Present:-

Councillors Gribble (Chairman), Hill and Moulding and Mrs Mayes and Mrs Saltmarsh.

*1 Admission of the Press and Public

It was MOVED by Councillor Moulding, SECONDED by Councillor Hill, and

RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act namely, information relating to an individual and in accordance with Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, by virtue of the fact that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

*2 Allegation of Breach of Members Code of Conduct

The Sub-Committee considered the:

Report of the Monitoring Officer (CS/14/29);

Investigating Officer s Report;

Independent Persons Comments;

Members Code of Conduct; and

Guidance/Procedural Note for the Assessment Determination of Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members

relating to a complaint received from a Mr J Lewis (the complainant) on an alleged breach of the Members Code of Conduct by Councillor Boyd, the Member for Torrington Rural (the subject member).

The Sub-Committee considered all of the documentation referred to above with a view to determining whether or not, on the basis of the evidence available and the views of the Independent Person, it agreed with the findings of the Investigating Officer or would wish to pursue or agree some other course of action.

In summary, the complainant had alleged that the subject member had knowingly claimed from both Torridge District Council and Devon County Council for mileage and expenses for a number of specific identified civic duties undertaken on behalf of Torridge District Council; seeking an investigation into all claims made by the subject member and the reimbursement of any duplicate or incorrect payments.

In accordance with the Council's agreed Guidance/Procedural note for the Assessment Determination of Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members (available at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/county_councillors/councillorcomplaints.htm) an initial assessment of the complaint had been undertaken and, following consultation with an Independent Person appointed by the Council (as was required under the Council s procedures) it was felt that there was, prima facae, a case to answer and that the matter therefore merited formal investigation and a formal hearing. The option of a local settlement was not considered to be applicable in this case.

The Sub-Committee noted that given the nature of the complaint and the nature of allegations made by the complainant the matter was also referred to the Police, at the Council s instigation, to be investigated in parallel with the Council s own investigations.

The Sub-Committee also noted that, upon being made aware of this situation, the subject member had resigned his position as Chairman of one of the Council s main Committees and was unlikely to be reappointed to that position in the foreseeable future.

A formal Investigation was subsequently undertaken in line with the Council s Procedures. The subject member had been invited to submit his comments on the complaint, as required under the Council s approved procedures, which had been taken into account and reflected by the Investigating Officer in the Report now submitted.

The Investigation had recognised that the issues raised by the complainant were serious and had warranted investigation but acknowledged also that the Council and the subject member had acted promptly and appropriately once the matters had been drawn to their attention and that early action had been taken to remedy the problems identified.

Members recognised that the investigation had not revealed any evidence to suggest that the subject member had deliberately sought to deceive or make fraudulent claims, rather that the erroneous claims appeared to be have been a result of carelessness and haphazard/chaotic personal record keeping rather than malicious intent. The Investigation had, following a careful and thorough analysis of claims submitted by the subject member during the relevant period, also identified three specific claims relating to the subject members' attendance at meetings of the Police and Crime Panel in 2012, at a Member Development Steering Group in January 2013 and at a Council Meeting in July 2012 - which might warrant further examination - although it was accepted that analysis of car parking access records showed the subject member had been on the County Hall campus on both of the latter two dates.

In accordance with the Council s procedure, the Independent Person had subsequently been consulted on the findings of the Investigating Officer s Report. The Independent Person s views were reported at the meeting which, in summary, was that he agreed with the Police that the subject member s assertion that this was an oversight was feasible and that he [the Independent Person] endorsed the recommendations set out in the Investigating Officer's Report, subject to all future claims being authorised and counter-signed. The Independent Person had acknowledged the thorough nature of the Investigating Officer s Report.

