Ruth Glazzard welcomed everyone to the meeting, she advised those present that the Hearing Sub-Committee may not make a formal decision this evening.  Should this be the case a draft decision would be issued, irrespective of whether a decision was made this evening the subject of the complaint and the complainant would be advised first and then the decision would be published.

The Standards Advisory Committee (Hearing) Sub-Committee is asked to appoint a Chair for the meeting.

The Hearing Sub-Committee appointed Julie Van Bussel as Chair.

Julie welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.

Draft minutes of the Standards Advisory Committee held 6^th October 2014.

To Follow

The draft minutes of the Standards Advisory Committee held 6th October 2014 were noted.

In accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee is asked to resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for specific items of business on the grounds that they may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended.

Agreed to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of the following exempt information:

·  Investigation of complaint of breach of code of conduct by an elected member

It was again questioned whether, as a Mayoral Advisor Councillor Laguda should declare a pecuniary interest in item 6 - Investigation of complaint of breach of code of conduct by an elected member, as the constitution defines a Mayoral Advisor as representing the Mayor.

Following advice from the Monitoring Officer Councillor Laguda declared a pecuniary interest by virtue of her position as a Mayoral Advisor.

The Standards Advisory (Hearing) Sub-Committee is requested to consider the report of the independent investigator and determine:

i)  Whether there has been a breach of the code of conduct; and if so

ii)  What sanction, if any, should be applied in the circumstances of the case   

Following its meeting held 6^th October 2014 the Standards Advisory Committee convened this Hearing Sub-Committee to consider the report of the investigating officer, appointed by the Monitoring Officer to determine whether there had been a breach of the code of conduct against an elected member. The member in question being the Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales.

The report was exempt by virtue of paragraph 1 (information related to any individual) of the Access to Information Procedure Rules set out in the Constitution, pursuant to schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.

The Monitoring Officer outlined the position for the Sub-Committee.  A complaint was received that the Mayor had behaved in an aggressive manor towards a group of local single mothers campaigning homelessness on the 13^th July 2014. The complainant was not himself present at the event but had made his complaint on the basis of YouTube footage. During the course of the independent investigator’s investigations a witness stated that the Mayor had slapped his hand.  The Monitoring Officer advised that this was not a new complaint so not a charge as such.  The Mayor did not give a response to the investigator’s report, but had seen it.  The Mayor was asked by the investigator if he wanted to meet her or provide a written response, the Mayor responded via e-mail to the Chair of the Standards Advisory Committee via the clerk to the Committee.

The e-mail sent by the Mayor stated that he believed that the investigator’s report was flawed and suggested that a number of other witnesses be asked to make written statements for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.  The e-mail also set out briefly the history between the group (known as the Focus E15 Group) referred to by the complainant and the Council and himself.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Sub-Committee that they could make a decision based on the complaint and the evidence provided or they could decide that more evidence was required.  The Monitoring Officer stated that the Mayor’s e-mail was setting a context of the events that led to the complaint.  The Sub-Committee had to decide whether they believed based on the evidence before them that the Mayor had behaved in an aggressive manor and that his behaviour was a breach of the code of conduct; that his behaviour was aggressive but given the history between himself and the group his behaviour was no surprise; or that the Mayor behaved in an aggressive manor and no matter what the provocation he should not have acted that way.

Ruth Glazzard informed the Sub-Committee that following receipt of the e-mail she had met with the Mayor and it was her opinion that he had misunderstood the steps the Sub-Committee could take.  She said that she had advised the Mayor that the Sub-Committee would consider his request; however she had advised him that she did not feel that undertaking further interviews and or taking further written statements would be of benefit to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.