Decision

(a)       Notwithstanding the actions of Councillor Attridge the Committee agreed that the Councillors Code of Conduct and Flintshire Standards did not need further amendment because the behaviours for which Councillor Attridge had been sanctioned were self-evidently wrong and inappropriate.  (Moved by Councillor Ian Hodge and seconded by Jacqueline Guest);

(b)       That the Chief Officer will speak to Officers of the Council and in doing so remind Officers that there are appropriate interactions between Members and Officers which take place on a daily basis; (Moved by Councillor Antony Wren and seconded by David Davies)

(c)        That training be provided to Councillor Attridge on safeguarding practice;

            (Moved by Councillor Teresa Carberry and seconded by Mark Morgan)

(d)       That the Council engages an independent person to discuss with Councillor Attridge how his behaviour was wrong and how it should be amended in the future; (Moved by Gill Murgatroyd and seconded by Jacqueline Guest)

(e)       That the Chief Officer drafts a communication, in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee to the President of the APW expressing the widely held view that the sanction imposed on Councillor Attridge was too lenient.  Concerns also to be outlined around the potential impact of the leniency of the sanction on Members’ reputation, the undermining of trust, safeguarding matters, and the potential cost of additional officers being required to attend meetings.  In addition, that the APW be asked in future to reflect on the expected level of sanction and if a lower level than anticipated is imposed greater explanation be provided to assist in the understanding of the reasoning of the case Tribunal. (Moved by Roz Griffiths and seconded by Councillor Ian Hodge)

(f)        That the Monitoring Officer speaks with those affected and group leaders about whether any special arrangements to ensure the wellbing of staff and councillors are required.