Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: (1) Noted the update on the recruitment process for the vacancy for an Independent Member of Standards and Ethics Committee, as set out in the report and agreed to recommend to full council the appointment of the successful candidate, subject to references, on a six-year term. (2) Agreed to recommend to full council the reappointment of the Independent Member, David Mills, for a further consecutive 4-year term of office with effect from 27th January 2026. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 5.
RESOLVED: Noted the contents of the report. The recommendations were agreed upon and the meeting moved on to Item 6.
RESOLVED: Noted the information set out in the report and points made by the Monitoring Officer. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 7.
RESOLVED: • Agreed the proposed amendments to the Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B). • Authorised the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Standards and Ethics Committee Chairperson, to: (a) make any further amendments to the revised Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B), which are agreed by the Committee, and submit the agreed revised Local Resolution Protocol to full Council for approval; and (b) amend the Local Resolution Hearings Panel Procedure (Appendix C) and the Hearings Procedure for Ombudsman Referrals (Appendix D) to reflect the approved changes to the Local Resolution Protocol.
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Cunnah.
No declarations of interest were received. Cllr Brown-Reckless raised objection to the five-minute speaking rule, noting she had done for the previous two meetings. Cllr Brown-Reckless commented that this limit did not afford sufficient time to make the points that she and other members of the committee may wish to make for the Standards and Ethics Committee to function properly, and that committee members should have adequate time to contribute without arbitrary limits. As the sole representative on the committee from her political group, Cllr Brown-Reckless emphasised the importance of full participation and hearing other’s contributions in full. The Monitoring Officer confirmed this was a matter for noting and advised that the meeting should proceed on.
Members had received suggested amendments provided by Cllr Brown-Reckless. After consideration and discussion with the Monitoring Officer, the Chair proposed the following: Accepted: • Most of Cllr Brown-Reckless’ proposed changes to MIN 109, except paragraph 4, which was considered too conversational for formal minutes. Rejected: • Insertion of Group Leaders and Monitoring Officer in the Attendance List, as attendance lists are for committee members only; other attendees are noted in the minutes at the relevant agenda items. • Change to minute title MIN 109, minute titles and numbers must align with the agenda. The proposed insertion caused numbering issues and added an item title that was not on the agenda. • Changes to paragraph four in MIN 109 where the changes are a rewording in verbatim and conversational language used rather than formal minute text. • Changes to MIN 114 where text was rewritten verbatim from the webcast, as minutes should reflect formal decisions rather than debate or interruptions. • Deletion of the resolution in MIN 117. The Chair explained the changes to the minutes would be put to a vote and if agreed would be incorporated and brought back for noting at the next meeting. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked if this vote could be a recorded vote. Cllr Brown-Reckless expressed concern about receiving the revised minutes only two minutes before the meeting started, leaving no time for review. She clarified that she had no objection to the numbering corrections and emphasised that her focus was on substantive points. She also raised the distinction between “Present” and “In Attendance,” noting her understanding that “In Attendance” referred to non-members present at the meeting, such as the Monitoring Officer. Cllr Brown-Reckless queried the rejection of colloquial language changes, explaining that these were taken from the webcast and reflected exchanges where the Chair had commented on her conduct. The Monitoring Officer responded that the Chair had been clear on the minute format and that minutes for Council committee meetings were not verbatim records. The Chair put the minutes to a vote which were approved by majority. Community Cllr Julia Charles chose not to vote as she was absent from the previous meeting. Cllr Brown-Reckless opposed the decision, reiterating that substantive comments made by the Chair should be included. Recorded Vote Outcome: For: Cllr Ashley Wood, Louise Evans, Rashpal Singh, David Mills Against: Cllr Brown-Reckless Abstain: Community Cllr Julia Charles .
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: (1) Noted the update on the recruitment process for the vacancy for an Independent Member of Standards and Ethics Committee, as set out in the report and agreed to recommend to full council the appointment of the successful candidate, subject to references, on a six-year term. (2) Agreed to recommend to full council the reappointment of the Independent Member, David Mills, for a further consecutive 4-year term of office with effect from 27th January 2026. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 5.
