject Member will be asked whether or not s/he is content for the decision to be publicised. The Sub-committee will also announce whether or not it wishes to make any recommendations to the Council with a view to promoting high standards of conduct amongst Members. Applying Sanction If the decision is that there was failure to comply with the Code then the Sub-committee will invite representations as to whether a sanction should be applied and what form any sanction should take. The subject Member will be particularly invited to present any factors in mitigation of his/her behaviour. The Sub-committee will again deliberate in private as to the application of sanction in accordance with the determinations criteria. If at this stage, the sub-committee concludes that the sanctions open to it are insufficient then it can seek to make a referral to the APE although generally such a possibility should have been identified in advance and an indication been obtained from APE as to its willingness to accept such a referral. The Sub-committee will re-join the relevant parties and announce whether or not any sanction will be applied and, if so, what it will be. They may also announce any recommendations to the Council.

Decisions All decisions will be clearly communicated to the Democratic Services Officer prior to the conclusion of any private session. The Chairman will convey decisions to those present when the Standards Sub-committee rejoins the others attending the hearing.

After the Hearing Minutes Formal minutes of the meeting will be produced. If any part of the hearing is exempt, the notes taken by the Democratic Services Officer will be kept for six years in accordance with the Councils established records management policy for the notes of committee meetings of a similar confidential nature. If the hearing is wholly public then the notes will be disposed of once the deadline for appeal has passed. Decision Notice A full written decision will be sent to the subject Member, the complainant and the SBE as soon as possible and certainly within two weeks of the hearing. In addition, a summary of the decision and the reasons for it will be published in at least one newspaper in the borough that is independent of the Council. In accordance with normal council policy, the notice will usually be published in both the Barnet Press and the Times group newspapers. A summary of the decision will also be published on Barnet Online (see exceptions to normal publication below). In all cases where a breach is found the decision notice must: give the date of the hearing and of the investigation report give the membership of the Standards Sub-committee state that the Member failed to follow the Code cite the relevant section or sections of the Code outline what happened give reasons for the Standards Sub-committees decision (whether to impose sanction, or to take no action, or to refer to the APE) state that the Member may appeal against the findings

Decision Notice no breach If the finding of the Sub-committee (whether at the consideration stage or at a hearing) is that there was no failure to comply then a decision notice saying this and giving reasons will be issued. However, the subject Member may prohibit normal publication of such a finding. Decision Notice breach and no sanction In these cases the decision notice will state that the Member failed to follow the Code but that no action needs to be taken and why. Decision Notice breach and sanction In these cases the decision notice will state that the Member failed to follow the code and must also explain the sanction imposed.

Referral to the APE If the case is referred to the APE then a decision notice will not be produced. The decision will be public but not publicised as outlined above. Other Issues that may arise Outside of Jurisdiction It may be that matters outside of the Committees jurisdiction may be raised and the Standards Sub-committee may direct Officers to advise the subject Member or witnesses of the appropriate avenue(s) to pursue them, if this has not already been done. Withdrawal of complaints If a complainant has asked to withdraw his/her complaint subsequent to the assessment, this will be noted in the introductory report to the investigation and the Standards Subcommittee can take this into account as one factor in their consideration or determination. Anonymity In accordance with the Assessment Protocols and criteria, a fully anonymous complaint (i.e. where there is no name on the allegation when submitted) would only have been referred for investigation or other action if it included documentary or photographic evidence indicating an exceptionally serious or significant matter (see assessment criteria). The anonymous nature of the complaint can be considered at the hearing. If a complainant included their name with the complaint, but made a request for anonymity, the Standards Sub-committee making the assessment would have considered this request alongside the substance of the complaint. If anonymity was granted, the Standards Subcommittee making the determination would have to include consideration of how this would be maintained, probably at the consideration meeting prior to the hearing. If there is a request for anonymity for any witnesses this request will have to be considered by the Standards Sub-committee in accordance with the criteria. Complaints about Members of more than one authority If the complaint concerns a subject Member who is a member of another authority covered by the local authority Code of Conduct the decision would have been taken at assessment as to whether this authority would hear the case. Any additional considerations would depend on the Regulations on joint-working (pending). Information relating to the complaint Some information relating to the complaint may be confidential and, if so, will not normally be disclosed. Nonetheless, any written request for information made to the authority about this matter will be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the law. This includes any obligations imposed on the authority under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and with reference to the restrictions set out in 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 as modified by Regulation 12 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations.

