Transcript

Transcript

Live streaming now, Chair. Thank you. So, good evening. Welcome to everybody to the Standards Committee meeting, meeting today on Monday the 3rd of June. I'm Julia Hughes, the Chair of the meeting. Could I just remind you please to ensure your mobile phones are switched off or on mute if you wouldn't mind and that you keep any background noise to the minimum. And if you would keep your microphones muted during the meeting and unmute when you wish to speak. And if you could indicate if you wish to speak, please, and I will endeavour to bring you in in a timely fashion. But could I ask the monitoring officer just to give me a prompt if I miss anybody, please. Everybody should have had the papers for this evening. So first of all, can I check have we got any apologies for this evening? Don't think we have any apologies, do we? So no apologies. Thank you. And can I take us on to declarations of interest, please? I'd like to hear of anybody who's got a declaration of interest. And can I also remind you that during the meeting, if anything emerges where you feel that you do need to declare, do indicate and come in and let us know at that point. So I've got one hand up. Councillor Wren, can I bring you in, please? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'd like to declare a personal interest in item number six, because the Councillor in question not only is the lead or the four was the former leader of the group I'm a member of within Flinshire County Council is also was the former leader of the group I'm a member of at Connors Quaytown Council and Connors Quaytown Council, we are quite a social bunch. Thank you. Thank you for that indication. Can I bring in the monitoring officer Garth Owens, please? Thank you, Chair. Of course, members will see from the report that I was one of the people affected by the actions that led to cancer averages suspension. As officers, we have an obligator code of conduct, and we are required to declare interests, we don't declare personal or personal and prejudicial interests in the same way as members. Because of course, we fulfill a slightly different purpose within the organisation. As more as officers, we can be specialists, there are sometimes sole specialists and sole post holders within the organisation of whom I am one. Of course, I am the only monitoring officer within clincher. And I don't even at the present moment have a deputy. So there isn't anybody else who can take that report. I will be I will help the committee with the report. But of course, it is worth noting that if any decisions are made by the committee today, then I won't be and I don't have as a count as an officer, I don't have a vote. So I am not a decision maker this evening chair, committee members and the committee of the decision makers. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any more declarations of interest? No, can I then before we carry on with the meeting, welcome Councillor Ian Hodge and Councillor Ros Griffiths to their first meeting of our standards committee. And it's good to see thank you very much for joining us. And can also welcome our two observers that we have at the moment, Councillor Chrissie G and Councillor Marian Bateman. And could I ask you Councillor Bateman if you wouldn't mind if you put the camera on as well, please. So thank you very much for joining us this evening. Can I before we go on to the minutes, just say that I do have one urgent matters chairs item, which I am going to put at item 12, which is after the forward work programme. And that's in relation to discussing suggestions for the agenda for the National Standards Forum, which will be held in June. So I'll just add that for later on. So can I refer you to the minutes then of our last meeting, which you should find on pages five to 12. And what I'll do, first of all, is go through each page for accuracy, and then come back for any matters arising if that's okay. So if there's anything you want to draw to our attention to do that. So for accuracy, and I'll just say the page number that they're on in the printout a minute. So page five, anything, page six, page seven, page eight, page 12. So I've got nothing for accuracy. So can I have someone to move that it's a true and accurate record of our last meeting, please? Jacqueline Guest, thank you and seconded Mark Morgan. Thank you very much. Everybody comfortable with that? Yeah. Thank you. So can I move us back then to any matters arising? So the first page of the minutes, which is numbered as page five, is there anything anybody wants to raise on page five? Could I just ask then, monitoring officer Gareth Owens, we were going to have an update on if any more councils have signed up to the Civility and Respect Pledge. I didn't know if you've got any more up to date information for us on that. I think it was 16 at the last meeting, we're up to 20. Now, chase the game for an update, even just to ask councils whether or not they just to say no, we've considered it and rejected it. We've had a number say that they have rejected it because they didn't think it added anything to the code. I'm not sure that's a proper understanding of the Civility and Respect Pledge. So I have gone back to those councils and said, actually, you know, if you look at it, there are slightly you know, it does commit you to certain things. But it's their choice. So whilst you provided I'm comfortable that they haven't misunderstood it, it's not for us to insist. It was the view that I had taken chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. So anybody got anything on page six to raise? Could I ask the monitor where it says page nine on page six, it talks about feedback being shared with chairs and members and you were going to send something out. Am I assuming that that's happened? So it's on page six of them and it's where it says page nine. If I wasn't on mute. Yes, chair. Yep. Thank you. Anything anybody wants to raise on page seven? Were you awaiting something back from the Audit Wales regarding their recent visit? Have we added something on that? It's at the bottom of page six, actually. Does it carry over to page seven? No. Not had anything back from Audit Wales? No chair. Oh, okay. So we'll wait on that one then. Anything on page seven from anybody? Okay. Anything page eight? David. Yes, thank you, chair. Number 67 on page eight, I just wonder whether the monitoring officer has got an update in terms of the value of the gifts or hospitality. I think it was going to go to full council. Just decided to keep it at £10. There was a discussion about dropping it to zero. That would be impractical, so we decided to keep it at £10. Thank you, Gareth. Thank you for that. Anything then on page nine? Page 10. There was something at the top of page 10 about the monitoring officer agreed to include this feedback in the email to all members. Is that the same email as previously? That's correct, yeah. Okay, page 11. Right, two hands up for Jacqueline Guest. Sorry, I saw Jacqueline first. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, it was just in relation to the forward work programme. Am I correct in thinking that the report I give for bagels and the audit and governance and the planning are being rolled over to September? Yes, chair. I think the bagels one was missed. I'll be honest, chair. The others came in after the reports came in after the agenda was dispatched. So, yeah, they're not on the agenda. We'll need to consider them in September. Oh, and actually, chair, we talked about possibly when we get to the forward work programme, scheduling a July meeting. We do have the election in the first week of July. So, we might want, if you want to do July meeting, it would need to be the second Monday rather than the first. Yeah. But that's where, is it item 11, the forward work? Yeah, good. Thanks for highlighting that. Can you make sure we revisit that, Jacqueline? Yeah, thank you very much. Anything else? Mark, you wanted to come in? Here's the second one, chair. Oh, thank you. And there's something further up that page on 11. The National Standards Conference, the Munchkin office of Gareth, you were going to obtain an update for the committee if there was anything to report back on a potential date or venue. Well, it's been remote for that one. I have met with the monitoring officer for South Wales who's coordinating the activity. And she's agreed to go away and talk to her colleagues because, of course, as I mentioned to other members of the committee, but the new members won't be aware, those conferences are arranged, well, as an extracurricular activity by monitoring officers. So, the last one was arranged by the six MOs in North Wales. And this next one will be arranged by some or all of the monitoring officers in South Wales. So, will you just keep us updated when you get? I will. Yeah, I'm hoping to hear from her. We have a meeting with the monitoring officers group on Friday, and I'm happy to hear from them with an update on progress. Lovely, thank you very much. So, anybody got anything to bring up on page 12? No? Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes that particular item. Can I just welcome Councillor Richard-Jones to the meeting as well? Thank you for joining us. We are on item four now, just if you're following along. Thank you. So, item four is dispensations. And my understanding, we haven't received any dispensations. No? No. Thank you very much. And so, can I move you on then to item five, which you should find on pages 13 to 26? And this is our draft annual report. And the recommendation here is that we're going to approve the report today. So, I'm going to hand you over to the monitoring officer Garathones to take us through what we've got here, perhaps not in full detail, because we've all had an opportunity to have a good look at it, but just to pull out any salient points. And then we can take any comments or queries, additions, deductions, et cetera, just to come to a good annual report to go forward. So, over to the monitoring officer, please. So, thank you, Chair. So, this is your second annual report now, Chair. And as with the previous report, what I have done is taken what the statutory guidance says about the contents and the legislation says about contents as the spine or the skeleton on which we build the report, in order just to make sure that we hit all of the statutory requirements and don't inadvertently miss out a requirement. But then, as I said, that's very much the spine or the skeleton of the report on which we've added a lot of flesh in terms of descriptions about the work that has been undertaken by the committee. If they were a theme, the first report was all about training. And this second report now is about how the committee has built on that training and focuses, therefore, a lot on the visits that the committee has done in order to see meetings at town, community, and county council level in practice. And so, they formed the focus for many of the comments within the report. Lastly, Chair, there is, of course, the obligation for the committee to comment on whether it is satisfied that group leaders have fulfilled their duty to promote good behavior on behalf of the members of their group. And the committee had some confidential meetings with not only group leaders, current group leaders, but because we've had some chopping and changing in terms of group leaders over the last 12 months with people who were group leaders and aren't now, and people who have taken over towards the end of the reporting period as group leaders as well. And you, I think, as a committee have concluded that you're satisfied that the obligations have been complied with in relation to the current group leadership. And, Chair, also in the section on group leaders, no longer an issue at the moment, but it was a matter I know of some concern. You've raised a point there about whether group leaders should be members of the committee at all, given the obligations of the committee to assess the compliance of individual group leaders. And I think, as the report puts it, whilst that's not a bar, you recognize it as a concern. And it's something that as a committee you want to keep an eye on to see whether there is emerging best practice across the Standards Committee in Wales where that is either permitted or disallowed. And, Chair, I know you've seen a couple of drafts of the annual report and Vice Chair has as well, other members haven't had the opportunity, those same opportunities to comment, but the report is there. I'm either happy to take questions or, as you say, deal with suggested amendments, typos, etc. You're on mute, Chair. Well, there we are. Okay, I'm back. Apologies, everybody. Yeah, so thank you very much for that. And we've all had an opportunity to look at it. And as the Moncheng officer said, myself as Chair and Mark Morgan as Vice Chair, we've had an opportunity to look at a couple of drafts as well on the journey of this report. This is the opportunity for the committee now to have had a look at it. And if there's anything that you feel you want to comment on, do come in now and let's see if we can finalise this report this evening. So we've got anybody that would like to make any comments? Councillor Calbrey, thank you. On page 24, it says that this year the committee recommends that. And then on the next page it says that standards committee feedback becomes a standing chip. Is it really necessary to have that twice? Isn't it picking, I know, but it? Well, I think this picks up on the work in one of the groups where that group receives regular feedback from the standards committee so that as issues and topics are discussed or decisions are raised, that group considers them so that it can, you know, absorb and reflect or adapt practice as required. And I know that as part of the discussions, it was felt that that might be worth adopting by all groups. To help keep, you know, ethics and ethical behaviour as a live debate and topic within the organisation. Thank you. That's the rationale, at least, isn't it, Jo? It is, yeah. It is. Councillor Calbrey, did you want to come back? I was just going to say, I think I'd like to refer and recommend the following, but it doesn't matter. It's just a word. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Jo Magatroyd. Thank you, Chair. I think just picking up on the last point that was just being mentioned first of all, I think, unless I've misunderstood it, what was being referred to is the sentence at the bottom of page 24 ends in the word that, and then the next three bullet points start with the word that. So I think that's what Councillor Calbrey was referring to. I can see your thumbs up. Oh, right. Sorry, I didn't understand that properly either. So it's changing it because you've got that and then that, that, that. Can we can we amend that, that, please? Thank you. And there's no other. Did you have some other points? Literally, just one, thank you. And thanks, Councillor Calbrey, I just wanted to check. That's great. The thank you, Gareth, it's for pulling all this together. I think it's a really good report. And it sort of summarises all the, the main things plus the subtle sort of nuances of things that have happened as well during the year. The only comment nothing substantive at all whatsoever is the stylistic thing, that's all. And I'm just wondering, the column on the left, is that be left blank, because there's going to be numbers put on like there are in normal reports, because if so, it would be really helpful to have numbering just to make it a little bit easier for the reader, but that's all, nothing else. This is the text for the report, Chair. Before the report is finalised, once we finalise the text, we send it to the graphic design team for a bit of pizazz. Okay, thank you. So basically, it's just how it's being presented to us, but it isn't how it's being presented in the end product, if you like. They add pictures and move the text around and do all sorts of busy things with the Chair. Lovely, thank you. Does that answer, Jill? Thank you, that's even better. