To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Wednesday 1 July 2026 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Monday 6 July 2026 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Monday 22 June 2026 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following questions and statement were received from Mr Alexander McKinstry (address supplied):
In relation to Agenda Item 8 – Code of Conduct Complaints – Update:
Question:
Complaints BCP-222 and 229 date back to August / September last year; yet they are both described in tonight's report as "Pending", while the "outcome" column states "Currently in progress and discussion with Independent Persons" - which was the same status accorded to these two complaints at the 17 March 2026 meeting. When did officers last meet or correspond with the Independent Persons to discuss or progress these complaints (prior to this question being submitted on 1 July 2026)?
Answer:
An officer met with the IPs to discuss the above complaints on 2 February 2026.
In relation to Agenda Item 9 – Annual Report on Code of Conduct Complaints:
Question:
The report for Item 9 (page 34, paragraph 23) mentions an improvement in the time taken to report non-compliance to full Council. There is something left unsaid here, however. As of June 2025, where a councillor did not comply with sanctions, officers were closing the relevant complaints and asking complainants whether they wished to leave the matter there, or to submit further complaints under Part 8.4 of the Code. Is this still the procedure; if not, how has it been amended; and if so, is this something that's being looked at as part of the overall review of the Code of Conduct?
Answer:
The Committee supports an automatic referral to Full Council in the event of non-compliance by a Member. That is an aspect being considered by the current review of the Standards Process.
In relation to Agenda Item 10 – Update on the Standards Process Review:
Question 1:
This Committee voted for a review of the Code of Conduct complaints process on 8 July 2025. At the meeting of 17 March 2026, officers admitted that this review had not yet begun but did state that an informal meeting had been "scheduled ... to consider the current arrangements, with a view to informing a thorough and comprehensive revision of the procedure." Did this meeting take place; if so, on what date; and how advanced is the review currently? More bluntly, does a draft report on this item now exist, or could one have been compiled for tonight's meeting (had it not been for Mr O'Gara's intervention)?
Answer:
At the meeting of 17 March 2026, the Monitoring Officer confirmed a delay in completing the review and that the Committee had agreed to expand it. Any reference to the review not having yet begun at the last meeting needs to be clarified. The review had begun and remains in process.
A meeting with the committee regarding the review progress or initial outcome has not yet taken place.
A draft report is not ready and Mr O’Gara has not ‘intervened’. The relevant report to the committee today states the background to the Chair agreeing to defer the review completion to until Mr O’Gara commences employment.
Question 2:
If Mr O'Gara's request for the postponement of the review was made by email, what was the date of that email and what reasons were cited for the proposed deferment?
Answer:
Mr O’Gara did not unilaterally request a postponement by email. The postponement is viewed by the relevant officers and Mr O’Gara to be a prudent and practical step so as to ensure that the new Monitoring Officer has the opportunity to consider what the review recommendations are to be. This has been agreed with the Chair.
Statement:
The further postponement of the Code of Conduct review is immensely dissatisfying. Complaints are on the increase - including those upheld by this Committee; officers themselves express concern at the rising number of "disrespect" and "disrepute" allegations; six councillors are currently in breach of sanctions imposed by this Committee; three of those councillors sit on the Investigatory and Disciplinary Committee, potentially sanctioning statutory officers - with no Constitutional means of disbarring them. It is incredible, moreover, that a councillor can breach this authority's Code of Conduct and not be named by default, unless in subsequent breach of disciplinary recommendations. This Committee voted for a review of the Code 364 days ago and the Chair asked that it be expedited in October. The recent offstage intervention is most untimely, therefore, and I suggest these repeated delays be cited as governance weaknesses in the authority's Annual Governance Statement, currently out for public inspection.