Enclosure B(ii)

Standards Committee Determinations Criteria

Making determinations and applying sanctions against established criteria ensures thoroughness and protects Standards Committee members from accusations of idiosyncratic or inconsistent decision making and/or bias. The criteria below are based on SBE guidance as informed by local circumstances and priorities. They are designed to ensure fairness for both the complainant and the subject Member.

A Making a determination The Standards Sub-committee must reach a conclusion as to whether the findings of the investigation presented do, or do not, demonstrate a breach of the Code of Conduct. If it does not demonstrate a breach then this shall be the determination of the Sub-committee. If it does demonstrate a breach a decision must be made as to whether any sanction should be applied and, if so, whether the appropriate sanction falls within the powers of the Standards Sub-committee, or, whether the case should be referred to the Adjudication Panel for England (APE), in accordance with the guidance on the circumstances in which APE would consider accepting a reference and preferably having sought an indication for the APE as to their willingness to accept the case. Also, there may be other issues for the Standards Sub-committee to consider in conducting a hearing, such as the absence of the subject Member or a key witness, anonymity for complainants, or, a request by the complainant to withdraw the complaint, and these must be dealt with according to the criteria in section E. If the subject Member disagrees with any relevant fact in the Investigators report without having given prior notice of the disagreement, s/he must give good reasons for not having done so. New evidence will not normally be allowed to be presented at the hearing except in exceptional circumstances. It will usually have to be demonstrated that the evidence had only recently become available and could not have been produced during the pre-hearing process. The committee will consider any explanation for the issue not having been raised earlier and either: a) b) continue with the hearing relying on the information in the Investigators report; or allow the subject Member to make representations about the issue and invite the investigator to respond and call any witness as necessary if s/he can; or adjourn for the Investigator to gather evidence and perhaps arrange suitable witnesses.

c)

Such a decision as to how to proceed will be based on: the importance of the point of fact to the determination as to breach the seriousness of the disagreement the apparent validity of the reason for non-prior disclosure

the overall co-operativeness of the subject Member with the pre-hearing process

B - Is there potential breach of the Code? Determination as to whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct will be made based on the strength of evidence and on the balance of probabilities. Thus the determination should be made from concluding that a) b) the alleged behaviour occurred; and the alleged behaviour constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct.

C - Sanctions When deciding on a sanction the Standards Sub-committee should ensure that it is reasonable and proportionate to the subject Members behaviour. The Standards Sub-committee will also keep in mind an aim of upholding and improving the standard of conduct expected of members of the Council and its committees as part of the process of fostering public confidence in local democracy. Thus the sanction applied should be designed both to discourage, or prevent, the subject Member from future non-compliance and to discourage similar action by others. Consideration can also be given to any recent case law or guidance published by the SBE or Adjudication Panel for England. The following should be considered together with any relevant circumstances arising from the case: the intention of the subject Member; the subject Members awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct and their relation to the incident; whether the subject Member obtained advice from Officers prior to the incident and whether any advice given was acted on, or ignored, in good faith any breach of trust; whether there has been any financial impropriety, such as improper expense claims or procedural irregularities; the result of the failure to follow the Code of Conduct; the potential results of the failure to follow the Code of Conduct; the seriousness of the incident; whether or not the subject Member accepts s/he was at fault; whether the subject Member has apologised to the relevant individuals; whether the subject Member has been warned or reprimanded in any way for similar misconduct previously; whether or not the Standards Sub-committee is of the view that subject Member is likely to repeat the behaviour; whether the subject Member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct previously; how the sanction will be carried out, e.g. the timing of any sanction (see below) or how any training or mediation will be provided; any resources or funding implications;

whether restricting access to the councils premises or equipment would unnecessarily restrict the subject Members ability to carry out his/her responsibilities.