Members were advised this report was to provide an update on two matters relating to Independent members: the appointment process for a vacant position and the reappointment of an existing member. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and highlighted that a vacancy had been advertised following the resignation of Ruth Davies. One application had been received, and the shortlisting panel agreed the applicant should proceed to interview. The interview took place on 3 November, and the appointment panel unanimously recommended the candidate for appointment, subject to satisfactory references. The second matter concerned David Mills whose first term as an Independent member ends on 27 January 2026. Mr Mills confirmed he was content to serve a second consecutive term which law provides can be for a period of four-years. Committee was recommended to note the position on the vacancy and the panel’s decision, and to recommend to full Council both the appointment of the successful candidate, subject to references, on a six-year term and the reappointment of David Mills on a four-year term. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from members. Cllr Brown-Reckless queried the maximum length of service for Independent members and whether there was a cap beyond the two terms. The Monitoring Officer explained the regulations state that Independent members could serve two consecutive terms of office. The first term could range from four to six years, and the second consecutive term was for a maximum of four years, meaning a maximum of 10 years in total was possible. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked for clarification on remuneration arrangements for Independent members and Community Councillors, including whether payment was made on an hourly or daily basis, the applicable rates and whether additional duties outside of meetings provided further remuneration. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this report did not deal with renumeration and that this was instead covered in separate reports. Remuneration is determined by the Democracy and Boundary Commission, an Independent third party, and the Council sets rates in accordance with the recommendations provided. In response to this, Cllr Brown-Reckless asked if she could be provided information regarding the agreed renumeration details. It was agreed this information would be passed on by the Clerk, and that any requests for information outside of the meeting relating to matters not on the agenda could be sent to the Clerk to allow committee to focus on its set agenda items during meetings. Cllr Wood commented that renumeration for Independent members was documented in a recent report that went to Council alongside information for Councillors and Cabinet members. RESOLVED: (1) Noted the update on the recruitment process for the vacancy for an Independent Member of Standards and Ethics Committee, as set out in the report and agreed to recommend to full council the appointment of the successful candidate, subject to references, on a six-year term. (2) Agreed to recommend to full council the reappointment of the Independent Member, David Mills, for a further consecutive 4-year term of office with effect from 27th January 2026. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 5.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Noted the contents of the report. The recommendations were agreed upon and the meeting moved on to Item 6.
This report provided committee with an update on Code of Conduct complaints received during Quarter 2 of 2025-26. The recommendation was for members to note the report. The Monitoring Officer outlined the report and highlighted a typo under point 4 which should refer to ‘Quarter 2’ and not ‘Quarter 1’. The report related to any complaints received in respect of both Cardiff Councillors and Cardiff Community Councillors. Five complaints had been received during Quarter 2. Two complaints were submitted by members regarding other members, and three complaints were submitted by members of the public. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from committee members. Louise Evans asked about the time taken for complaints to be received and resolved by the Ombudsman. The Monitoring Officer explained that timelines for initial assessment and full investigation were reported in the Ombudsman’s annual report. The Ombudsman’s office had recently recruited additional staff, resulting in quicker turnaround times for initial assessments. However, the duration of a full investigation depended on the complexity of the matter, the number of witnesses needing to be interviewed and their availability. The Ombudsman recently cited a 10-working-day deadline following a request for information. Julia Charles queried whether the increase in complaints during Quarter 2 was a cause for concern. The Monitoring Officer clarified that individuals have the right to complain and that concern would arise if complaints resulted in referrals to committee or the Adjudication Panel for Wales. Of the five complaints received during Quarter 2, two were not investigated by the Ombudsman, one was under investigation and two remain under assessment. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked whether the recent member-on-member complaint involved members of the same political party or two different parties. The Monitoring Officer explained she would be unable to provide details to answer this question due to the confidential nature involved. RESOLVED: Noted the contents of the report. The recommendations were agreed upon and the meeting moved on to Item 6.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Noted the information set out in the report and points made by the Monitoring Officer. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 7.
