Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor John Loudoun was elected as Chair for the meeting.

None.

To agree items to be dealt with after the public (including the Press) have been excluded. Officers recommend the complaint item(s) should be dealt with in this way on the grounds that they are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972; or that the reports contain information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual as defined in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The complaint reports were agreed to be dealt with in private session on the grounds that they are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972; or that the complaint reports contain information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual as defined in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

Other action.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that the matter should be dealt with by a public apology by the subject member at a public meeting of East Devon District Council.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

No further action.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that there is insufficient evidence of a breach of the code.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

Monitoring Officer Investigation.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that the complaint should be progressed to Monitoring Officer Investigation to consider whether the subject member has breached paragraph 5.4 of the relevant Code of Conduct.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

Monitoring Officer Investigation.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that the complaint should be progressed to Monitoring Officer Investigation to consider whether the subject member has breached paragraph 3.2 (a) and (f) of the relevant Code of Conduct.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

Other action.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that an apology from the subject member to the complainant is sought, having first discussed the case with the Monitoring Officer.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the update of the Deputy Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  An indicative view was sought from those representatives present, who concurred that no further action was required.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the review from Deputy Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

No further action.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that no further action was required on this this complaint.

The Assessment Sub-Committee reviewed the report of the Monitoring Officer and discussed the case, including hearing the views of the Independent Representative, and the Town and Parish Representative.  An indicative view was sought from those representatives present, whom concurred that progression to a Monitoring Officer investigation was required.  The Assessment Sub-Committee, having regard to the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Local Assessment Criteria, and the views of the Independent Person, decided on the progression of the complaint as follows:

Monitoring Officer Investigation.

The Assessment Sub-Committee were in agreement with the view of the Monitoring Officer that the complaint should be progressed to Monitoring Officer Investigation on the basis that  sufficient detail had been provided to justify a full and detailed review of the complaints and evidence being carried out in relation to the allegations made.