The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the issues complained of had also been investigated separately by the County Council s Auditors. Of the 19 claims identified by the complainant 18 had previously been identified by the Council and the subject member had been required to repay those monies paid to him - one of the remedies sought by the complainant - and he (the subject member ) had done so promptly.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Police had, as requested, investigated the matter but had decided to take no further action. The Police were satisfied that the duplicate claims were accidental and due to a oversight on the part of the subject member; that this could not be disproved to the required threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt required to pursue a prosecution or infer criminal intent. In their view, any other conclusion would have been disproportionate and not in the public interest. The Sub-Committee further noted that while not relating directly to the original complaint to the County Council the Police had subsequently been asked to re-investigate the wider issues by a third party but having done so the Police had again indicated that they did not intend to pursue the matter. That being the case the Investigating Officer's Report could now submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members acknowledged that the Investigating Officer s Report had analysed the issues in detail and, in summary, had concluded that there was no evidence of the subject member having deliberately or knowingly attempted to defraud the Councils and that the actions already taken by the County Council (as set out in the Report) taken together with the recommendations in her Report would, it was felt, meet the concerns raised by the complainant.

Members noted that in addition to specific recommendations relating to this case the Investigating Officer had also recommended that the Council remind all Members of the Council of the need to take care in submitting claims and to also look at its procedures for paying travelling and subsistence claims in the future.

In examining the complaint and the evidence before it and in coming to a view as to what action, if any, should be taken, the Sub-Committee:

acknowledged and accepted the advice of the Independent Person and the outcome of Police Investigations;

was of the view that the previous actions of the subject member had clearly demonstrated a lack of care and organisation in relation to record keeping and the submission of claims;

found no evidence to suggest or support beyond reasonable doubt that the subject member had deliberately sought to deceive or make fraudulent claims from the County Council; and

took account of the proposed course of action for submission of claims by the subject member and the Monitoring Officer's guidance set out in her Report as to the remedies and action open to the Council.

It was MOVED by Gribble, SECONDED by Councillor Moulding and unanimously

RESOLVED

(a) that the Investigating Officer's Report be acknowledged as an exhaustive and thorough piece of work;

(b) that, for the reasons set out above, the Sub-Committee finds that the allegations are not proven nor has there been any breach of the Code of Conduct; and that the complaint cannot therefore be upheld;

(c) that, nonetheless, the Devon Audit Partnership meet further with the subject member to clarify and check whether any of the claims referred to above may have mistakenly been made or are otherwise invalid and to examine and assess how the subject members system of recording meetings and attendance is working;

(d) that following this further examination and should any of the aforementioned prove to be duplicate or invalid claims (i.e. were the subject member not present) he [the subject member] be required to repay the additional monies arising from these claims which would amount to potentially a maximum of 106.20;

(e) that, for a period of twelve months, and to provide greater transparency, the subject member be required also to submit paper based claims only, direct to the Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager, so they can be checked accordingly for both eligibility (approved duties) and attendance prior to payment and authorise and counter signed; to provide greater transparency;

(f) that, generally:

(i) a further reminder be issued to all Members of the Council about the importance of checking their claims, especially when carrying out dual hatted duties in line with the current guidance in the Council s Approved Scheme of Allowances (available at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/guide/constitution-part-6-11/part-2-members-allowance-scheme/) and the desirability of claims being submitted regularly on a monthly basis;

(ii) that a refresher briefing session be also held for Members on the morning of a future Council meeting on the process of submitting claims for travelling and subsistence and eligibility thereof; and

(iii) that, in light of the capacity for checking claims, the County Council be also recommended to review the current processes to establish a more robust methodology, including

(A) a significant strengthening of the treatment of late claims submission with a much shorter deadline or a cumulative 'penalty/cut-off' (currently, and in line with the requirements of Financial Regulations for Officers expenses claims, the attention of the appropriate Group Leader is drawn, in the first instance, to any claim by a Member submitted more than six months after any expenses were incurred and that should there be a repeat occurrence by a Member then that further claim be paid only with the express approval of the Cabinet Member for Policy Corporate (Procedures Committee Minute 100/10/2/09);

(B) potentially give consideration to a lump sum for travel expenses.

* DENOTES DELEGATED MATTER WITH POWER TO ACT

The meeting started at 2.15pm and finished at 2.57pam

A written summary of the Sub-Committee s decision will be sent within five working days to the complainant and subject member and will be available for public inspection at the Council s offices for a period of six years .