This report provided a summary of attendance figures regarding Members’ Code of Conduct training, as well as feedback received and the next steps for monitoring member engagement. The Monitoring Officer outlined the report which provided statistics on the number of members and independent/coopted members that had attended recent refresher sessions held on 30 September (in-person) and 2 October (remote). The second session was recorded to provide flexibility for members unable to attend in-person. The recommendation was to note the information set out in the report and for committee to agree that the Monitoring Officer: • Distribute a brief survey to members to determine whether they have viewed or plan to view the recording. • Explore the option of obtaining feedback from group whips as an alternative to formal feedback forms. • Continue to monitor engagement levels and training needs, with a focus on informing future session planning. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from committee members. David Mills explained he attended one of the training sessions to which he provided positive feedback, emphasising the benefit of being able to join the session remotely. He highlighted a minor correction in the attendance statistics for Independent/Coopted members in the report, noting that seven out of 13 equated to approximately 54% and not the 76% listed. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked for clarification on what was meant by Independent/Co-opted members and for clearer terminology to be used in future reports, suggesting a footnote to distinguish between them and Elected Members to avoid any potential confusion. The Monitoring Officer explained that Independent/Co-opted members were members by law and could be co-opted onto meetings such as the Standards and Ethics Committee, with similar arrangements applying to scrutiny committees. Cllr Brown-Reckless commented that she attended the refresher training and echoed David Mills’ feedback that joining remotely was helpful. She highlighted that those in attendance were not invited to provide feedback at the end of the session but instead advised to email any questions to the Monitoring Officer, leaving no opportunity to provide feedback at the time. The Monitoring Officer explained this was because she was conscious the session had exceeded the hour timeslot and wanted to prioritise the messages provided in the refresher training. A few members did remain for a brief discussion, but no further questions had been received by email. RESOLVED: Noted the information set out in the report and points made by the Monitoring Officer. The recommendations were agreed upon by majority and the meeting moved on to Item 7.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • Agreed the proposed amendments to the Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B). • Authorised the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Standards and Ethics Committee Chairperson, to: (a) make any further amendments to the revised Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B), which are agreed by the Committee, and submit the agreed revised Local Resolution Protocol to full Council for approval; and (b) amend the Local Resolution Hearings Panel Procedure (Appendix C) and the Hearings Procedure for Ombudsman Referrals (Appendix D) to reflect the approved changes to the Local Resolution Protocol.
The Chairperson explained that committee considered a report on this matter at its last meeting on 23 September 2025. At this meeting, committee agreed that the Monitoring Officer be asked to prepare a revised draft Local Resolution Protocol considering committee’s views for its further consideration and approval. Members were reminded that Appendix E of the report was confidential and that if any member wished to discuss its contents committee would need to move to a closed session. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and noted it was a follow-on from the previous meeting. The Ombudsman had endorsed recommendations made by the Monitoring Officer Working Group, which was established following a review carried out by the Ombudsman of all the local resolution protocols of principal local authorities across Wales and legal opinion on the status of certain provisions. The report outlined proposed amendments to the draft Local Resolution Protocol and the next steps to finalise a protocol that is effective in resolving disputes without unnecessary escalation. Committee was recommended to: • Agree the proposed amendments to the Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B), subject to any further agreed amendments. • Authorise the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Standards and Ethics Committee Chairperson, to: • (a) make any further amendments to the revised Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B), which are agreed by the Committee, and submit the agreed revised Local Resolution Protocol to full Council for approval; and • (b) revoke and or amend the Local Resolution Hearings Panel Procedure (Appendix C) and the Hearings Procedure for Ombudsman Referrals (Appendix D) to reflect the approved changes to the Local Resolution Protocol. The Chairperson commented that the proposal to resolve without escalation wherever possible was a sensible one and invited questions and comments from committee members. Cllr Brown-Reckless explained that she was not in favour of having a Local Resolution Protocol, stating that while it may be presented as a mechanism to avoid low-level matters being escalated to the Ombudsman, that it could lead to a curtailment of freedom of speech by elected members. Cllr Brown-Reckless highlighted that this protocol could be misused or weaponised by the standards regime to inhibit councillors who form legitimate democratic opposition. Regarding