Agenda and minutes

There was an apology from Parish Councillor Way.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest form attached at the back of this agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that form and hand it to the officer clerking the meeting and then take the prescribed course of action.

There were no declarations of interest made.

There was no Chairman’s report.

Joanne Pearman, Independent Member of the Standards Committee outlined the report of the Independent Members of the Standards Committee. She explained that the report was not aimed at a specific Member or Political Group but was an opportunity to discuss the issues raised within the report. The lack of powers to issues sanctions frustrated the Independent Members; however she added that they still wanted to work with Members. She concluded that not all Members behaved badly or were subject to complaints, but collectively they had the responsibility to promote the reputation of the Council.

Councillor Moores, Councillor Fenner, Councillor C.Hart, Councillor Poole, Councillor Mrs S.Hart and Councillor Wise all spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1 to criticise the report.

Members pointed out that the speech by Ms Pearman was not the same as the content of the report, which had made it sound like all Councillors were corrupt and had brought the integrity of all Councillor in to question. Members also explained that the report had no examples of evidence to back up any of the claims that it made. Where were the examples of comments made by Councillors to the public, where were the names of the Councillors who had been disrespectful and where were the press releases that criticised members of the public? It was added that Councillors were bound by the code of conduct which required Councillors to treat everyone with respect and not to bring the Council in to disrepute; the report had done both of these.

Members also noted examples where friends and colleagues had commented that the Council was full of rogues and had taken the report as gospel; the report had spread this image across the South East.

Members were disappointed there was nothing that could be done to deal with renegade Councillors. One individual was causing anarchy and there was no point in recommending training for Members as the one Member who needed it wouldn’t attend.

Harvey Patterson, the Council’s Monitoring Officer took the opportunity to explain that at the request of Full Council he had written on behalf of TDC to the Local Government Association (LGA) requesting that they lobby the government to strengthen the sanctions available to Standards Committees. He had received a reply from the LGA and they had confirmed that they would not be lobbying the government on the issue. (The letter is attached to the minutes) He did add though that the Committee on standards in public life was looking at the issue next year and that the Council should contribute to that if possible.

The Independent Members of the Standards Committee then offered an apology it had not been their intention to offend Members, however they repeated that the only way the Council would be able to improve their collective image was to work together. Without a corporate response it would not be possible for action to be seen to be being done. 

Councillor King spoke under Council Procedure Rule  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

There was a 10 minute recess at the conclusion of the item.

At the resumption of the meeting the Chairman, Mr Hills informed the meeting that he, the Vice Chairman Mrs Frampton and the two other Independent Members Miss Bhore and Ms Pearman had all resigned from their positions as Independent Members of the Standards Committee with immediate effect.

The Monitoring Officer Harvey Patterson then acted as meeting facilitator in order to elect a new Chairman.

It was moved by Town Councillor Lawson and seconded by Councillor Grove and AGREED by the Committee that:

“Councillor Nicholson be elected Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.”

Harvey Patterson, the Council’s Monitoring Officer outlined the report and explained the recommendations contained within it from the Constitutional Review Working Party.

Councillor D. Green spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1.

It was proposed by Town Councillor Lawson and seconded by Councillor Johnston and Members AGREED that:

“The Standards Committee continues with the business contained within the agenda.”

It was then proposed by Councillor Grove and seconded by Councillor Roberts and Members AGREED to recommend to Council:

i)  THAT a petition with 1,000 or more signatures relating to an executive function can be referred by council to the executive without debate.

ii)  THAT if a petition 1,000 or more signatures relating to an executive function is referred by council to the executive without debate; the person who presents the petition at the ordinary meeting of council should be afforded the opportunity to re-present the petition at the subsequent meeting of the executive at which the petition is considered.

iii)  THAT otherwise the petitions scheme remains as it is.

Harvey Patterson the Council’s Monitoring Officer outlined the report and the recommendations from the Constitutional Review Working Party.

The Chairman explained that the issue of the residency of questioners had been discussed at the Constitutional Review meeting and it had been viewed that it was unfair on young people if questions were limited to those on the electoral roll.

Members discussed the report and felt that the criteria for asking questions should be based on residency rather than being a registered elector.

It was proposed by Councillor Johnston and seconded by Town Councillor Lawson and it was AGREED to recommend to Council that:

“The questioner is normally resident in the Thanet District Council area”

It was proposed by Councillor Johnston and seconded by Councillor E.Green and it was AGREED to recommend to Council that:

“That the current restriction on repeat questions remains unchanged, as set out at Council Procedure Rule 13.5 – “Scope of questions”:

‘The Chief Executive will reject a question if it …

Is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the past six months.’

Harvey Patterson the Council’s Monitoring Officer outlined the report. The Chairman explained that the Constitutional Review Working Party had recommended that the status quo remain.

It was moved by Councillor Johnston and seconded by Councillor M.Tomlinson and Members AGREED to recommend to Council:

“To retain the status quo in relation to the size and political composition of the pool of planning committee substitutes”