Agenda item

Introducing his report, the Chief Executive confirmed that in accordance with the timetable he had outlined, his report had been prepared in June for July's Cabinet meeting. Unfortunately it had not proved possible to debate it at that meeting.  He acknowledged the frustration on his part and that of several councillors that his report hadn't yet been debated. However, since he had written the report several things had happened; Council had debated the matter and he had consequently sent correspondence to the Conservative party with a reply having just been received that evening. He had not yet had the opportunity to fully digest that correspondence or had the opportunity to circulate that correspondence to Councillors for their consideration.

The Chief Executive was aware that Cllr Bailey was seeking to call an extraordinary general meeting because of the delays in his report being considered, and he explained his concerns that she had not meaningfully engaged with the statutory officers regarding her proposals. His recommendation that evening was to request the Chair of Council to call an extraordinary general meeting to allow for his report to be updated in light of correspondence back from the Conservative party as well as allow the statutory officers to comment on the proposal that Cllr Bailey wished to bring to Council. Cllr Bailey questioned the validity of the calling of the EGM stating the Chair had not called the meeting and it was now a matter for those who had submitted the request. The Monitoring Officer wished it be noted that his position on this matter was not the same as Cllr Bailey’s and that there had been correspondence with her over the calling of the meeting.

Cllr Millar expressed his concern and stated that he found the delay in calling an extraordinary meeting deeply frustrating.

The Chief Executive confirmed his intention to include the full wording of Cllr Bailey’s proposal in his report. The proposal did seek to commit the Council to significant expenditure and, as presently worded, would come to Council without any opportunity for the statutory officers to formally comment on it. This would put the Council in a position where there was no actual opportunity to have their views recorded in writing in advance of debating what was proposed. This was a matter which needed to be fully debated but as the Chief Executive as well as the Head of Paid Service there was something administratively wrong that Councillors could commit the Council to significant expenditure without the normal due diligence process being followed through which was at least to get the advice from statutory officers.

In response to the criticism that the Chief Executive had not ‘rubber-stamped’ the earlier decision of Council, he reminded Members that Council had been advised that the current consultative meetings (unlike the normal ‘in-person’ meetings), involved a process of delegation to officers. Officers were duty bound to consider the member recommendation but also apply their own professional judgement. This may be considered anti-democratic by some but it was a consequence of the member decision to continue to meet virtually and he was under an obligation to consider the exercise of his delegation. In his view, he did not think any criticism was fair because it was based on a misunderstanding of the basis upon which the Council was currently meeting.

The Chief Executive confirmed that as a result of the conversations he had had and from all the documents he had been able to discern from others he did not think an independent investigation was necessary. In his opinion he did not think anyone would find out anything new or relevant than what was already known. He was not criticising those who chose not to say what they thought they knew because at all material times, there was an active criminal investigation under way. There had been a lot said in terms of safeguarding policy, whether this was a political witch hunt, and generally what some members perceived or believed had gone on with regard to this matter. However, in his opinion, the only way Humphrey's victims had got justice in this was through the criminal law and that was the key point. As a consequence he had tried in his report to identify what were the key learning points from this matter and this formed the basis of his investigations. 

Cllr Bailey stated, among others, that she thought one of the key things was should the Council have behaved differently in these circumstances.

In response, the Chief Executive explained why he had decided it was necessary to take QC’s opinion. He had engaged with the Group Leaders about this issue and his concerns about the way in which the original motion had come about in terms of amending the minutes of Scrutiny meeting and also the emotional nature of the debate. In addition there had been a lack of opportunity for officers to meaningfully contribute their advice to the meeting. Furthermore, some of the things that has been said weren’t, in his opinion, legally correct. This was why he had wanted to make sure that the Council, if it proceeded down the road of an independent investigation, had clear written advice to help guide it to make sure it was able to apply the relevant legal considerations properly. He confirmed he had taken the views of the group leaders and wanted to make sure that they were as fully informed as possible.

The Chair asked whether the suggested extraordinary general meeting should be in person. The Chief Executive responded that in terms of a clear record of what was said and what decisions were made and the reasons they were made, he was minded to go with the Chair of Council to say that to ensure a full record of the meeting was recorded to YouTube through a virtual meeting.

Having listened and debated the suggestion from the Chief Executive, members noted the report presented on this agenda and RECOMMENDED that;

the Chair of Council call an EGM at the earliest opportunity with the Chief Executive bringing to that meeting an updated report incorporating the recently received correspondence from the Conservative Party, the proposed motion from Cllr Bailey and others and any other relevant update.