her own experience, Cllr Brown-Reckless referenced a letter she had sent the Ombudsman regarding how she felt mistreated by a standards matter which had consequences on her role as an elected member. She reiterated her request for committee to allow this letter, in redacted form, to be made public as it was in the public interest and committee had previously refused to do so. Cllr Brown-Reckless explained she was concerned that the Local Resolution Protocol would introduce an approach that would effectively lower the threshold below what was required for a Code of Conduct breach and questioned whether such an approach would stand up in court. Referencing the legal right to freedom of speech under Article 10 and in common law for councillors, Cllr Brown-Reckless explained this was vitally important for councillors who are elected to speak on behalf of their constituents and that it should not be for standards bodies to curtail what councillors can say. For these reasons, standards matters should remain reserved for breaches of the Code of Conduct and handled through the proper process. Cllr Brown-Reckless also noted her concerns regarding the role of Independent members on the Standards and Ethics Committee and the potential of a conflict of interests, querying that if Independent members were renumerated for standards hearings, that could present a conflict of interest in taking forward the Local Resolution Protocol. Similarly, the Cllr raised concerns that the protocol would increase the power of the Monitoring Officer, giving greater authority in their relationship with elected councillors, and that taking the report forward would raise a conflict of interest for the Monitoring Officer also. Cllr Brown-Reckless also questioned why Appendix E was marked as confidential and asked for clarity on the reason for this and whether the document title was also confidential. Discussing the proposals regarding minor member to member allegations, Julia Charles commented that it was common practice within all businesses to hold an informal discussion before escalation to help identify any potential misunderstandings, to identify whether any personal or health issues are involved or if any relevant training would be necessary. Louise Evans agreed with Julia’s comments and noted the importance of an informal process to provide the opportunity to reflect on matters before escalating to formal proceedings. This allowed the opportunity to adjust accordingly without curtailing freedom of speech or opposing on a person’s rights to express themselves. Louise confirmed that she fundamentally agreed with the protocol. Referencing the limited timeframe to respond once formal proceedings are initiated, Rashpal Singh explained he was in favour of a Local Resolution Protocol as it would afford dignity and respect while providing a relaxed state for the involved parties to resolve matters. Rashpal said he was concerned with comments made regarding a loss of freedom of speech, noting the wealth of experience and professionalism of members of the committee, their understanding of freedom of speech and that they would not undermine a person’s freedom of speech. Directed to the Chairperson, Rashpal asked if committee could stick to the meeting agenda as he felt committee was repeating matters that had previously been agreed upon which extended meetings and dissolved the professionalism that the committee was trying to portray and deliver. The Chairperson agreed to aim to stick to the agenda as much as possible. Cllr Wood confirmed he was supportive of the recommendations and favoured an informal resolution for minor complaints as it would allow people the time to reflect on matters. Cllr Wood stated that it was a voluntary route and did not exclude formal proceedings if desired but would encourage dialogue and create an opportunity to potentially come to a mutually acceptable resolution. He also supported the option of being able to bring in a third party if both parties agreed that would be beneficial. David Mills agreed that a Local Resolution Protocol was common practice and highlighted Cllr Wood’s point that participation would be voluntary. David Mills didn’t agree with comments the Local Resolution Protocol would provide an increase in power and remarked that if committee did not adopt it, that they would be failing in their duty to ensure a suitable mechanism for resolving such matters informally. The Monitoring Officer thanked members for their contributions and stressed that there was an agreement on the direction of travel in the previous meeting and that committee risked undoing that progress. Committee had already agreed there would be a reference to the protocol being a voluntary process so that nobody would be compelled to go down the informal route. The Monitoring Officer hoped this would allay some of Cllr Brown-Reckless’ concerns. Addressing the concerns around a conflict of interest for Independent/co-opted members renumerations, the Monitoring Officer raised that the revised process does not include such a role for those members and as a result did not see this as a conflict of interest. Regarding confidential Appendix E, this document was compiled collaboratively by several Monitoring Officers and contained details that fall under paragraph 16 and therefore needed to remain exempt for the meeting. Cllr Brown-Reckless clarified that she did not agree with the Local Resolution Protocol and had not previously agreed to any previous direction of travel for it. She explained that her concerns around conflicts of interest remained unaddressed and requested that the report under Appendix E be reviewed so that genuinely confidential sections were redacted, and the remainder appended to the public papers for the next committee meeting. The Cllr supported the idea of a three-month