Mitigating/Aggravating factors In applying sanction but not in determining breach, the Standards Sub-committee will also take into account factors including but not limited to: Mitigating the Members previous good record of service substantiated evidence that the Members actions have been affected by ill-health the Member having had an honestly held, although mistaken, view that the action concerned did not constitute a failure to follow the Code of Conduct; particularly if such a view was formed after taking appropriate advice the Member recognising that s/he has failed to follow the Code the Member co-operating in rectifying the effects of the failure to comply with the Code the Member apologising to affected persons where appropriate if the breach was self-reported full compliance with the Code since the events giving rise to the determination if the actions, despite involving a breach of the Code, had some beneficial effect for the public Aggravating dishonesty continuing to deny the facts despite clear contrary evidence seeking unfairly to blame other people failing to heed appropriate advice, or warnings, or, previous findings of a failure to follow the provisions of the Code persisting with a pattern of behaviour that involves repeatedly failing to abide by provisions of the Code

Sanctions available to the Sub-committee If it is determined that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct and that the breach warrants the imposition of a sanction then the following sanctions may be applied: 1) censure of that Member.

2)

restriction for a period not exceeding six months of that Members access to the premises of the authority or that Members use of the resources of the authority, provided that those restrictions meet both the following requirements: (i) They are reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the breach; (ii) They do not unduly restrict the persons ability to perform the functions of a Member. partial suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months. suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months. that the Member submits a written apology in a form specified by the Standards Sub-committee. that the Member undertakes such training as the Standards Sub-committee specifies. that the Member participates in such conciliation as the Standards Subcommittee specifies. partial suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months or until such time as the Member has met either of the following restrictions: (i) s/he has submitted a written apology in a form specified by the Standards Sub-committee; (ii) s/he has undertaken such training or has participated in such conciliation as the Standards Sub-committee specifies. suspension of that member for a period not exceeding six months or until such time as the Member has met either of the following restrictions: (i) s/he has submitted a written apology in a form specified by the Standards Sub-committee; (ii) s/he has undertaken such training or has participated in such conciliation as the Standards Sub-committee specifies.

3) 4) 5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

Suspensions Suspensions will usually only be deemed appropriate in more serious cases including but not limited to those involving: trying to gain an advantage or him/herself or others trying to gain a disadvantage for others dishonesty breach of trust bullying

In applying suspension or partial suspension as a sanction the committee must consider the implications on the Council, the Member and his/her constituents. Members under full suspension may not: Take part in any formal business of the authority Have access to council facilities

Receive their council allowance

Members under full suspension should be asked to: make their suspended status clear, including to constituents make arrangements for another member to handle his/her constituency work to ensure continued democratic representation.

It must be noted that the parts of the Code of Conduct that apply outside of official capacity (ie those relating to conduct in a private capacity constituting a criminal offence) will continue to apply to a suspended member. The terms of a partial suspension must be set by the Standards Sub-committee at the hearing. It may involve suspension from certain committees or restricted access to certain areas or individuals. Not applying a sanction A decision to not apply a sanction may be based, in the main, on one or more of the mitigating factors set out above. Alternatively, such a decision may be based on the breach being deemed to be too trivial to warrant a sanction, or, a sanction not being pertinent given the length of time that has passed since the incident, or, a combination of such factors.