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else got any comments or queries? Right, I'm not seeing any hands at all. Therefore, can I take us to the recommendation on page 13 that we approve the annual report? Can I have someone to move that we approve the report, please? Jacqueline Guest, thank you. Seconder, Jill Murgatroyd. Can I see a show of hands if you're happy with that, please? Yeah, okay. So that's carried that we've approved our annual report. Thank you very much. And again, thanks for the officers for the work on that particular report. So can I move us on to our next agenda item then, please, which is Agenda Item 6, which you should find on pages 27 to 50 of your pack, and it's notification of the decision of the adjudication panel for Wales. And just as a memoir reminder, I do note that we've had a personal interest declared from Councillor Wren. So anybody else want to declare an interest at this point? We're comfortable. Okay. So if you remember this, this is to receive the outcome of the hearing that took place on the 26th of April in respect of Councillor Bernie Attridge. So I'm going to ask the monitoring officer just to take us through any salient points of the report. Of course, we've had the papers and we've had the opportunity to have a good look at it. So can I pass you over again, please? So, Chair, it's one of the statutory duties of the Standards Committee where there's been a hearing, the adjudication panel writes with notification of the decision and you must consider that notification within three months. The purpose of that is to consider whether there is anything that needs to change in terms of our own behaviour or protocols within the organisation and formally to notify the committee of the outcome of the hearing. So you will see the very brief summary in terms of the actions that were taken by Councillor Attridge and paragraph 1.03. And you will see also where the case tribunal found that he had breached the code and where they decided that his actions had not breached the code. Now, those suggested breaches were put forward by the Ombudsman as the prosecutor of the case, so to speak, as part of their report. And if one were to compare it to a criminal system, those are equivalent to the charges or the indictment. Obviously, this isn't a criminal process, but that's the easiest perhaps analogy that I could make to help people understand. So the Ombudsman puts forward the suggestion that Councillor Attridge breached the code in this way and the case tribunal decided whether he had or he hadn't on the basis of the facts that they found. It is fair to say that Councillor Attridge did not contest any of the allegations that were made. And therefore, because the actions took place either by way of phone message in the messenger app or by way of email, there was documentary evidence only, there was no need for live or oral testimony, so no witnesses needed to be called. And because no witnesses needed to be called, the hearing took place, so to speak, on the papers. That is to say, the case tribunal considered the Ombudsman's report, they considered the submissions made by Councillor Attridge, they considered that in writing only without the need for a hearing to take place in person in a courtroom or the equivalent. As it says in paragraph 1.05, the case tribunal noted that Councillor Attridge had admitted his actions and noted and considered his apology. And they also considered mitigation advanced by him in relation, as it says there, to his mental state. And you will see, for those who have read the decision report itself, that there was medical evidence that used on Councillor Attridge's behalf in relation to his psychological state at the time. And if you read the report, you'll see that that medical evidence refers to impacts on his executive function, that is to say his ability to make decisions and rational decisions. And I think that's clearly the case tribunal has taken that into account in deciding the level of sanction to apply on this occasion. So Councillor Attridge was suspended with immediate effect. That means that he remains a Councillor, albeit he cannot undertake any council functions until his suspension comes to an end at the end of August. And nor indeed will he receive any allowances during that period. So we have suspended his IT account, we've suspended his access to the building. We've taken him, we put a note on the on the website to say that he's been suspended. And we're not sending him any agendas or papers. He will come back to the organisation at the end of August. And you will see that there are questions within the report for the committee about what the organisation should do, if anything, either at that time or in preparation for his return. A number of people within the organisation have privately expressed some concern and anxiety about that return. And they have expressed to me a measure of revulsion as Councillor Attridge's actions. And certainly there is some anxiety amongst the officer cohort, particularly amongst female officers about perhaps having to deal with him and being concerned that they might be subject to inappropriate behaviour on his return. Realistically, I think that's probably unlikely, but the anxiety itself is understandable. And so I have put a paragraph 1.09, a number of questions for committee relating to the findings of breach of the code. So you will see the first of those was the finding of disrespect to the resident and seeking an improper advantage, that is asking for sexual favours. And I have posed the question there whether the committee would wish to see something included within the Code of Conduct for Councillors, prohibiting seeking sexual favours from residents, or whether you would say that such a prohibition should be self-evident. Although it sounds rather flippant, it's not intended to be, the Code does not say thou shalt not kill, because there are certain things and certain standards of behaviour that are perhaps assumed. Now, assumptions can cause and lead to problems. I don't think it was a want of understanding. I don't think it was a want of there being a specific or express prohibition in the Code that led to this behaviour. So I don't know, I leave it for the committee to decide whether they would want to add anything extra to the Code or whether they feel it's perhaps unnecessary. The issue in relation to disrespect and bullying of officers is slightly different. There's also an issue, I think, around safeguarding. One of the things that I was quite surprised to learn is that Councillor Attledge would regularly meet with vulnerable individuals who were seeking housing assistance, and I guess probably all Councillors do this, but would meet with vulnerable young women on his own, which, from my own perspective, worried me as much for the possibility for false allegations against him as it does worry me about safeguarding practice. And so I think there is perhaps scope for some discussion with Councillor Attledge around appropriate safeguarding practice to protect himself, and if there is appropriate safeguarding practice in place, to protect others as well. So I have suggested at the bottom of page 29, training on safeguarding practice. You'll see that the list continues going over onto the top of page 30. I think the discussion needs to take place with Councillor Attledge about his behaviour. We've had different situations in the past, Chair, with members who clearly thought they've done nothing wrong, and they received some quite severe penalties from the adjudication panel, and at least one of those came back as a Councillor. And so, as you might imagine, there needed to be quite a serious conversation about accepting and gaining confidence that there was an acceptance that the behaviour was wrong. Clearly, Councillor Attledge has done that already through his actions at the case tribunal, and indeed, as I think I say within the report, he has sent written apologies to myself, to the housing manager who was concerned, and through officers to the vulnerable individual. So, I don't think we'd be labouring the point necessarily on that, but I think as part of that discussion, we probably also need to have a conversation about the fact that a number of officers and possibly even members may find it difficult to have dealings with him as a result of their views about his actions, and for him perhaps not to expect that this would be an easy return to the organisation. Clearly, people in the organisation know what he did, and have their own reactions to that. And like I said, I don't think it needs to be a big issue, but it's certainly a conversation that needs to take place. And then there are suggestions there about providing support and offers of support to employees. I have already offered what we call the employee assistance programme to Councillor Attridge himself to try and help him, and that's been available to him throughout since the complaint was first made, and throughout the process, but we reiterated that offer of support to him when the sanction was imposed by the committee. So, we've offered it to him, and we will offer that to employees. His former group have requested that I come along to a group meeting and have a discussion with them at some point about any support that they feel they might want as well, and how they respond to what has taken place. And there are a number of practical issues that are nonetheless important, but in terms of less significant, simple things such as where he sits within the council chamber should he return following his suspension. So, Chair, there's a number of suggestions there in terms of actions to be taken going forward. The committee might agree with some or all of those, might have a whole list of the things it wants to suggest. This is the opportunity and the right forum to discuss the organisational response to the case tribunal's findings. Thank you. Thank you very much for the overview and the considered way you've given it to us. And can I just say before I come into Councillor Wren, that I am going to seek views of everybody on this, so I want a contribution from everybody, however large or small really on this particular item, because it's a really important item that we need to consider. Councillor Wren, did you want to come in first? Yes, please. I think it's important to highlight point one zero eight or one point zero eight, the second half, where it says it's fair to say that the widespread reaction is that the decision is too lenient. And I 100 percent agree with that. But it's also fair to say that this committee has no powers to alter the decision, nor to request a review. Thank you. Thank you for the drawing that to our attention. Officer Gareth Owens, do you want to come back on that particular point or emphasise anything? Indeed, you know, I put that in because I know there is a number of members have spoken to me, I know there is a strong feeling in the organisation about it. Of course, the case tribunal has made its decision. It's made its decision on the basis of information that we don't see. We've only seen a summary in the report. I mean, the committee can give feedback if it wishes, but obviously, it has no power to alter the decision. The other important thing I think perhaps to say is that whatever steps we do put in place in preparation for or following Councillor Attridge's return from suspension, what we can't mustn't do is impede his ability to fulfil his role as an elected member. And so you have to be careful to be proportionate in any restrictions or impositions on him as a result of this case. Because he is, you know, he is an elected member, he remains an elected member, the case tribunal could have disqualified him if they wish, they chose not to do so. So, you know, after those four months, he comes back, he's a full Councillor. And it's important that when he returns, he is able to fulfil his functions, doesn't mean to say things on will have to be the same as they were before. And indeed, one would hope that they're not the same in the sense that these actions are not repeated. But he comes back as if he does come back as a counsellor, and he has to be able to fulfil those functions as well. So there's a, it's not an easy line to walk this chair. Thank you. Thank you for that Councillor. Is there anything else you want to add at this point? Or you might come back in again later, depending on the discussion, maybe? Yeah. Yeah, thank you. That's fine. Thank you. I just thought it important to highlight that this wasn't our decision, as many people may think that the Standards Committee decided on the the penalty, shall we say? Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. Appreciated. Can I ask somebody else to come in before I go around? So, Councillor Rosalind Griffiths, please. Thank you. Yeah, um, would it be possible Gareth that Bernie Attridge attends training sessions before he's allowed to take up his role as Councillor again, particularly in respect of behaviour, and discipline, and respect of officers? I think it would be advantageous to him, and might help set some fears aside for officers, if they know that he's received further training. I don't know whether that's possible. So we have had a programme of training. Councillor Attridge wasn't able to attend that, because of his suspension. We will be, and there are no other Councillors who can't make it because they're not available. And I'll be talking to the training provider about ensuring that all Councillors to attend that. What we, it might just have been the way that the suggestion was phrased, Chair, that couldn't be a condition precedent on him returning to Council business, because that then might have the effect of extending the suspension until the training is able to be delivered. So, you know, certainly that training will be made available to him. It was, you know, it was agreed by all group leaders that it would be mandatory training. So the expectation would be that he attends and undertakes that training. But now we would have to be careful not to insist that that training is undertaken before he returns to business. Otherwise, we might artificially extend the period of suspension. Thank you. Thank you for that response. Councillor Griffithson, anything else you want to add to that? Thanks for bringing that up. Thank you. Somebody else? So, Jill Murgatroyd. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I agree with that suggestion, actually, that he should have the opportunity of being included in that training that most of us have benefited from. So that's good news, Gareth, if there's going to be another session scheduled, given some previous people won't be able to attend. So I think that's really sensible. In terms of the other suggestions that have been made at the bottom of pages 29 and 30. I think the training on safeguarding. Yep, that makes sense for all the obvious reasons, given the report that we've read. Point number two at the top of page 30. Given the sensitive nature of this, I'd welcome Gareth's views on who you think should be having that discussion. Because I do appreciate that perhaps normally, that would typically be yourself. But in the circumstances, I don't think it seems appropriate, given what's been mentioned previously. So, although I'd welcome your views, so I'm therefore suggesting, really to this committee, whether it's perhaps appropriate instead for the chair and vice chair, perhaps, to have that conversation or whether other people, I can see some raised eyes from Gareth, so would welcome your thoughts on that. And then finally, points three and four. I mean, I'm assuming employees already have access to the EAP, the employee assistance programme anyway. So is this more about just a timely reminder to them? So other than that, there's nothing else really to add over and above the suggestion that Ros has made. But Gareth, I'd welcome your views about who you think is appropriate to have the discussion. In relation to points three and four, chair, it's very much just about being seen to respond to the circumstances and to the issue. If you have read the full decision report, you will see reference to how difficult the relationship is between Councillor Attridge and myself and how Councillor Attridge believes that I'm trying to ruin his career. He therefore may not be responsive to advice from me. And it's probably a wise suggestion chair for it to be somebody else, somebody from whom to whom Councillor Attridge would be more willing to listen, because clearly it's going to be quite challenging for him to see me sitting in front of him. He's going to feel like I'm just telling him off, which isn't the purpose of that conversation. I'm sorry, I didn't mean if I raised my eyebrows. I was probably more shock and surprise about the suggestion that it's yourself and Mark, not that I don't think you're capable. I'll leave you to decide whether it's something you want to do, chair. Finding somebody else to have that conversation may be more appropriate, because like I said, it's important that that is a successful conversation. Having me in the mix realistically is probably going to reduce the chances of success. I don't mind admitting that. Thanks, Joe, for bringing that up. Thanks, Gareth, for the consideration of the answer. I think it's something certainly to be considered, isn't it? And whether myself and the vice chair are the most appropriate people or not, I think that needs to be thought about really, and whether there's somebody else within the council that would be more appropriate than us, given their background, et cetera. Jill, sorry, do you want to come back in? Thanks. Yes, thanks for that, Gareth, and chair as well. Just a thought actually on reflection. I don't know, is it appropriate to have not necessarily an independent mediator, because we're not talking about mediation at this stage, but somebody who's got those sorts of skills and expertise, somebody from outside the organisation? I'm wondering, Gareth, what your thoughts are about that, if from your perspective, there's potential concern about the chair and vice chair of this committee, possibly? I didn't say there was concern about the chair and vice chair. I hasten to add, I did say I'm not that I'm saying that they are not capable of doing so. Sorry, I didn't mean to put that into your mouth, sorry. There are people that I could think of who would be able to undertake that role well. There is somebody who has been a monitoring officer for many years worked, then at a very high level in one of the big legal firms, and now provides facilitative mediative mediatory training. And indeed, has done a couple of mediation, whole council mediation sessions for us with our town and community councils in the past. She would be well capable of having that conversation in a way that would give it the best chance of success. That does sound like a good type of suggestion. What do other people feel about that suggestion of having that independent, experienced independent mediator type person to undertake that particular task? If it's a yes, can I have a hands up? You think that's a good idea? Yep, that seems to be quite a consensus idea there. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. So, Gala, can you just catch that so when we come back to what we've agreed at the end, I don't lose it in terms of the list of things that we've sort of agreed to as a committee. So thank you, Jill. Jill, did you want to bring up anything else at the moment? No, thank you. Thank you very much for that. So I'm going to go to David Davies next then, please. Yes, thank you, Chair. Gareth did ask our views on whether the code of conduct for councillors should make reference to somebody prohibiting seeking sexual favours. I tend to agree that it's almost self-evident that it's an action that is repulsive to everyone. But I just wonder whether something should be included in the code of conduct in terms of sexualised language. And I just wonder what Gareth's views are due to the sexualised language that was part of the conduct of this particular councillor. And also just a further observation, the four month suspension, does that include the summer recess or was that excluded? Because most councillors wouldn't be particularly active during the month of August, anyway. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, David, for that. Gareth, can I have that over to you? I'll start with the last question first, Chair. The summer recess is not a formal thing. It is a convention within local authorities that they don't tend to meet during August. But there is no formal recess and we could meet during August if we missed, just that we don't tend to because of the availability or non-availability of councillors and people wanting to take, needing to take holidays and so on and so forth. So it's not a formal recess in the way that the Senate or Parliament recesses. And therefore, it isn't taken into account in the length of the suspension. The suspension ends towards the end of August. And Councillor Attridge resumes his duties on the 26th of August, I think it is. The first suggestion about including something in relation to sexualised language. We've got, later on, Chair, in the subsequent agenda item, the Flintshire standard. That's where we expand upon what we mean by treating people with respect. Inevitably, the focus there is, it's a document for how we behave towards one another inside the organisation, because it's a local resolution process and the local resolution process doesn't apply to behaviours outside of the organisation. That would feel like the right place to put that sort of explanation, but it doesn't apply to people outside of the organisation, as I've just said. So we could put something into the code around sexualised behaviour. But how to put this? I don't think the Case Tribunal had any difficulty in finding that seeking sexual favours was equated to seeking an improper advantage, which is already prohibited under the code. Part of the difficult of that. Part of the strength of the code is that the language is flexible and can cover a wide range of circumstances and one can clearly see how this sort of behaviour transgresses that paragraph within the code. Part of the difficulty with that, of course, is that it does mean that the language is rather formal, rather legalistic, perhaps, and isn't very specific because it covers a wide range of circumstances. So putting in specific injunctions of that sort would need to be drafted. If it was something the committee wished to do would be possible because we can amend the code, provided we don't make it less onerous, we can amend the code. But we have to be quite careful, I think, about the drafting to make sure that it was of broad effect, rather than, you know, trying to legislate for every specific set of circumstances within the code, and then finding that you missed something because your drafting is focused very narrowly on specific sets of circumstances, rather than being a broad general effect. It's a constant problem chair to people who draft legislation. There are different styles of drafting legislation and, you know, people have always tried to, people have gone and varied from being very specific about how they draft legislation in order for it to be clear and in order for there to be no room for doubt and no room for, you know, no room for clever lawyers to argue that black is white and white is black. But then lawyers will just find a way around those specific provisions because they can't cover everything. So it's always a bit of a drafting challenge, that one chair. Thank you for that. And thank you for the question, David. It leaves us with whether members feel that we should be inserting something to the code or the standard regarding sexual behaviour, or do we feel that the code has enough of a broad outline in order to make sure we don't do a list and then miss things out? I think that's what you're implying, isn't it, Gareth? Jill, did you want to come in just on that point, yeah? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Thank you, Gareth. I would be concerned if we did put something so specific in, because if we think also of all the other, using the phrase sort of protected characteristics, to me, it's implicit that people shouldn't behave in a discriminatory way, shouldn't be racist, and so on and so forth. And I think just to add something specific about this, I think if we're not careful, we would then we would lose that generality that we heard Gareth describing earlier. I think you use the phrase thou shalt not kill, it's not overtly stated. I think that something like this, we've heard that they didn't have any difficulties sort of deciding that it wasn't appropriate. So personally, I don't feel there's a need to add something in. And as I said, I would be concerned that then we wouldn't be putting things in about other sort of similarly inappropriate topics as well. Okay, does anybody else have an opinion particularly on that point before we move on to another point? So can I just say, I am going to bring Councillor Richard Jones and Councillor Marion Bateman in after the members have commented specifically on the generic things. But if you have a comment particularly on that point, Councillor Richard Jones, then I will take that. But I'm going to take Jacqueline Guess first, if that's okay. And I'll come back to you. So Jacqueline, Jacqui Guess, have you got a point about that? Yeah, it's just in relation to adding something in relation to sexualised language. Whereas I would be probably quite happy for something to go in, I just despair if we have to spell that out as wrong behaviour. And I just think where do you draw the line, then it will end up with a big list. That was my only sort of comments. Thank you for that. And I will come back to you for more comments later on the other things as well. So Councillor Richard Jones, I will bring you in but only on that particular point. If there's anything else, I'll come back to you later if that's okay. Thank you, Cher. Yeah, I think Gareth used the words self-evident. And I think that's an important thing to remember. The only thing I would mention is the seven principles of public life, the Nolan principles, actually. If you look at those, there's no scope for this type of behaviour. And so if we limited ourselves, if you like, and I think we probably do in the Code of Conduct, to those Nolan principles, actually, you know just from what is said within those principles, which are across nationally, locally, we don't need to reinvent those. They're already things that you would work by and understand completely. So yeah, I've got lots more comments, to be honest. But on that particular issue, I don't think there's a change needed. I think it's self-evident. And I think the Nolan principles are known by most of us, we understand. And I'll try to read them out, because probably everybody doesn't know them. So I just read out the seven principles, not all the actual type, but you know, the headings, selflessness, integrity. So selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. And, you know, everything that is wrong to do, if you like, which is bad behaviour, would fall outside of those things. I don't think there's a need to put anything particular in the Code of Conduct. I think that those principles actually describe generally what is expected of us in public life. Thank you. Thank you for that. And thanks for giving us that reminder of what those principles are. Has anybody else got any comments, particularly on that particular point that we're talking about? Councillor Hodge. Thanks Chair. If we refer back to the Flincher standard, it says not to use indecent language or make discriminatory remarks or remarks which prejudice any section of society. I think it's quite a broad comment to make in the flincher standard, and I think it covers all realms of what we would consider appropriate and decent conversation. So I would be very much against trying to specify one particular item or type of language which may actually lead us to actually missing something that is equally important in the future. I think we need a broad base of what is decent and what is inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you for that opinion. Thank you very much. Can I bring David Davis in now, please? Yes, thank you, Chair. Having listened to my fellow panel members, I fully concur with them. Had we not read this report, I would never have dreamt of suggesting such an inclusion, but I can see the views, and yes, I'm more than content to make no reference to it in the code of conduct. Thank you very much. Thanks for that. Has anybody got any differing view to that, or is that the feel for this? So nobody's got, right, okay. So going on then, any more points that anybody wants to bring up in relation to what we've been talking to? So I haven't heard, I've heard from Jill David and Anthony, sorry, Councillor Wran. So I'm going to go round to find out, can I bring in maybe some, Theresa Carbery, Councillor Carbery? Not just at that point now, just generically about what we're discussing and your views on it, really, please. Okay, thank you, Chair. I actually agree with the comments that are being made, but I do have a concern, and it's one that I had in teaching. If Councillor Attridge wanted to meet an officer for the purposes of carrying out his duties as a Councillor, that person that he wants to meet might feel a bit anxious about that meeting. So are we going to put in anything that's going to instil a little bit, perhaps, of confidence or a way about such a meeting? For instance, as a teacher, if I had a child in detention, I would make sure that the door was open and that I could be seen and that the child could be seen and that, you know, there were teachers in the corridor, etc. Those of you that were in teaching would probably understand what I mean. So I just wondered about that, really, that was a concern I had. Can I turn that to Marshal Officer Gareth Owens for thoughts, please? Thank you, Chair. That, I think, would be something that we'd encompass in points three and four on the top of page 30 in terms of support for officers. I mean, one of the things in relation to this, of course, Chair, is that this issue is live now because the hearing took place at the end of April. The actions to which it relates took place in 2022. And so myself, the housing officer concerned, have had to deal with Councillor Attridge for the last two years. Clearly, we, you know, we weren't able to share this with members. The process is confidential. We have managed the last two years in the knowledge that this was going on in the background, and we've had to get through that period. There have been difficult periods during there, it must be said. I knew the committee members have attended meetings at the County Council where they have seen and expressed concerns about behaviours, haven't they, without knowing the background. And possibly this might put some of those concerns into context now, should we say, in terms of the behaviours that have been witnessed. But yeah, I think as part of having conversations with officers who might be affected, we'd say to them a lot, you know, if you've got any concerns about face to face meeting with the individual, then raise them, attend the meeting with a colleague. You don't have to attend the meeting on your own. There might be other suggestions that come forward by having a conversation with you, with people rather than saying, this is what we're going to do. You have a conversation with people and say, well, these were the things we thought we'd do. Do you have any suggestions about what else might be done as well, in order to help? So because Councillor Attridge comes back, he has to be, you know, as officers, we will deal with him, we will have to deal with him. He's an elected member, and we are there to serve elected members. So there can't be any suggestion that people might refuse to meet with him, for example. But if somebody said, well, look, I don't feel comfortable meeting with him on my own. I think it would be appropriate to say fine, he'd take somebody else along with you. Thank you. I'm going to bring Councillor Calbrey back in. Is it on that point, Councillor Calbrey, to be back on that point? Yeah, thank you, Chad. And it safeguards both parties. I think that's all I was trying to say. It safeguards the employee and the member. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. Now, just to double check, Councillor Richard Jones was next, but is it just on that point, Councillor Richard Jones? It is, yeah. Yeah, do you want to come in then? Yeah, actually, just by what Councillor Calbrey said, and she's quite right, the member and the officer. But what I don't want to find is that other officers, perhaps female officers, decide that when they're dealing with a male member, they do not want to meet them on their own. I don't want to be tainted by that action. And I'm sure we're all going to say the same thing because my behavioural standards are perhaps not the same as, well, I hope not the same as Councillor Atty's. I don't want to be treated like that because I would never do that. So if it's, as Councillor Calbrey said, that that member would be treated in that way, that's something which would have to be said. But I don't think it's right that all members should be treated in that way. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that viewpoint. Can I defer back to the monitoring officer on that point as well because it's a valid opinion, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. All members should not be tied with the same brush. And I know that that's part of the concern that members have in terms of the potential impact of the decision, which is that it potentially will make their roles much more difficult because of the way that this case might be seen to undermine trust in the role of Councillor generally. A Councillor said to me, you know, he, he was representing somebody, he managed to find, he was representing somebody who was homeless, they were originally going to be placed outside of the county, he managed to get that person placed within the county so that they didn't lose connection with friends and support networks and all the rest of them. If he's not able to do that for the next person, will that next person turn round to him and say, what do I have to do to get treated the same way as that person do I have to offer to see you in order to get the same treatment as that person. And that was the concern that was expressed. And it's you, that's the difficulty, isn't it the impact of the ripple effect, I suppose you might call it about how people might respond to other Councillors believing that other Councillors will act the same way as happened on this occasion. Thank you. Is that a legacy Councillor Jones, Richard Jones? Or did you want to come back on that just that point? It is a legacy hand, but I think it's a real concern for members generally. And to be honest Gareth has I think adequately explained it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Ian Hodge, can I bring you in? You're just on mute at the moment, Councillor Hodge. With regards to the interaction between Councillor Atheridge and members and officers, especially female officers that may have concerns, I think the discussion with Councillor Atheridge about his behaviour being wrong, I think it should be with an independent person not attached to the Council, but with the ability to actually get Councillor Atheridge to respond to them, to respect them and to listen to where he's gone wrong. But I think also, it should be emphasised to Councillor Atheridge that because of his behaviour then how he is allowed to interact with officers and other Councillors and the public may be somewhat restricted or conditioned so that whoever he's speaking to does feel safe, doesn't feel in any way intimidated and also point out that it's actually for his benefit because it actually safeguards himself as well. And if that's used with Councillor Atheridge then perhaps we might be able to have a system where he doesn't meet people on his own, there's somebody else there or an open door policy, he accepts that it's for him as well as for whoever he's talking to. Thank you. Thank you for that opinion. Again, can I go back to the monitoring officer and just ask the question then, you did emphasise at the beginning, whatever happens, you can't impede his ability to act as a Councillor. So do you want to just comment on that particular position and thought? I don't think anything suggested by the committee so far would impede you, his ability. Having somebody independent talk to him, said previously, good idea. I think it's somebody who might be able to do that. Councillor Atheridge himself expressed and there are numerous references to it within the decision report, how he feels about his own behaviour. And so when I said that there needs to be a conversation, I did say that you that needs to be cognisant of his own statements of remorse. But yes, he has to be whilst we will deal with him, and we have to deal with him in a way that enables him to fulfil his functions as a Councillor. That doesn't mean to say that things will be the same as they were before. Those actions, this finding has consequences. And things can't be the same as they were previously, because people feel differently about him as an individual and about what he has done. It's possible that he himself feels differently about himself as an individual and what he has done. One can see suggestions that that might be the case from the decision, but I don't know, I haven't spoken to him. And I've had an email exchange from him, but I haven't actually spoken to him, you know, conversed with him face to face or via teams or over the telephone. So yeah, you know, this act, this finding changes things. In some respects, he will be able to fulfil his functions. And we will make sure that he's capable of fulfilling his functions, but it won't necessarily look or feel exactly as it did previously. Can I just check committee wise, are people comfortable with those sort of areas being put in to any training or feedback or, I was going to say mediation, but it isn't mediation, isn't it? That conversation with Councillor Hodge, are people comfortable with those sorts of areas that Councillor Hodge has outlined? Can I just see a show of hands for people who feel comfortable with those sorts of areas? Okay, I have got, yeah, okay, so that's right, practically right across. I've got, on this point now, I've got Councillor Bateman and then Jacqueline Guest, but Councillor Bateman, is it just on this specific point? Yes, it is, Chair. Do come in. It's very kind of you allowing me to speak. Thank you. Like most members, very, very distressed about Mr Attridge and what he's been found to have been doing. I would just hate for it to reflect on the officer member interaction in the future. I think that Councillor Attridge should be given particular training, but I just, I feel very upset the fact that we are being tarred with his brush. And that's what really upsets me. And I think he should be, yes, given particular training himself on how to behave. Thank you. Thank you very much for that viewpoint. I don't know if the monitoring officer, Gareth, do you want to come in first or make any comment about that point that's been emphasised by Councillor Bateman? I think there's a couple of things, Chair. We recently had training delivered by Anna Morgan to all Councillors. That is not in response to these findings. I was talking to Anna before Christmas, following an ethical liaison meeting, I think probably last June, where we agreed that that training would take place. So it's taken a long time to arrange and to put into place. And the fact that it materialised two or three weeks after the finding is coincidental, rather than deliberate or by design. I think probably some assurance for Councillor Bateman is that, as officers, as I said, we've known about this for the last two years. And over those last two years, I hope Marianne would not have seen any difference in the way that she is treated within the organisation and other members themselves would not have seen any difference. They might not have understood some of the tensions with Councillor Attridge. But hopefully they would not have seen any difference themselves in the way that they were treated. But I think it's probably an important message to stress as part of the conversation with people. As well as saying to employees, look, these are the processes that are open to you if people are speaking to you inappropriately. It is too important to remind them that certainly the sexualised behaviour was an extreme rarity. I need to be very careful with this. I try to say it within the report, allegations of bullying are to some extent more frequent because members will and rightly will push officers and will challenge officers. It's part of the role of members to challenge officers. And in a difficult situation where members are challenging officers, that can sometimes be perceived as bullying when it's not. So the accusations around bullying towards the housing manager, towards myself, they are more common, not because members bully officers necessarily. Well, sometimes that happens and we have the local resolution process for dealing with that. But simply because that's the nature of sometimes that is the nature and the requirement on members to challenge and to push on behalf of their residents. So it is, if in this context, if one can forgive the phrase, almost an occupational hazard, it's something that we have to manage to make sure that, you know, things don't get out of hand, don't get perceived as getting out of hand, and we have escalation procedures for dealing with that. And we are very good at managing that because it's something we do on a daily basis. The sexualized stuff is different. And that is particularly unwelcome sexual advances, advances of this nature of are different, they're extremely rare. And it would be worth reminding officers of that, as well as reminding officers that members are entitled to push, you know, it's members jobs to challenge officers. We have done some training and some skills training for members about good ways of doing that. And about challenging on the issues rather than you know, what how did Anna put it? Anna put it playing the ball rather than playing the man or playing the person, you know, tacky tackle the ball, you tackle the issue rather than tackling the person. And you know, but yeah, you know, from time to time off as members can push because members are obliged to push their role. Thank you. Thank you. But yeah, we have to we have to remind them about that. And in the way that we've talked about, we've talked about code, haven't we? And whether we need to make a change to the code, and the committee has come to the conclusion that it doesn't need to make a change to the code because you that it should be self evident that you don't need to put something in there. In a similar way, when it comes to new officers dealing with members and members dealing with officers, it's important not to have a knee jerk reaction, so to speak. Yes, these actions were, were wrong. You know, you can counter the ratchet, I think says he's revolts by his own behavior, you a number of people are revolts by the behavior on this, it's important not to then go too far the other way. And certainly not as can you know, as as number of counselors have said to tar everybody with the same brush in relation to this because it is rare. I will be on you. It is rare, you know, we had a couple of the four counselors who've gone to the adjudication panel, it is unfortunate that two have gone because of sexualized behaviors. But let's not forget in relation to counselor shot and then we were talking about that consensual extramarital affair between an amendment and his BA, you know, that is wholly different to the circumstances here. You know, they were they were very close, they knew one another, you know, they've known one another for years, extreme, completely different circumstances to this. And if one looks at, if one therefore were just to look at the APW hearings, one would get a very false impression of what relationships between counselors and officers mean, because, you know, as, as, as counselors and officers, we have professional working relationships with, you know, 67 counselors at the moment, previously 70 counselors on a daily basis, you know, there are hundreds, thousands of interactions every year, that are perfectly normal, appropriate, decent, friendly, professional interactions between officers and members. And these are unusual in in those many, many hundreds of interactions that take place. Thank you for that. Councillor Bateman, because it was your point, do you want to come back in on that point? Thank you very much. What most of we counselors can't understand, Gareth has brought up Councillor Schotten and his affair with his PA. But he was his penalty, shall we say, was far more strict than Councillor Attridge's. And that's what we cannot get our heads around as members. But you don't have the answer to that, but I just thought I would put that in. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, for those who aren't aware, Councillor Attridge, sorry, Councillor Schotten, had a consensual extramarital affair, non-physical, it was sexualized texts. With his PA, he was suspended for three months. So for those that don't, aren't aware, you that's the background. Some members have been around long enough to know that that that's the comparison and that's the comparison that Councillor Bateman is drawing, you know, the the penalties are not dissimilar in terms of length. They were both suspensions. And yeah, I think it comes down to the information that we haven't seen in the mitigate and probably the medical mitigation that we haven't seen in detail. But that might be a point if I know, Chair, you wanted to talk about in perhaps feedback to the APW. That might be a point to make in terms of public perception for this is perplexed, is that people are perplexed by two such different cases might would appear to have very similar levels of sanction. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bateman, to bring that up. And thanks for the explanation. I've got Jacqueline Guest with a hand up. Is this the same point or are we are we moving on to more discussion about various things now? Because I do want to go around everybody and get viewpoints, any viewpoints, you know, not necessarily about the same item, but do speak on the same area if that's what you want to do. Okay, so it's kind of touching on the same point. So it's in relation to I understand that he sent written apologies to the people affected. But I think this goes much deeper, because now we're looking at reputational damage, aren't we? And we're looking at how members now are feeling. And it's the impact that his actions have had on other members now. And I'm just wondering, is there anything we could do when whoever is has the conversation brings up the reputational damage and the impact that his behaviour has now had on other members and how will the members are now feeling about being potentially tarred with the same brush? Thank you. Thank you for bringing up that really relevant point. Can I again, can I hand over to the monitoring officer with that, in terms of that being part of potentially being part of that conversation, that independent person, that independent mediator who's going to have that discussion and make sure that the various areas are covered? Yeah, yeah, certainly a good point for inclusion. Whoever has that conversation would be well served by watching this committee meeting chair. That would be a really useful suggestion, I feel. Do other people agree with that? Then they'd get a good feel. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'm getting a feel that people feel that would be a really good suggestion. Thank you for that. Yeah, we can, obviously, I'll summarise and include it. But yeah, I'd suggest that they watch this conversation so that they can see and hear people's views and see how people feel. Okay, thank you for that. So I'm going to just finish going around to make sure I'm picking points now, not necessarily about that point, but generally points coming back from what you've seen, heard, your thoughts, what you've read, any comments you want to make. I'm going to go to Mark Morgan now because we haven't heard from you, Mark, your viewpoints on this particular item. Thank you, chair. My viewpoints are many. First of all, recognising what's already been raised about 1.08 about us not having any powers to alter the decision. However, I think Gareth just mentioned that we can give feedback. I personally think that's something we should do because I think the strength of feeling is such that we were obliged to. Certainly when I went to meetings over the last two or three weeks, those training meetings that we've been to, the strength of feeling has been very strong in that this is way, way too lenient a sanction. It's certainly something that I could go with and I do think we should give that feedback if the opportunity rises. In terms of 1.09, the recommendations, I think we've covered it all. I don't agree that it needs a separate injunction. I think it is self-evident and I agree with the other four points that were in there. It's just been mentioned about reputational risk. I wondered whether or not that should be added in at point four in terms of I think future reputational risk to FCC is possible both in terms of the community feelings when the council returns to Israel but also the more wider impacts that we've just been discussing over the last half hour or so. I do think the reputational risk is massive moving forward and to that end and I'll sort of summarise and then ask for responses. I do wonder when does his term of council come to an end because I think it was mentioned earlier about people post the findings, there's been consequences in terms of people feel differently. I've got a personal view that he potentially won't be a councillor when the re-election comes around. I've got some concerns, I absolutely see why it has been mentioned about having third parties at meetings etc in terms of safeguarding, but clearly with that comes some concerns for me around how efficient is that to do it, you know, efficiency in role, doubling up on people going to meetings whilst it's absolutely necessary, you know, in times of austerity I just don't know how viable it is and I think again that could influence people's thinkings come future elections etc. Let me see what else I had here, perhaps this is me going off on a tangent but whilst I've heard a lot of adverse concerns around the finding a couple of people have also mentioned sort of community feelings and I just wondered if there's something out there that I'm not cited on with community feelings being so high that threat management is required from the local police. I do know that police have been involved in a couple of years ago but if I think back to my previous roles whilst in another county this sort of thing would have led to a threat management because someone desirable would perhaps decide to take actions upon themselves around people with such findings. That's me in a nutshell, lots to think about there potentially, as I say perhaps I'm going off on a tangent on a couple of things but I thought I'd mention them. Thank you chair. Thank you, thank you very much for that and I am going to refer back to the monitoring officer in a moment but one of the things that I've just picked out that you've said about the disquiet in terms of the sanction if you like and that feeling has been coming from all sorts of angles this evening and I can check with the monitoring officer but I do believe we could write to the adjudication panel for Wales. I do know that the, I think they call it a president of the adjudication panel for Wales, is actually finishing in their post and a new president is coming in so whether that any correspondence would need to go to both of them or whether there would be that conversation but if we were to write to the adjudication panel for Wales to express feelings on behalf of a number of areas where we've been getting that feedback, is that something this committee would be minded to do? Could I have a show of hands to see if that's something this committee would be minded to do? Okay, I'm seeing everybody. Councillor Bateman and Councillor Jones, are you minded that, show me your hands, that we would write to the adjudication panel of Wales to express on behalf of a number of people including the standards committee our disquiet notwithstanding the fact of course we have no power to have anything change, that decision has been made, that sanction is there but what we can do as a committee is actually write and express quite clearly the areas and what the outcome meanings or what the impacts really are of that sanction. So Councillor Bateman, are you happy for that? And I just had a rider there, Chair. I've not seen the full report. I'm going on the summary and everything that I've picked up and with respect to that I'm in full agreement but I haven't read the full report that the adjudication panel have seen so I can't really, I'm trying to be even handed here so I always do try to be, I can't really be so assertive with not knowing the full truth. And there's a lot of information that we will never know and that's confidential information that only that adjudication panel will have. We've got the amount of information that's been released that we're allowed to have access to and that is available. And Councillor Jones, do you want to? Thank you for that, Councillor Bateman. Councillor Jones, on that point, did you want to make a comment? Yeah, if you want to talk about the leniency as a particular point, I'd like to make some comments on that if I may. The effect, because my view is this, it has done us a disservice and I don't think they realise that. When the majority of people think a sanction is too light, it's too light, we know that. It's not something which is perceived by a few, it's perceived by most if not all. So we know it's the wrong decision even though we can't change it. And that has a problem, that's a problem for us. This is the reason we're having this meeting because if Councillor Attridge had been sanctioned over six months, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And this also sets precedent for the future. Remember, these things are, Gareth already mentioned and the comparison made to Councillor Shotton and others, I can think of Councillor Heesom who did a lot less and had got a massive sanction in comparison and people will question those things when they look at those things in comparison. So just thinking about those sanctions of recent cases, they're just not equitable. The sanction doesn't help us because actually it doesn't protect us any more. I felt more protected before this, I feel less protected now because I've got to start thinking about what I do, I've got to change my behaviour potentially. It really does affect us. And if he had been sanctioned over six months, I wouldn't have had to be making any changes in the way I think about these things. So you know, there's, and even, I don't know, Morgan will know and Gareth Owens will know because they were at the meeting I was at with this behavioural standards meeting, I was asked to create a part of a film, which I did. I was filmed and I gave my view on behavioural standards. But after this sanction was given, after this sanction was given, I declined to include my film and my reasons were as follows, because the standards that I portrayed were not the standard, were not upheld by that committee, by the adjudication committee. So I felt it was, the sanction that was given was far less than it should have been. And therefore my, if you like, my view on the behavioural standards in public life are too high, if that's the case, because, and I know that's not true, I know we all have high standards, but because the sanction was so low, it gave me the impression, well, you know, if that's the, if that's a four month sanction, which is worth about 5,000 quid for what he's done, what does that mean, what does that tell other people? It doesn't send out the right signal in itself. So I declined to include my film because it was almost contrary to the sanction that was provided. So my view is that it's far too lenient, I know others will have the same view, but those are my reasons and I just think it did us no service at all, it was really counterproductive and I hope that you would include some of those comments that I've made. Thank you, thank you very much for that opinion. So I asked whether people were comfortable with us contacting or writing something to the adjudication panel for Wales and I've got agreement from the group. And so I'm going to propose that we ask the Monition Office of Garathons to draw something together from the comments and feelings that we've got and that Mark, Morgan and myself will look at that and work with that on the final draft to be sent, are you comfortable with that? Garathons, Monition Office, do you want to come back to me? A couple of things, yes, comfortable to write the letter, expressing the views. I think I need to understand a little more if I might, the way in which this decision fails to protect councillors is the point that Councillor Jones is trying to make their chair that because the sanction is perceived as lenient, it is seen that councillors are not properly regulated, if that's the right phrase, and therefore councillors are not to be trusted, because they can get in quotes, get away with anything or get away with things without there being any meaningful sanction. And that then undermines people's trust in the process and in the system of elected representatives, because there is no proper sanction, quotes proper sanction for wrongdoing or misbehaviour. Does that, Councillor Jones, does that outline the way you were thinking and the feeling you were feeling? Yes, because, in fact, I've got the words that I was thinking when I got invited to that film, that production, if they were making a film, the top word I've got here I can show you is trust. So I put that down as that's the main, that's it, that's the main thing, I mean, you know, in public life, if you haven't got that, you may as well forget it, because every word you speak means nothing. So I just put, you know, my words were as follows, as a public servant, I'm accountable to the taxpayer within a political debate, I recognise we can have different views, but I believe we try our best for our communities. It was a lot of blah, don't get me wrong, but it's all about trust, and I, it's actually undermined, it's undermined our position, and if the sanction had been heavy, very heavy, it would have sent out a signal to both the people who watch us, the people who look at us, people who, you know, look up to us, if you like, or should do, that would have sent a message to them, but it also would have sent a message to people, councillors, to know where they stand. When you make a sanction so light, for whatever reason, and I'm only going to make an assumption that whatever mitigation he offered in his medical rebuttal, I suppose you could say, must have been so weighty against this, you know, we'll never know, because we're not allowed to know, but because they put so much weight on that medical mitigation, you can imagine what the general public will say, oh, you know, everybody can have a mental health issue and they get away with murder, that's the kind of attitude they're going to have. If they had done the right thing, and done the proper thing, and done what seemed to be the appropriate thing, it would have put us in a better position, so Gareth Wright, I'm probably expanding on it, but that's the way I feel, it's just, you know, I'll consider, I'll consider at the end of this term, I'm going to consider whether I stand again based upon that sanction. That's a fact. Thank you. Thank you for being open about that. Thank you very much. Can I just check with people then that the committee, are you comfortable with the suggestion that we get the monitoring officer to put together something which Mark Morgan and myself will look at with the monitoring officer to send to the adjudication panel for Wales, the outgoing and incoming president, to express some of the feelings that we've collected, that we've expressed, that other people have expressed, around this particular case and sanction, notwithstanding the fact, of course, that we don't know about the other background mitigating circumstance, et cetera. So can I have a show of hands if you're comfortable with that particular methodology? Yeah, okay, Jack. Yeah, okay, so we have a full show of hands there. So if that's, Councillor Hodge, did you want to come in on that point? Sorry about that, I keep going through it. I didn't know Councillor Hodge before the '22 election and I'm new to it and I don't, didn't really get to know him while he was still here, but looking at, I'm very confused as a lay person, maybe it's just me, but part of his mitigation is the fact he was on undergoing mental problems and being treated for mental health from '22, '21, '22, '23, but he still stood for a county council, still acted as a county councillor for up until his suspension, and the people that are putting so much weight on his mental state didn't advise him to perhaps stand down or mitigate what he was doing. I don't understand how such much force has been put on his mental state when the people treating him allowed him to continue as a councillor for 18 months, two years, and it just, the situation just confuses me, chair, and taking that confusion into account. I must admit I feel four months was too lenient and I think that some questions need to be asked about what was his mental state, if he was being treated, and why was he continuing as a councillor. That was his choice, but he was obviously continuing while he knew he had problems and I don't, I find that unforgivable if, as he states, I want to improve people's lives. Thank you, thank you for that opinion. Can I pass over to Gareth Evans, Monitoring Officer, for any comment? Thank you. Thank you, chair. Councillor Bateman and a number of others have rightly made the point about the fact we're not privy to everything that the case tribunal knew. I think perhaps, and that is then manifesting in the sort of confusion or the inability to understand that Councillor Rogers just mentioned, you know, why did apparently serious actions receive such a seemingly lenient sanction? And that, I think, is perhaps an area where legitimately the committee can comment or make a recommendation back to the panel, or tribunal as it were, to say, well, look, if you've got a situation where you've got what are seemingly serious breaches of the code, you know, reflect on how the public will perceive the sanction, which, you know, it's up to them to impose if they think that's the right sanction, they had all the facts, they think that's the right sanction. But then explain that a little and recognise that there is an apparent disparity between the behaviours and the sanction. And without going into details, explain why they're imposing the sanction that they do, and say, well, look, you know, we recognise that people might be appalled or