limitation and the wording around consent in section 1.5 but felt section 3.2 needed changing to state that both the complainant and the person being complained about must agree to use the protocol. Additionally, Cllr Brown-Reckless felt that the person complained about should have the right to withdraw from the informal process at any point, allowing the complainant to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman should they choose. Cllr Brown-Reckless explained it should be made clear from the outset that participation is optional and that no adverse inference would be drawn if a councillor declines or withdraws. She considered this essential to ensure fairness and avoid any perception that refusal could negatively impact how the Ombudsman views the matter. Regarding group leaders’ involvement, the Cllr explained her interpretation of section 52 was that they are not obligated to participate in this process. It should remain optional for them as there are valid reasons why they may choose not to engage such as time pressures, maintaining relationships within their group or avoiding involvement in potentially contentious matters. Group leaders are not remunerated for this work, and the responsibility should rest with the Ombudsman, independent members or the Monitoring Officer rather than requiring voluntary time from group leaders. Cllr Brown-Reckless wanted it made clear that a complaint brought forward must directly affect the complainant and not allow a councillor to lodge a complaint against another councillor based solely on what a third party had reported. Rashpal Singh raised concerns that he felt the document was being overanalysed and that speculating about worst-case scenarios risked turning it into something it wasn’t intended to be. He explained the protocol was straightforward and simple, and that committee should avoid creating unnecessary complexity or assuming it will inevitably lead to Ombudsman involvement. Julia Charles commented that employment law and equality and diversity law allow for third party complaints. A third person would be able to make a complaint about one of the parties involved, which would be legally acceptable. Cllr Wood raised how having a Local Resolution Protocol could also be beneficial for the person being complained against to avoid them having to face a formal complaint for what may be a minor misunderstanding. He also confirmed that he agreed with the recommendation that any issue needed to be raised in writing to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity during the resolution process. Louise Evans commented that the policy had been discussed in detail and suggested committee also voted on the suggestion regarding confidential Appendix E. The Monitoring Officer clarified that although Cllr Brown-Reckless did not agree with the protocol, that at the last meeting the committee as a collective majority agreed to move forward with the proposal. She explained that the addition in paragraph 1.3 covered the point that anyone could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman at any time. Regarding group leaders, the Monitoring Officer noted the statutory guidance from the Ombudsman specifically referred to the reasonable steps that group leaders may undertake. Examples include to support informal resolution procedures within the council and to work with the Standards and Ethics Committee and Monitoring Officer to achieve local resolution. There would be no requirement for group leaders to adopt a particular approach. Their role at the second stage would simply be to try to resolve matters in the spirit of mediation and conciliation. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked if the title to confidential Appendix E was allowed to be provided in public session. The Monitoring Officer confirmed the title was listed in the public papers and was titled: ‘Monitoring Officers’ Group Report on Local Resolution Protocols, 6th March 2025 – EXEMPT.’ The Monitoring Officer reiterated that the decision to adopt a Local Resolution Protocol had already been made at a previous meeting and that there wasn’t a case for revisiting the previous resolution. The vote would be on the wording set out in Appendix B along with the proposed amendments. Cllr Brown-Reckless asked for clarity on whether section 3.2 could be amended to make it clear that the process would require consent of the member who was subject to the complaint, as well as wording inserted to confirm that either party would be able to withdraw from the process at any time. Cllr Brown-Reckless did not feel this was reflected in the drafting. In response, the Monitoring Officer explained it was clear throughout that the process was voluntary and that if somebody decided to withdraw, they could do so at any stage. She noted that asking all parties to confirm agreement could risk slowing progress towards a resolution. There was already an opportunity for individuals to decline participation, and they would be advised of the steps being taken. The recommendations were agreed by majority decision. RESOLVED: • Agreed the proposed amendments to the Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B). • Authorised the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Standards and Ethics Committee Chairperson, to: (a) make any further amendments to the revised Local Resolution Protocol (Appendix B), which are agreed by the Committee, and submit the agreed revised Local Resolution Protocol to full Council for approval; and (b) amend the Local Resolution Hearings Panel Procedure (Appendix C) and the Hearings Procedure for Ombudsman Referrals (Appendix D) to reflect the approved changes to the Local Resolution Protocol.
There were none.
The next meeting was scheduled for 11 February 2026 at 5pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.