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 allegation as set out in the Investigation Report, dated 2 November 2010, was that at the meeting of the Council on 3 February 2010, Councillor Connolly moved a Labour Group motion on Employees pay and spoke on the issue and took part in the debate. During the item he declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting. The allegation was that Councillor Connolly should have declared his interest at the outset, not moved the motion and not taken an active part in the debate, given that his partner was a Council employee.
The report concluded that Councillor Connolly had breached the Code of Conduct and referred to the following paragraphs within the Code of Conduct:
Paragraph 2 which deals with application of the Code.
Paragraph 8(1) relating to personal interests.
Paragraph 8(2) which defines a relevant person in terms of someone who could be affected by an interest that a person 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 drew the following conclusions in relation to findings of fact contained in the Investigators report.
1.The Panel accepted that Paragraph 12(2) of the Code of Conduct should be incorporated into Form F as a relevant section of the Code of Conduct.
2.The Panel accepted that in Form C, Paragraph 1, the sentence that starts He had already been punished
. was not correct as at that time Councillor Connolly had received the report of the Investigator but it had not been considered by the Standards Committee.
3.It was not possible for the Panel to conclude as a matter of fact that Councillor Connolly genuinely believed he had no interest in the Notice of Motion.
4.Points highlighted around comments submitted in evidence and other members declaring interests and withdrawing were substantive issues and not facts.
The panel then considered whether or not Councillor Connolly had failed to follow the Code of Conduct and concluded that he had.
|