revolts or whatever the word they want to use by these actions. We've seen things we can't share with you. And taking those into account, we believe that they do, you know, mitigate to some extent, the level of sanction that should be imposed. They kind of done it, but I, you know, they don't really go far enough, do they within the report as it stands, because so many people are struggling to understand, you know, how how x plus y equals four months suspension. In this instance, and that, I think is the difficulty, isn't it? There's a failure to, there's a real failure to explain. It leads to, it leads to perceptions that there's been a failure to understand. You because clearly, you know, members are here saying, they fail to understand the impact those actions and this, this finding have on officers, on the individual, on other members, and their and on the reputation of the organisation, and on the trust in the system of councillors as elected representatives, councillors who, let's face it, for many years have treated and helped the most vulnerable people and who are relied on to help people when they're in really dire circumstances the last year. And they, the vast majority of councillors do that, you know, at their own, you know, at the expense of their own time of their own well being, you know, councillors get really distressed on behalf of their residents witnessing the distress of others. And yeah, that's been, that's seemingly been cut across with no recognition. And that's the trouble. It doesn't really, the explanation doesn't really go far enough as to why that should be the case. And that might be a recommendation for them and a legitimate area for you to comment, you know, bearing in mind that we can't, it's their decision, we can't change what they've done. But actually, we can say to them, well, please, next time, do it slightly differently. Councillor Hodge, does that help with your particular comment? Yes, yes, yes, it does, Chair. He was under treatment for so long, and yet was, by his own admission, continued to be the leader of a committee, be a prominent member of this council, and never for one minute, thought about the impact he was having on the council and on the residents and on the officers. And I think that should be part of the decision of the panel. And I don't think that was taken into account whatsoever. So yeah, I fully follow what Gareth has said and fully support him in. It is something that perhaps this committee can feed back to the panel. Okay, thank you very much. I'm very aware that we spent a long time on this item, but this item needed that time, and I've not tried to curtail any of the discussion or the debate or the conclusions, etc. But I'm going to be drawing it to a close soon. I just wanted to, first of all, go to, oh, she's moved on my screen. Councillor Griffiths, just to check, because I did say I would come back, are there any other points that you wanted to make generally about everything in the paper, or do you feel that everything's been covered that you would have said? I think we've covered everything with all of us and the discussion that's taken place. I think we're all of the same mind that there needs to be further discussion as to the situation that everybody is in, and how councillors that are working with him are going to feel, because I think the feeling has changed. And I think the fact that if we can write and express the feelings of our committee, although we know we can't change the decision, that something else needs to be done to ensure that this sort of situation doesn't arrive in any other council. You know, I think you hear members of the public saying, have you heard about that, Bernie Attridge? So it's a topic of conversation that is bringing the flincher into disrepute. And I think that is a situation in its own right, and needs to be dealt with. But apart from that, I'm just happy with the conversation that we've had tonight. Thank you, thank you very much for that. So what I'm going to do now is just take any urgent things we haven't covered from anybody before we, I'll go back to the monitoring officer to have an overview of the things that we've agreed that we're going to do and go to the recommendations. And I can see Councillor Richard Jones with his hand up. So is there something different that we haven't covered that you would want to contribute, Councillor Jones? There is a question. Well, both questions, I suppose. Could we ask Bernie Attridge whether he's willing to stand down, knowing the problems that he's created, even though the it was very lenient, as far as the adjudication panel goes, maybe he feels maybe we could ask him that question. I'm not sure how he'd respond. Well, I'm pretty sure he would respond, but it's something you might want to think about. And this is a question for Gareth. When the adjudication panel makes its decision, do they consult with the Minister before they give their decision or after? Thank you for the questions. I'll hand over to Gareth Owens. In relation to that question, Chair, I don't think they consult the Minister at all. The adjudication panel is a is what's called the first tier tribunal. It is a course. It is a specialist course, hence the name tribunal. It is independent of the government in that respect. Whilst all courts are run and administered by either the Welsh government or His Majesty's government in the UK, they are functionally independent. The judiciary themselves are functionally independent. And but certainly something, Chair, you are meeting both the outgoing and the incoming adjudication panel president on the 28th, I think is this month that the forum and it's certainly and I know that's, you know, items for that meeting are the urgent issue that you wanted to take at the end of the agenda. That's certainly a question you could ask at that, at that forum. I would expect that answer. I would expect that answer. But you can ask, you could ask, you could ask her directly. Certainly, you know, if people have minded me to do that, I certainly will. How do people feel about that? I've got one hand up. I've got thumbs up. Yes, majority. Yeah, okay. I'll have to, I'll liaise with Gareth to make sure I've got the correct form of words that we want to put forward or how we want to phrase it to make sure we get the most impact. And it was something, sorry, sorry, Chair. It's okay. Go for it. It's all right. Yeah, it was something that Mark said in relation to the doubling up of officers. And Gareth said that it wouldn't affect how the duties of the Councillor would go forward. He would be treated, if you like, as others. But that's not the case, is it? Because you haven't had two officers, it's actually a difference in the treatment of that person. And there's a cost involved. If I go to an officer and I ask them a question, it takes an hour for us to have this conversation, there's a cost. But if there's two officers, there's double the cost, potentially. And so it's not the same. And that's something which we should remember that locally as well. And this is another cause of the lesser sanction, which we're having to shoulder. So all these things, when I said it doesn't help us, leaves us unprotected, all these things together, if the right decision had been made, we would have made our life, if you like, our life and our decision making easier, and it's going to make it more difficult in the future. Thank you, thank you for that. Gareth, I don't think I've missed it, but I don't think you answered Richard's first question, which was a potential question about Councillors being asked to stand down, unless I missed it, sorry. I didn't pick up that point or respond to that point, chair. I'll pick that up and I'll pick up just a slight issue about the final comments as well. I know that that conversation has already taken place with Councillor Attridge in another council. And I have been told informally of what the response was. And he was quite a strong rebuttal from Councillor Attridge in relation to the suggestion. It took place at Connors Quay Town Council. Obviously, you can't force Councillor Attridge to stand down. If the committee wanted to ask him to do so, then it could. I would expect the same response that was received at Connors Quay Town Council. And if I can just say in case it was misunderstood, an earlier point I made was misunderstood. Councillor Attridge still needs to be able to fulfill his role. And what I said was we won't impose any limitations on his ability to fulfill his role because that would actually be a disservice to his residence. If we prevent him from fulfilling his role, what we're actually doing is limiting his ability to help his residents. That is not to say that, and I think I did make this comment, that things will be the same as they were previously. This decision changes things, it would change attitudes towards him. I wouldn't expect large numbers of people to be doubling up in meetings with Councillor Attridge. I don't think that many people have face-to-face meetings with Councillor Attridge. A lot of his communication is by email and by text, and in that regard, I don't think people are going to double up. It's something we can offer to people if they feel particularly anxious, and it's more about supporting people who feel anxious in how they deal with, in having to deal with him than anything else. So it's about trying to support the individual officers. I totally understand Councillor Jones' point about cost. Absolutely, of course, if somebody feels anxious about meeting him, and Councillor Attridge wants to have a face-to-face meeting, then yes, we would send two people to support the person who feels anxious. And yes, that is a cost, and it's an opportunity cost, it's a resource cost to us as an organisation. That's a consequence, quite right, that's a consequence of this decision. And again, perhaps something else that does not appear to have been perceived or thought of by the case tribunal and certainly has not been expressly recognised in its decision. As I said earlier, there are a number of things that either were not understood or have not been expressed to have been understood in that decision. And if they were understood, then they could have explained that a lot better. But, you know, this decision, let's face it, Chair, the decision, you know, the case tribunal took place in the morning, the decision was with me by about eight o'clock, half past eight in the evening. You know, it was drafted very quickly in order that the sanction could be implemented quickly and so that people could understand that sanction. So there are, I think, important also to remember the context in which things occurred from the case tribunal's perspective as well. Thank you, thank you for that. I'm going to just take the very last comment from Councillor Hodge before we get the overview and the recommendations. So, Councillor Hodge, can I bring you in? Yeah, very quick one, Chair. When whoever's having this discussion with Councillor Attridge about what happened in the past, one thing that's never been highlighted, the main emphasis of his mitigation was his mental health. Are we allowed to question or ask him what that situation is now and is he still undergoing treatment when he comes back to work on the Council? Would that be an acceptable question to ask? Can I hand that one over to monitoring officer Garth Owens, please? That's a very good question. In other words, that's a really difficult question to answer. Cool. I can see the rationale. Yeah. And I can see and understand in terms of trying to be concerned for the health, safety and wellbeing of officers, how that is a legitimate question. BIAC, it's going to be a difficult one to do well. And in a way, that isn't seen as being punitive, perhaps of somebody with problems. Because of course, we don't tend to ask other Councillors, Good morning, Councillor, how is your mental health today? Are you going to threaten me? So, yeah, you know, I can understand where the question comes from chair. And it's certainly something I am happy to put to the external person and say to them a lot, you know, and invite their help and assistance with how we might manage that and to talk to others about how we might achieve that as an outcome to ensure that the health, safety and wellbeing of officers and indeed, perhaps other members is protected. It's not this isn't just, you know, we've talked about officers because officers were the people who were bullied on this occasion, or he was found to have bullied on this occasion. Clearly, this has an impact well beyond just the officer cadre. It affects members as well. And as I've said, I have been, I have been asked, although I haven't arranged the time, I have been asked to go to the independent group and speak to members of the group at a group meeting about, about how they feel and about what they want to do or achieve. Thank you. Thank you for that. I did say the last point, but Mark, Mark, you have got your hand up. Is it related to this point? Yeah, just in case it helps. You'll recall, Julia, Gareth, that some of that detail was volunteered in one of our recent meetings by Bernie. If it helps, I think you also mentioned that the person you had in mind is female. If you want something to go along, then I'm happy to bridge that gap and that would perhaps assist in what has just been raised. Thank you for that. So what I'm going to do, I'm going to turn to Gareth as monitoring officer, just to give us an overview of the agreements that we've made on this particular paper this evening on this particular discussion. I'm thanking you all for your contributions because I think it's been, we've really looked at it really thoroughly and thought about it and given opinions. We've got two recommendations, but whether you want to amend that given our discussions Gareth or Admiral, can I ask you to give us an overview of what we've agreed and what the recommendations would be? Okay, so the first resolution of the committee would be that the Code, notwithstanding the actions of Councillor Attridge, the Code and the Flintshire Standard do not need further amendment. In relation to? Because the behaviours for which he has been sanctioned are self-evidently wrong and inappropriate. Should we vote on each one as they go through, as you say them? Would that help? You can do, Chair. It will need somebody to move and second that, of course, Chair, if we would perform a process. Would somebody like to move that one, Councillor Hodge, and a seconder? Sorry, Jacqueline Guest. Thank you. And can I have a vote on that one, then, please? Okay, thank you. That one's carried. Thank you very much. The second thing is that as the Monitoring Officer, I am to talk to officers. And as I outlined in points, I think it was three and four in the report, sorry, my screen savers just come off at the most inappropriate moment. But also, in doing so, and this was a point in response to, or was an addition in response to a point made by Councillor Bateman, is that in doing so, the Monitoring Officer reminds officers that the behaviours exhibited are more unusual and that there are many perfectly appropriate interactions between officers and members on a daily basis. So we have it in context. Okay, so can I have somebody to move that particular one, then? Thank you, Councillor Wren. And a seconder, David Davies. Can I see a show of hands if people are in agreement, please? Yeah, thank you. Thank you. That one's carried then. Okay. And the third recommendation is that there be training on safeguarding practice for Councillor Attridge. And then a fourth recommendation would be that the Council engages an independent person to talk with Councillor Attridge about how his behaviour was wrong and how it should be amended in the future. So could I have somebody to move on with training for Councillor Attridge, first of all. Thank you, Councillor Calbry. Thank you, Jill Murgatroyd for seconding. And can I see a show of hands on that one, please, if people agree? Okay, that's carried then. And the fourth one, which was, remind me... The independent person talking... The independent person, which actually we moved before and we agreed it before, if that's okay. And then lastly, Chair, is, and you know, there were various points about what that person will say, which I'm not covering off in the resolutions. Lastly, Chair, there is that I draft a letter in consultation with myself and Mark is the Vice Chair to the President of the Adjudication Panel, expressing the views about the sanction, about the widely perceived view that the sanction is too lenient. The perceived impacts of the low, the perceived impact, the potential impacts of the perceived leniency of the sanction in terms of impact on council reputation, undermining trust, potentially the doubling up of officers in meetings and so on and so forth. And we've got, there was quite a long list and there were quite a list of points to be made there. And the fact that in future where they have a case like this, they should perhaps reflect on what might be an expected level of sanction. And if they are going to then impose a lower level of sanction, then people might expect as a result of the severity of the behaviours that more explanation is given, without revealing confidential details, but more explanation is given to help people to understand the reasoning of the panel or the reasoning of the case tribunal for imposing what might be a sanction that is too lenient. Thank you. So could I have somebody to move that one then, please? Thank you, Councillor Rosalind Griffiths, seconded Councillor Ian Hodge. Show of hands if you're in agreement, please. Yep, that one's carried as well then. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that concludes that item. I'm very aware that we've been going for over two hours. We still have some more things on the agenda, and we might consider those when we come back. But I am going to suggest we have a 10-minute break now. I know it's been a long meeting. If people are all right to come back at 5 to 9, please, and then we'll review what we've got left to cover to finish off the meeting. So if you'd like to take a 10-minute break now, as it's been over two hours. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Welcome back, everybody. Thank you very much for coming back promptly. We have two items now that I just want to discuss with you. Item 6, we've covered. So we're on Item 7, the review of the Member Officer Protocol and Item 8, the review of the Flinches Standard. I think it's really important just to say at the beginning that, of course, these two are quite connected at both of these things. And one of the things I was going to put to you is that, as you're aware, we just had training in connection with a number of things to do with behaviours. Part of that was with the background of the Flinches Standard, et cetera. And we would still await the feedback from that training. So I was going to put a proposal to you that maybe we should consider those two items, that any review of the Flinches Standard perhaps should be done not just by us, but it should be done jointly with councillors, maybe officers and ourselves, as a co-production rather than something that we've put in place or somebody else has put in place, so that there can be agreement using the information as well that gets fed back from the training to put that together and to look at if it needs reviewing and how it should be reviewed. I don't know, I'll just pass over to Gareth Owen's monitoring officer for that sort of -- for information on what he feels about that sort of approach, given that we've not had feedback yet, have we, from the training sessions? We haven't had the feedback from the training sessions yet to share. And those training sessions were part, as I've described, to some of the members. I didn't get to it, I wasn't able to get to every session. They are part of a series of training or developmental events, discussions that were agreed in conjunction with group leaders at ethical liaison meetings. There are some further sessions to go that would be pertinent to, or possibly pertinent, to the content of both the protocol and the flincher standard. There are other sessions as well that won't be, but there are still some that would be, including what I'm hoping to arrange, which is a conversation, a joint conversation with the WLGA, Audit Wales, members and officers present in the room together, which will clearly allow officers to express views, but also members to express views. And I know members have quite a lot of views about issues that they perceive and difficulties that they perceive in performing their functions at the moment as a consequence of not being able to get answers, always not being able to contact people. And that is going to have a big impact, potentially a big impact, particularly on the member officer protocol, where we talk about our reasonable expectations, one each from the other, whether that be members from officers or officers from members. So yeah, I think waiting until we've had those further sessions and waiting until we've had feedback from the sessions that have taken place already would be good. You will see chair also reference in item 8 on the standard, the fact that the public service ombudsman for Wales has requested from all monitoring officers a copy of their local resolution process so that they can be reviewed centrally by the PSOW, because I think they have concerns about at least one of the models, if I can put it in that way, that is in widespread use across Wales. Perhaps I need to explain that a little better. When we came to adopt the local resolution process, they were about two or three different versions that were in circulation within Wales at the time. And we adopted we adopted the one that we did because the local resident as a local resolution process, it's included both the standards of behavior that were expected and then the process for dealing with situations where people felt that they hadn't been followed. There are other models, there were other versions, but the on the ombudsman wants to see them all and wants to comment because I think they might have some concerns about at least one of those different versions. So, again, something potentially pertinent that would be worth waiting for, so that we can take it into account when we consider the flincher standard. I'm hoping that we might get some of that feedback on Friday. The ombudsman is there is a meeting of monitoring officers on Friday, the ombudsman always comes. And I think we might get that feedback then it's possible that we won't, but it won't be long chair. So I think if we waited and put those items back to a meeting in either September or November, but we put them back to September or November provided we've had those extra development sessions and feedback by then. Would be my suggestion, chair. Thank you very much. That's a proposal I was going to put forward. Would somebody move that? That's a good way forward to do that, to make sure we have all the information, those opportunities for those meetings. It's not just me that's frozen, then it's the chair, isn't it? We lost the chair, yeah. For a minute, I thought it was me. Mark. Oh, we lost, I'm conscious that we don't know how long the chair will be frozen. I appreciate that it puts you on the spot, but would you like to take up chairing the meeting whilst we see if we can resolve the IT difficulties? I'll try my best. Will somebody just drop the chair a quick text just to let her know that we're clacking on without her, please? So on that one, she was just asking for somebody to move it, which was done. And then it was for hands in terms of agreements. And I think everyone's, I saw everyone's go up, including myself. So that one's completed. Let me just get back to the agenda here. Here's me, Gareth and Mark. I've just admitted Julia again. Hopefully she's going to connect now. Chair Julia, are you with us? Nope. In that case, we will carry on. So the next one is number nine on the agenda, which is the reports from independent visits. And the first one is My Good Self, which is a brief one. So it was the 18th of January, the FCC corporate resources overview and scrutiny committee held at County Hall, chaired Councillor Woolley, three people in person, eight online, plus I worked it out at five officers' stroke democratic services. There were three guests present from Betsy Cadwalader, plus myself, expressions of interest were invited at the commencement of the meeting, none were made. And the meeting closed at 3.45. It was, as you'd expect from one of our former committee members, a very well run, very well chaired meeting. My reason for being there was highlighted at the beginning. There were two occasions during that meeting where the chair reminded a Councillor about speaking opportunities and that being attributed to questions and not opinions, effectively reminding the Councillor not to go off piste, which I thought was, you know, really good to see. In summary, there was no issues at all arising from that meeting. From my perspective, I thought it was a very well managed and chaired. So, whereas some of my other reports have been quite lengthy, that one was no concerns at all. And I'm hoping by looks of it that the chair is back. Julia? I am back. Apologies, everybody. I just dipped out there for some reason, couldn't get back in. I think you probably caught where we were up to in that I carried on in your absence and the next item is the feedback from Jill for the climate change committee. Lovely. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mark. I will hand over to Jill then, please. Sorry, chair. Just appropriate as well just to note that Councillor Jones has left the meeting. He's given his apologies. He'd attended for item six. He did ask me to pass those on and I didn't do so before we kind of got engaged in running on with the next part of the thinking. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, Jill, you're going to give your feedback. Likewise, mine's also a very short summary. I attended the climate change committee remotely. The whole meeting was conducted remotely via Zoom. And that was a couple of months ago on Tuesday, the 19th of March. It was a morning meeting at 10 o'clock. There were actually 20 people present at that meeting, 12 of whom were Councillors. The rest was a mixture of officers. There were a couple of observers, plus myself, and there were no members of the public present. The meeting took just over an hour and a half, finishing at twenty-five to twelve. Their expressions of interest were invited. It was a standing item on the agenda, item two. There were no declarations of interest made. So, there was nothing of note from that point of view. In summary, overall, it was an extremely positive and very, very well structured run meeting. It was also really helpful. The first time I've seen it, but the title of officers was provided, which was really helpful for observers such as myself and clearly other people. So, I think that was really encouraging to see. The only area for improvement is a very minor thing. It would just be helpful if there could be introductions of who everyone is at the beginning. It would just be helpful, but that was relatively minor. And as I said, no areas of concern whatsoever. It was very well run. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Can I just double check with the monitoring officer of the Garathons then how we feed back to those meetings? We have been feeding back, haven't we? Feed back to the chairs of those meetings. Yeah, just by email, chair. You know, as we've done with the town and community councils, the communication just goes out by email. I did have a question from a community counselor about whether we might give individual feedback to community councils on their specific performance. Because obviously the letters that I tend to send are very genericized. I deliberately so I have to say we've taken the policy stance at the very outset, haven't we? It wouldn't embarrass anybody. And so if there were areas for improvement, we didn't want to be naming and shaming people. We wanted to try it to be a more positive or perceived as a constructive approach. But there we are. Something perhaps to think about in terms of how, if at all, we can do that. But we have, we've agreed earlier, didn't we, that Jacqueline Guest's revisit to baggage would come to a later meeting. And I think we've postponed the roundup, haven't we? Until we've had all of the reports back. I believe we have, yes. So that might then be something that we can pick up and consider as part of the roundup, Jo. Yeah, so let's not, let's keep that thought and not forget that and discuss that when we do the roundup and talk about the reporting going forward then for when we undertake the next set of visits, if people are comfortable with that. Yeah, I've got a couple of hands up. I'll just go to Mark Morgan, first of all. Thank you, Chair, just to say that I think I was with you, Gareth, and you got that feedback about the individualised feedback. But in the same meeting, somebody else approached me and said, why were you giving individual, sorry, why give feedback to that other meeting you just mentioned? Because it then sort of identifies poor practice. So you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, you know, I think the generalised view that we've taken as a committee in providing themes is probably the way forward. Well, people can if we if we consider that when we do the roundup, Chair, and we've got both perspectives there, we can reflect on that, can't we, Chair, and allow our thoughts to mature. If we go for the July meeting, which I think was suggested, we'll have had time to think about it. Yeah, yeah, there's always two sides to it recording, aren't there? Thank you very much. And I've got Councillor Randy coming in on the visits. Yeah, just to follow up from Jill's feedback regarding officers at Zoom meetings clearly identifying themselves, Gareth Owens, Chief Officer for Governance. It just says Gareth Owens on your Zoom label. Perhaps we could do the same. It does. I'm not quite sure why, because I think it resets, it must reset itself because I've typed it in on any number of occasions. Yeah, I can do that now, Chair, I can do that myself. Thank you. It just emphasises, doesn't it, it's so easy to forget, and particularly if you're on a number of committees, and you've changed it for something else and remembering to put it back, isn't it? Noting, of course, Chair, that you have been normally in introducing me, it's Gareth Owens Monitoring Officer, Gareth Owens, Chief Officer, Governance, as you say me, but yes, we can certainly do it on screen. Thank you very much for that. So thank you very much for that feedback. I did dip out of the meeting, so I just wanted to backtrack and go back to Item 7 and 8 and ask what the conclusion was. Did we come to a conclusion for Item 7 and 8, or were we in the middle of, suggesting that we propose that we move it forward pending the feedback and the various meetings and further training? I suppose so, Chair. Lovely, thank you very much. Okay, so let's move on to Item 10 then, which is the overview of ethical complaints. You should have that on pages 85 to 98 of your pack. And what we're going to do is note the number and type of complaints, but the Gareth Owens Monitoring Officer is going to just run us through that report. And then if you have any questions or queries, then we can take those. Thank you very much. Right, a couple of points to note right at the outset, Chair. During the briefing for this, you've observed about the change in print. So I do apologise, I don't know why. The same person has prepared this document from the same base document, the same source document, which is an Excel spreadsheet in which we