| SH.02 | In opening the Hearing, the Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure.
The Panel considered a report of an investigation under Section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000 into an allegation concerning Councillor Michael Connolly.
The summary of the allegations as set out in the Investigation Report, dated 7 January 2010, was as follows:-
Allegation 1
1.At the Joint Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 22 January 2009, when members discussed the review of residential care report, Councillor Connolly ‘belatedly’ declared an interest but did not state what kind of interest.
2.As this interest was also prejudicial Councillor Connolly should have left the room, not participated in the discussions, nor voted on the matter.
Allegation 2
On 19 February 2009, at the meeting of the Healthier Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting, Councillor Connolly had a prejudicial interest in the matter regarding review of residential care and, therefore, should have withdrawn from the meeting before the vote.
The report concluded that Councillor Connolly had breached the Code of Conduct and referred to the following paragraphs within the Code of Conduct:
•Paragraph 8(1)(a) relating to personal interests.
•Paragraph 8(2) which defines a “relevant person” in terms of a person who could be affected by an interest that a Member may have.
•Paragraph 9 which sets out what a Member with a personal interest must do.
•Paragraph 10 which defines a prejudicial interest.
•Paragraph 12 which sets out what a Member must do if he/she has a prejudicial interest.
Under the Hearings Procedure, the Panel noted that there was no disagreement to the findings of fact contained in the Investigator’s report.
The Panel then considered whether or not Councillor Connolly had failed to follow the Code of Conduct and concluded that he had.
|