Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager, Tel: 01436 658717
No. | Item |
---|---|
Appointment of Chair Minutes: The Committee Manager welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Panel to nominate a Chair for the proceedings. It was unanimously agreed to appoint Councillor Rory Colville as Chair of this Complaints Conduct Review Panel. |
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence intimated. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: There were no declarations of interest intimated. |
|
Luss and Arden Community Council - Complaint Referral Minutes: Having assumed the role of Chair, Councillor Colville outlined the procedure and advised that his first task was 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 referral before them. It was noted that the Council had received a number of complaints which related to the conduct of Luss and Arden Community Council as a whole and as such they had been referred to the Conduct Review Panel for consideration. There were 7 points of complaint for consideration by the Panel. The Chair invited the Panel to consider the terms of the complaint referral and after discussion the Panel agreed to consider the 7 aspects of the referral in turn and reached the following decisions and reasons. Decision 1. Failure to declare interest by Community Council Member, Lady Colquhoun Having
considered the information before them and having taken advice from the
Independent Adviser on the responsibility of individual members to determine a
declaration of interest, the Panel agreed that Lady Colquhoun had demonstrated
an awareness of her responsibilities by declaring an interest in matters where
appropriate. Decision – Not upheld 2.
Failure
to consult businesses and visitors adequately on the Luss TRO proposals Having taken into consideration the information presented,
the Panel agreed that to the best of their ability the Community Council had,
since 2016, consulted as widely as possible with businesses and residents of
the village of Luss. They also agreed
that there was no requirement to consult with visitors to the area. Decision – Not upheld 3.
Failure
to consult residents adequately on the Luss TRO proposals The Panel, having previously agreed that the Community Council had carried out a wide spread consultation, which followed the Scottish Government Good Practice Guidance for Local Authorities and Community Councils, agreed that there had been no failure to consult residents adequately on the Luss TRO proposals. Decision – Not upheld 4. (a) Inappropriate involvement of Simon Miller in the Community Council proceedings Having
established that Mr Miller had attended Community Council proceedings to
provide advice and guidance in relation to the TRO proposals, the Panel agreed
that Mr Miller had not acted as a member of the Community Council and therefore
did not require to make a formal declaration of interest at Community Council
meetings. Decision – Not upheld 4. (b) Simon Miller permitted to represent the community Council at critical meetings regarding the TRO Having
noted that clarification had been received from the Council’s Assistant Traffic
Development Manager that Mr Miller had been present at the referenced meeting
to discuss the TRO proposals in his capacity as a representative of Luss
Estates Company, the Panel were satisfied that Mr Miller had not been in
attendance to represent the Community Council.
They also noted that on the occasion where Mr Miller had provided
feedback to the Community Council on discussions of said meeting, this had been
as a result of the acting Chair being unable to do so himself due to an impairment
of his voice. Decision – Not upheld 5.
Inappropriate
way to act and lack of transparency and financial irregularity The
Panel agreed that the Community Council had not acted in an inappropriate way
nor had there been a lack of transparency or financial irregularity as they had
permission to erect signage from the appropriate authorities and having
received confirmation from the Council’s Community Council Liaison Officer, that
due to the Covid-19 pandemic an extension had been granted to all Community
Council’s for the provision of accounts until the end of 2021. Decision – Not upheld 6.
Failure
to conform to the Community Council Constitution The
Panel agreed that, despite there being a lack of a permanent Chair, and the
difficulties that a rotating Chair may bring, they could see no evidence to
suggest that the Community Council had failed to conform to the Community
Council Constitution. Decision – Not upheld 7.
Failure
to carry out the statutory purpose of the Community Council by refusing to
communicate with Argyll and Bute Council Having noted from the reports to
the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee of 17 September
2020 and 16 September 2021, that “over the past two years officers have engaged
positively with the Community Council and other stakeholders” the Panel were
content that the Community Council did not refuse to communicate with Argyll
and Bute Council. Decision – Not upheld The Community Council Conduct Review Panel unanimously agreed that none of the 7 points of complaint be upheld. (Reference: Report by Committee Manager, dated 5 November 2021, submitted) |