record all of these complaints. And for some reason, at page 94, the font goes from legible to tiny. Now, for those of us with functioning flinch laptops, which doesn't include yourself, of course, Chair, it's possible to expand the text. But yeah, apologies for that. I'm not sure quite what happened, and why it should change mid document, but it does for some reason. So thing to note about this. 16 new complaints. Now, seven or eight of those relates to one incident, a single community council, they're about the same incident, but they're about different councillors within within that meeting, they've all been logged as separate complaints. So that artificially, if that's the right way to describe it, inflates the numbers. That said, we do have a lot of complaints that are outstanding at the moment. And there are a number of complaints that are under investigation and have been for some time. So if members, I'll just exemplify this, if members go, I think it's page, page 93. Bear with me a moment, Chair, it was, it was 2023, 0537, which is, sorry, it's page 94, which is the one with the teeny tiny text on. And so members will see about towards the bottom of the page. There is there is the complaint 0532, breach of the code relating to not declaring personal interest. That comes hard on the heels of 03046, which references August 2023. Now they're both under investigation. You'll see that 6712, which is the next complaint down refers to November 2023. So you between August 23 and November 23, we've got two complaints that both which is still under investigation. Some eight months later, which is clearly going to be very difficult for the members concerned. And then you again, there's a number of other complaints that have been there are under investigation that have been outstanding for some time. And, Chair, the committee might want me to write to the Ombudsman for updates in relation to those specific cases. But again, bearing in mind, Chair, that the Ombudsman always attends the forum that you'll be attending at the end of this month. There might be a general question to be asked, Chair, about whether the recent difficulties that the Ombudsman's office has experienced as a result of the misfeasance of one of their employees, whether that's having an impact on their ability to investigate within the own their own timescales that they set. And I've seen a couple of confused faces. One a former employee since resigned was in was despite the Ombudsman's office being supposedly a politically impartial organisation, that employee was privately posting some highly politicised comments on the internet in social media, causing new also difficulties for the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office and calling into question the impartiality of the organisation. See comments in previous debates about everybody being tarred by the same brush. One rogue actor causes all sorts of reputational issues, but doesn't necessarily reflect genuine common practice within the organisation. So yes, so Chair, there might be a question to be asked there of the Ombudsman herself about whether that they are seeing impact on their turnaround times as a result. And there is one final comment for me to make, Chair, which is in relation to one of the complaints where we haven't followed our normal practice of being clear that what is described under the heading alleged breach is simply what is being reported by the complainant, rather than an assertion of the truth. And where is it? It is where we just assert or we repeat the assertion made by the complainant that a Councillor had acted in a certain way. Of course, what it should say is that it is alleged that the Councillor had acted in that way. It is under the heading alleged complaint, but the text itself should say it is alleged that the Councillor is active in that way. And I have promised the Councillor that I would at this meeting correct that, which I've done. So I'm happy to take any questions, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Can I say that I have noted the question that I can pose in the National Forum about given the recent difficulties in the Ombudsman's office, is that having an impact on their capacity and timescale to investigate complaints? And I just wanted to check that you're comfortable with me proposing that question to the Ombudsman. Can you just see a show of hands for that, please? Yeah. Okay. So I will do. I've got that meeting on the 24th of June. So has anybody got any queries, comments or questions for the monitoring officer about the schedule of complaints that we've got there? I think for me, the number, the increasing numbers is a bit disappointing really, but as was mentioned, there are some aged complaints there and it is concerning because that does put a lot of, hang on, aged complaints, but it gives a difficulty, doesn't it, for the person who's been complained about in terms of the timescales and bringing those complaints to a conclusion. So anything anybody wants to ask or comment on? No. So can we go then to the, oh, sorry. I've got somebody's hand up. Sorry. Oh, sorry, Mark. Do come in. So there's one for the monitoring officer, please. Let me find that again. Page 97, the second one, 95 at the end. Is that something that's unconnected to anything else? Is that in relation to 2023, 10251? Is that the case you're asking about? So that's the PSOW reference in the left hand, in the first column. I was just, where's the other one you've just mentioned. That was the one I was asking. Was that the one you were asking about? Let me put the question in another way, chair. Which case reference was Mark asking about 2023 07895. Ah, sorry. My mistake. I take it. That's not related to anything else that we've discussed. No, that is, that is a new complaint. And it is not previously been discussed here at all. It was something that the ombudsman notified as during April that they were going to take into investigation. Thank you. And just to confirm my sanity, I take it there's consistency in type of counsel and counselor with letters, right? So, during, during each year, we give consistent num, we give consistent numbering or lettering. So, town council one in one year will not be the same as town council one in a subsequent year. Counselor A in one year will not be the same as counselor A in a subsequent year. Okay, that helps. That's in order to genuinely anonymize these things. Because we had a situation recently where a counselor where because we published an outcome with a name, you might then have been able to pick up things. And fortunately, because we randomize, we effectively randomize it every year, you can't cross reference between years and go all that, that, that and that all relate to counselor X or counselor Y. I think that's really helpful, thank you. The process chair is that whoever gets the first complaint becomes council one and counselor A. If you then get a subsequent complaint about the same counselor, about the same council, it'll still be council one, but it'll be a complaint about counselor B, it's another counselor on that council. If you then get a different complaint about a different council, it becomes community council two, and so on and so forth. Thank you, thank you for picking that for us. That's a complaint about one individual, there's never been a complaint about that individual before. Can I just check with you of any complaints coming after this report was compiled? Is there any more? No. Okay. But we know which ones, we keep a record as to how far we get now because the Ombudsman's office, it's uncanny chair. I was writing this report some weeks ago, and they sent in two or three decisions in the space of that week. I don't know how they do it every time. Every time I sit down, I write the report, and they send one in either as I'm writing it or immediately after I've signed it off. There must be a special link. There is, must be burning chair. Thank you, thank you very much. So any more questions for the monsoon office on that? So our recommendation, which is on page 85, is that we note the number and type of complaints. So can I have someone to move that, please? Thank you, Councillor Griffiths, seconded Mike Morgan, and everybody happy with that? Thank you very much. Thank you. So we'll move on from that item then to item 11, which is the forward work programme. And you should find that on pages 99 to 104 in your pack. We've all had the opportunity to look at it. You'll note that we don't have any dates going forward from 3rd June 2024, which is today. So first of all, can I just revert to the monitoring office? Or have I got that wrong? Have we got some more somewhere that I've missed? Oh, yes, thank you. Pardon. We do. So on that list, we don't. But then we do have without dates, don't we, some months posted against meetings for the town as well. Yeah, sorry. Apologies. Yes, I had noted that before. So has anybody got any comments or queries notwithstanding the fact that we need to pop those two items that we've moved forward from today's meeting in maybe September 1st, and it might end up that they end up in November, isn't it? So that was the two items, which was the review of the member officer protocol and the review of the Plincher standard. So we do need to move those across, don't we? Can I just check, Gareth Owens, do you want to come in your hands up? Do you want to make a comment as well? Yes, thank you, Chair. So Chair, yes, we talked about moving those to September or November, depending upon the outcome. We have a couple of outstanding independent member visits to schedule. We could bring forward, we could certainly bring forward one or two or one or other of the reports scheduled for the future meetings. And you talked about wanting to just try and schedule a meeting before the recess. If you did it in July, I think the third is a Wednesday, so that would make Monday the first, but that's before the election on the Thursday. Whilst there isn't anything in the work programme that would be an electoral issue, we could go for the 8th, two of you, after the election. But to be honest, Chair, we could probably be quite safe to have a meeting on the 1st of July if you wanted to. I can't think there's much that you're going to discuss. If we look at protocols and the like, there would be an election issue for one of the National Party members at Westminster. That's the issue during the election period, isn't it? You don't debate issues that might be perceived to be supporting or undermining the manifesto promises of one of the campaigning parties. And realistically, Chair, I think the risk of that is slim. So would members be comfortable if we have a provisional meeting that was in there from before the date of the election was known for the 1st of July? Would members be comfortable with the 1st of July? Jill Mowgertroyd, do you want to come in? Thank you. Yes, it's no different to the fact we're having the meeting this evening. We're in the pre-election period at the moment. So on that basis, and given what's been explained, I would be very happy to support the date that's already provisionally in our diaries for the 1st of July. Yeah. Have I got confirmation from other people? Would you be comfortable with that? Yep. Okay. So if we could possibly arrange for that to happen then and pencil that in, that would be really good. Thank you. And that would help us to clear up business, wouldn't it, before August when we won't be meeting and then we'll be back to a schedule in September again then. And we can also clear up those visits and discuss feedback as well. That was the other thing, wasn't it? To actually just discuss how we feed back with the two viewpoints that we've had. So anything else that anybody wants to discuss about the forward work programme? Jill, do you want to come in? Is it worth adding in about the feedback from the forum chair that you're going to? Oh, the national forum? Yeah, excellent. And then adding the relevant points for the rest of the... Yeah, that could be July, because the meeting will have been in June. And even if they're a minute out, I can give you an overview of the main topics containing feedback there. Yep, I can do that. Thank you very much. Anything else anybody's thought of? Of course, if you think of something, we can be reviewing it, can't we, again in July, at our July meeting. Thank you very much. So then the extra item that I put on the agenda, which is item 12, which if you remember was about the National Standards Forum, of the people who aren't aware, the chairs of all the standards committees across Wales meet together twice a year to discuss common areas and common ground. And we have no decision-making powers. If there was anything for a decision to be made, it would come back to each individual standards committee. This next meeting's on Monday, the 24th of June, between two and 4.30. And the chairs actually agreed to extend our meeting by 30 minutes, because we're going to have guest speakers, which are Judge Claire Sharp, who's the current president of the adjudication panel for Wales. And her successor will also be joining the meeting. And it says this will be a timely opportunity as her term of office is shortly to end. And this is our last chance to benefit from her experience in the role. And also Paul Egan, the deputy CEO of One Voice Wales, that's the principal organisation for community and town councils in Wales, will also be attending. And also, they're anticipating that Michelle Morris, the public services ombudsman for Wales, will also provide an update. And the agenda will include actions brought forward from the previous meeting, as well as items from the monitoring officers governance group. And as is usual, we've been asked to put forward any ideas for the agenda. I've already asked them for an update on a review of how the chairs think the group leader's duty and the reports they're on is how it's working in practice, it would be useful to hear from other people, how it's working in other counties, and whether they've done anything differently to things that we've done. As mentioned before, it was suggested that I ask the question about the ombudsman's office and any potential delays due to the problems that they've been having. And we're aware, aren't we, we've got a number of aged cases that are on our list. Also, there might be something around the adjudication panel that we discussed earlier, but I need to agree a form of words and I'll be relating to the monitoring officer, reverting to the monitoring officer, and liaising with the vice chair just to make sure I've got the correct form of words there in terms of a question there. But is there anything else that as a committee, you'd like me to put on the agenda or questions that you'd like asked? Because this is an opportunity for us to do that. No, not seeing any, so are you comfortable with the ones that we I've mentioned so far? You're comfortable with that? Lovely. Thank you very much. So that brings us to the end of a long meeting. Can I thank you all very much for your contributions. I think we've had a very valuable meeting. We've managed to discuss quite clearly and come up with some action points going forward. And it's very much appreciated. And hopefully I'll see you all at the meeting in July if I don't see any of you before, or liaise with any of you before. Can I thank monitoring officer Gareth Owens and staff for all the reports and for the support from Maureen Potter from that particular team who keeps us online and gets us back into the meeting when we drop out. So thank you very much. Have a good evening. And thank you for all your inputs and thank you to the visitors as well, who joined into the meeting and gave us some valuable contributions as well. Thank you. I just like to thank you. Sorry, I just like to thank you for allowing me to participate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for your contribution. Bye everybody.