D - Referral to the APE Referral to the APE will normally be in cases where the Standards Sub-committee, preferably at the consideration stage, or alternatively after hearing a case, concludes that if a breach of the Code has occurred a more severe sanction than the six months suspension available to it would be appropriate. A decision as to whether to seek to refer a case to the APE would be made with reference to APEs published guidance on decisions. APE guidance is that suspensions of more than six months are applied rarely but that the President is likely to accept references for matter that are of a kind that would merit disqualification. Also, that disqualification is likely to be an appropriate sanction when: 1) The subject Member has deliberately sought personal gain (for either him/herself or some other person) at the public expense by exploiting his/her membership of the Council or one of its committees; The subject Member has deliberately sought to misuse his/her position in order to disadvantage some other person; The subject Member has deliberately failed to abide by the Code of Conduct, for example as a protest against the legislative scheme of which the Code forms part. Members of local authorities are expected to uphold the law. Where the Code has been deliberately breached to reflect the subject Members opposition to the principles underlying the legislation, the Case Tribunal is likely to think of a disqualification of one year; There have been repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct by the subject Member; The subject Member has misused power or public assets for political gain; The subject Member has misused council property;

2) 3)

4) 5) 6)

7)

The subject Member has committed a criminal offence punishable by a sentence of three months or more imprisonment.

Although it must also be noted that; 1) There may be other factors not listed above which also merit disqualification. Nor will disqualification always be appropriate even if the listed factors are present. 2) Disqualification may be imposed as an alternative to suspension in order to avoid an authority being inquorate or the electorate left without adequate representation. Disqualification would allow by-elections to take place whereas this would not be possible if the member concerned were suspended.

E - Other Issues to consider 1. Lateness/Absence of subject Member or key witnesses If the subject Member is late and has been in contact with an estimated arrival time that the Sub-committee are satisfied with then the hearing will normally be deferred until that time and the limits in this regard for most Council committees will not apply. If the subject Member is late and efforts at communicating with him/her have not succeeded then the Sub-committee will wait the amount of time that it deems fit and then deem him/her absent. If a key witness is late then the Standards Sub-committee will consider whether or not it is appropriate to commence the hearing and defer that evidence until later in the proceedings. The Standards Sub-committee will weigh up any reasons given for the absence of a subject member or any key witnesses and, if satisfied with the reasons given, will agree for the hearing to be held on a future date. It may choose to proceed despite the absence in circumstances including but not limited to: Forming an opinion that the reason given for the absence was inadequate; No reason being given and being satisfied that the date and arrangements had been fully communicated to the individual; Persistent delays on the part of the individual prior to this; A prior hearing for the same case being deferred due to the absence of the same individual.

2.

Requests for anonymity Such requests will only have been granted at the assessment stage in exceptional circumstances where one or more of the following criteria are met: The complainant demonstrates reasonable grounds to believe that s/he, or someone close to him/her, will be at risk of physical harm if his/her identity is disclosed. The complainant is an Officer of the Council who works closely with the subject Member and is afraid of the consequences to his/her employment if his/her identify is disclosed (with reference to the Councils whistle-blowing policy)

The complainant has provided medical evidence that s/he suffers from a serious medical condition and there are medical risks from his/her identity being released.

If anonymity was granted at the assessment stage then the consideration meeting and any hearing must take all steps to preserve that anonymity. 3. Request for withdrawal of complaint If the complainant has submitted a request for the complaint to be withdrawn subsequent to the assessment this can be considered in making a determination in the following regard: Does the public interest in taking some action on the complaint outweigh the complainants desire to withdraw it? Did the withdrawal of the complaint, and/or the complainants non-cooperation, impede the effectiveness of the investigation in a manner that pertains to the usefulness of the findings Can a hearing be appropriately conducted without the participation of the complainant? Is there an identifiable underlying reason for the request to withdraw the complaint? (for example is there information to suggest the complainant may have been pressured to withdraw the complaint?)

