Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff un ei ysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion. Mae'r agenda a'r papurau isod.
G Walter declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the case.
None
Members of the Committee considered whether they would hear the matter as an exempt item under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Submissions were received from Cllr Sean Aspey and the Public Sector Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) officers. Cllr Aspey requested that the meeting take place in private, noting the actual nature of the complaint and the complainant. He argued that the subject caused quite a lot of concern within the local community and if public documents were to be released, he didn’t want anything in terms of a redacted complainant or somebody to guess who it might be. He didn’t want any repercussions either on himself or the person who made the complaint. The representative from PSOW noted that it was in the interest of openness and transparency for the hearing to be held in public. This was to ensure public confidence in the ethical standards regime in Wales. She indicated that the information, which led to the investigation, was available on public forums such as Facebook and the substance of the complaint related to a letter which was shared publicly. She noted that Cllr Aspey had requested the hearing to be held in private and for relevant documents to be withheld from the public due to concern that residents will try to establish the source of the original complaint, although where this concern about the potential behaviour of some residents arises from is unclear. She noted there was Adjudication Panel for Wales (APW) guidance which states that hearings should be held in public, except where the Tribunal considers that publicity would prejudice the interests or threaten the personal safety and security of any parties involved in the case. It states that the Tribunal will require convincing evidence of substantial harm to either the individuals involved or the hearing or to the public interest generally before holding a hearing in private. The representative from PSOW recognised that the decision on whether to hold the hearing in public is entirely a matter for the Standards Committee to determine but she did not consider that Cllr Aspey had demonstrated evidence of a significant risk to the member of the public’s personal safety or security or demonstrated a risk of substantial harm to a member of the public. However, she did acknowledge that care should be taken to protect the identity of the original complainant if any documents relating to the investigation are disclosed. It was made clear that a Standards Committee is able to hold a hearing in public without publishing the Ombudsman's report and appendices until after the proceedings have concluded. It is also open to the Standards Committee to move to private session if at any time there is a need to discuss any sensitive information which might relate to the complainant. The representative from PSOW noted that she was not of the view that this would be necessary because the facts of the case have been drawn from documentation. All the panel members were of the view the hearing should be held in public. RESOLVED: The Committee resolved to hear the matter in public.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.