Issue - meetings

Having assumed the role of Chair, Councillor Trail outlined the procedure and advised that his first task would be to establish whether members of the Review Panel had sufficient information before them to discuss and determine the subject of the complaint.  The Panel agreed that they had sufficient information to determine the complaint before them. 

The Committee Manager circulated copies of correspondence between Stuart McLean, Investigating Officer; the complainant and Bute Community Council, outlining the individual aspects of the complaint and a typed version of the written response from Bute Community Council. 

The Chair invited the Panel to discuss the terms of the complaint and after discussion the Panel considered each complaint in turn and reached the following decisions and reasons.

Decision

1.    Bute Community Council has no training nor skills to handle complaints.

The Panel noted that the Community Council took advice from the Community Council Liaison Officer (CCLO), who provided them with the Model Complaints Procedure prior to consideration of the complaint and it is their view that this was sufficient. 

Decision – Not Upheld.

2.    Bute Community Council does not act in the community interest.

The Panel agreed that to act in the community interest is the very being of a Community Council and they felt that the examples provided in respect of raising funds for the Christmas Lights and assisting persons within the community who are experiencing housing difficulties confirmed this to be the case. 

Decision – Not Upheld

3.    Bute Community Council did not inform the complainant of how the complaint was to be dealt with, or the date of the meeting.

The Panel agreed that the Community Council had been remiss in the procedural part of handling the complaint.  They expressed that they did not feel that this was out of inappropriate behaviour, but that having received the Model Complaints Procedure from the CCLO, they should have ensured that the procedure was followed accordingly. 

Decision – Upheld

4.    The Complainant was subjected to embarrassment and harassment from the floor during the meeting of 20 August 2019. 

Although the Panel were unclear as to the exact nature of embarrassment and harassment, they agreed that although it is not possible to control what people say it was a matter for the Chair to ensure control of conduct at a meeting, by stopping negative behaviour and seeking clarification in a situation of misunderstanding. 

Decision – On a show of hands vote it was agreed to uphold the complaint by 4 to 1. 

5.    Bute Community Council have not contacted the complainant since the meeting concluded on 20 August 2019 to confirm the decision of the Community Council.

The Panel agreed that the Community Council had been remiss in the procedural part of handling the complaint.  They felt that the Community Council should have actively responded to the complainant as outlined in the Model Complaints Procedure. 

Decision – Upheld

The Panel, having agreed that the Community Council had not breached the Scheme for Establishment of Community Councils in Argyll and Bute 2018, recognised that the Community Council failed to follow the terms of the Model Complaints Procedure.  The Panel were of the view that the Community Council would benefit from engaging in some further governance training, particularly around managing meetings and dealing with complaints.  They made the following recommendation:-

That the Community Council engage with the Community Council Liaison Officer to discuss appropriate governance training with particular emphasis on managing meetings and dealing with complaints. 

(Reference: Submission by Complainer and response by Community Council, submitted)

The Chair advised that her first task would be to establish if the members of the Review Panel had sufficient information before them to discuss and determine the subject of the complaint.

The Panel agreed that they had sufficient information to determine the complaint before them.  The Chair invited the Panel to discuss the terms of the complaint and after discussion the Panel considered each complaint in turn and reached the following decisions and reasons.

Decision

1.    The Panel does not believe that it was improper for the Community Council to consider text prepared to guide their response, particularly as the issue had been under consideration over more than one meeting.  There are many Community Councils who delegate consideration of planning to a sub-committee which might make suggestions as to the relevant issues for consideration.  It appears that the Community Council made efforts to ascertain the views of the community and to respond.  There is nothing to prevent anyone from carrying out assessment of information and representations prior to the meeting provided they retain an open mind during consideration of the matter and have regard to their purpose of ascertaining the views of their community.  The Council is not prescriptive on how that should be done and recognise that all Community Council members are volunteers. 

Decision – dismiss the complaint.

2.    The Panel notes the view of the complainant and the response from the Community Council that most of the draft responses were adjusted as part of the debate at the meeting.  The Convener has authority to determine matters of process and has asserted that the draft responses were all considered and how that was achieved was for the Convener to determine. 

Decision – dismiss the compliant.

3.    The Agenda was determined to deal with the business before the Community Council and the draft responses were fully considered by the members present.

 Decision – dismiss the complaint.

4.    The performance of the Convener is not a matter for this Panel to determine.  It appears that the meeting achieved its purpose in determining the Community Council response to the consultation.  As it relates only to the actions of one person, it should be dealt with by the Community Council if a complaint is made.

Decision – dismiss the complaint.

5.    The Community Council agreed a response to the consultation and it is not for this Panel to exam matters of comfort or empathy of individual members.  The Community Council members are volunteers and they have discharged their role by submitting a response to the consultation which appears to have reflected the views ascertained from their community.  There appears to be no complaint that the Community Council misrepresented the views of their community. 

Decision – dismiss the complaint.

6.    The Scheme for Community Councils requires public notice for a meeting it does not specify where that notice should be displayed. 

Decision – to provide advice to the Community Council on the arrangements for giving notice of a meeting.

7.    The Scheme for Community Councils requires draft minutes to be available within 14 days. 

Decision - to give advice to the Community Council on the arrangements for preparation of draft minutes.

The Panel noted that whilst it was not part of the complaint for them to determine, they wished to offer advice to the Community Council that their decision to allow a member to remain after declaring an interest was inadvisable and that they should adhere to the terms of the Best Practice Agreement in the future.

(Reference: Submission by Complainer and response by Community Council, submitted)