Enclosure C

Determination Hearing Procedure

Step 1 - Opening the meeting The meeting will open in public. The Chairman would normally open the meeting but, if a Chairman needs to be elected, the Monitoring Officer (or his representative) will open the meeting and invite the appointment of a Chairman by the Sub-committee. Step 2 Standard The Chairman will take the Sub-committee through the standard opening agenda items ie: agenda items o Absence of Members o Declaration of interests o Any urgent items Step 3 The Sub-committee will introduce themselves and the Chairman will invite the parties and the Officers to also Introductions introduce themselves. The Chairman will then outline any procedural matters. Step 4 Beginning The Chairman will invite the Monitoring Officer (or his representative) to introduce the report and set the scene. the Hearing The Chairman may invite any preliminary legal advice. Step 5 Findings The Chairman will invite the investigator/Monitoring Officer to present on the findings of fact and, when s/he has concluded, of Fact: invite the subject Member (or his/her representative) to presentations respond on the findings of fact. [note the parties speak in the opposite order at this stage to later stages] Step 6 Findings The Sub-committee will retire into private session (usually by moving into a different room) and reach finding of facts. of Fact: private session Step 7 - Findings The Sub-committee will return from private session and deliver its finding of facts. of Fact: decision Step 8: Finding as The Chairman will invite the subject Member (or his representative) to present reasons as to why the facts do not to breach of the constitute the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. When Code: s/he has concluded, the Chairman will invite the Investigator presentations to present the reasons why the facts do constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct with reference to the investigation report. Step 9: Finding as The Sub-committee will retire into private session and reach a finding as to whether or not the subject Member has to breach of the breached the Code of Conduct. Code: private session Step 10 - Finding The Sub-committee will return from private session and as to breach of the deliver its finding as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct. Code: decision [If the finding is that there has not been a breach, the Subcommittee may also consider making a recommendation to Council and will proceed to step 11 and then step 15. If the finding is that there has been a breach it will not take step 11 and will instead proceed to step 12.] Step 11 If the finding is that there was no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the subject Member will be asked whether Publication of or not s/he is content for the Decision Notice to be publicised. decision

Step 12 Application of sanction: presentations

Step 13 Application of sanction: private session

Step 14 Application of sanction: decision Step 15 The Sub-committee will announce whether it wishes to make Recommendations any recommendations to the Council with a view to promoting standards of conduct amongst Members and, if so, to the Council what these are. Step 16 Closing The Chairman will thank all parties and close the meeting , including taking the final standard agenda item: the meeting o Any exempt urgent items (if applicable)

The Chairman will invite the subject Member (or his representative) to make representations as to whether a sanction should be applied and, if so, what form it should take, including factors mitigating his/her behaviour. When s/he has concluded, the Chairman will invite the Investigator/Monitoring Officer to make representations, including aggravating factors in respect of the subject Members behaviour. The Sub-committee will retire into private session and reach a decision as to whether to apply one of the sanctions available to it and, if so, which one to apply, or, if it concludes that the sanctions available to it are insufficient, may decide to refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal (previously the Adjudication Panel for England). The Sub-committee will also consider whether it wishes to make any recommendations to the Council with a view to promoting standards of conduct amongst Members and, if so, what these should be. The Sub-committee will return from private session and deliver its decision in respect of the application of sanction.

Notes: Members of the Sub-committee can ask questions of any party at any point in the 1.
hearing and can also seek legal advice from the Monitoring Officer (or his representative) at any point in the hearing. This advice may be given in public or private but if given in private the substance of it will be shared subsequently. 2. The Chairman will adjourn the meeting as appropriate for comfort breaks. These will usually, for daytime meetings, be: mid-morning, lunch and mid-afternoon, if required. Witnesses may be called, as advised prior to the meeting by the parties, at the appropriate stages. The Monitoring Officer (or his representative), the Senior Governance Officer and any other Officer the Monitoring Officer nominates will accompany the Subcommittee in private sessions. Any disruption will be dealt with in accordance with the Determinations Protocols. At the meeting, the Sub-committee will at each stage deliver a short judgement in respect of its decision. A written Decision Notice including a summary of the decision and reasons will be produced within 2 weeks of the hearing in accordance with the Standards Committees Determinations Protocols.

3.

4.

5. 6.