(i)

the current terms of reference for the Standards Hearing Sub Committee agreed at the 28 July 2008 City Council meeting stated that ‘Membership of the Hearings Sub-Committee was to comprise a minimum of five members of the Standards Committee’ and that ‘none of the members of the Hearings Sub-Committee, as far as possible, shall have dealt with the particular complaint previously, at either the Assessment or Review Sub-Committee’; 

 (ii)

due to problems experienced when trying to arrange the first Standards Hearing Sub Committee, it was considered beneficial for the terms of reference to be amended so that Members who sat on either a Standards Assessment Sub Committee or Standards Review Sub Committee would be able to sit on a Standards Hearing Sub Committee, and that the quorum for the meeting be reduced from five members to three;

 (iii)

the Standards Committee had an obligation to ensure that those for whom allegations of Code of Conduct breach had been made had a right for their case to be determined by a fair and unbiased panel;

 (iv)

the terms of reference for the Standards Hearing Sub Committee should either have a membership of five members, consisting of a majority of members that had not heard the case before, or for the membership to reduce to three with the condition that the whole panel had not heard the case before;

 (v)

there were concerns that if the Standards Committee deviated from the  guidance of the Standards for England the Committee’s authority may be challenged;

 (vi)

the terms of reference for the Standards Hearing Sub Committee should state a panel membership of five however include a quorum of three;

 (vii)

if the panel resolved to change the Standards Hearing Sub Committee terms of reference it would reflect guidance from Standards for England;

 (viii)

the Head of Legal Services considered it was far more practicable to have a quorum of three however verified that officers would aim for five members to sit on a Standards Hearing; he also confirmed that he did not consider a panel to be biased or prejudiced if members had previously sat in either a Standards Assessment or Review Sub Committee as this was in accordance with guidance from Standards for England;

 (ix)

it was not considered that political balance was necessary to the membership of the Standards Hearing Sub Committee, however it was stated that wherever possible officers tried to ensure political balance in order to mitigate against possible allegations of bias;