Agenda and minutes

To consider any announcements by the Mayor in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3(2)(ii).

There were no announcements.

To receive the apologies of any Member who is unable to attend the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hague.

Any communication received by the Mayor or Chief Executive which relates to a recommendation of the Cabinet or a committee which was received after the relevant meeting.

There were no communications.

To invite Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal interests they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting, to confirm the nature of those interests and whether they intend to leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

Councillor Jepson declared a personal interest in agenda item 10 (Recommendation from The Standards and Ethics Committee - Outcome of a Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee Hearing regarding the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct - Councillor Ireland).

Councillors Cowles, Ellis and M Elliott declared a personal interest in agenda item 11 (Recommendation from The Standards and Ethics Committee - Outcome of a Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee Hearing regarding the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct - Councillor Ellis).

Should it be necessary, in the opinion of the Mayor, to consider excluding the press and public from the meeting in relation to any items of urgent business on the grounds that private information is likely to be divulged.

There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.

There were no items that required the exclusion of the press or public.

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Standards and Ethics Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee held on 21st January, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor McNeely                             Seconder:-  Councillor Clark

To consider the recommendation from the Standards and Ethics Committee in respect of the LGA’s Model Member Code of Conduct.

Pursuant to Standard and Ethics Committee Minute No.106 (2020/21), consideration was given to a report than recommended that the Local Government Association’s Model Code of Conduct be adopted by the Council.

The Local Government Association Model Councillor Code of Conduct 2020 was attached as an appendix to the officer’s report.

Resolved: -  That the Local Government Association Model Councillor Code of Conduct be adopted by the Council.

Mover: Councillor McNeely                               Seconder: Councillor Clark

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Audit Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 19th January, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor Wyatt                                  Seconder: -  Councillor Walsh

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board held on 13th January, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor Roche                       Seconder: -  Councillor Mallinder

To consider recommendations from the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committees in respect of Councillor Ireland.

Councillor Jepson who had declared an interest in this item left the meeting at this point and did not take place in the subsequent discussion and vote.

Consideration was given to a report that set out the outcome of a Standards and Ethics Sub Committee Hearing that took place on 18th January, 2021, in relation to an alleged breach of the Anston Parish Council Code of Conduct by Anston Parish Councillor Jonathan Ireland.

It was noted that a complaint had considered at the Sub-Committee Hearing that alleged that:

The Subject Member had breached the Anston Parish Council Code of Conduct by making comments under the pseudonym “Anstonian" on a social media blog site, named Anston Parish Council Watch. The comment was in the context of a contract awarded to a local firm of surveyors by Anston Parish Council. A statement has been received from the owner of that firm of surveyors who considered the statement to be defamatory.

As set out in the Decision Record, the Sub-Committee found that Parish Councillor Ireland had made the posts under the pseudonym of Anstonian and due to the content of the post was in breach of the Code of Conduct in that he had failed to treat others with respect. It was noted further the Sub-Committee had also found that by making the post Parish Councillor Jonathan Ireland had conducted himself in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office of Parish Councillor and the Parish Council into disrepute.

The full Decision Record in respect of the complaint and Hearing was attached as an appendix to the officer’s report.

As a result of their considerations, the Sub-Committee decided that the following sanctions should be applied to Parish Councillor Jonathan Ireland:

1.    The Member shall be censured.

2.    The formal decision notice setting out the findings of the Sub-Committee shall be published on agenda of the next meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee.

3.    That the findings in respect of the Subject Member’s conduct should be published on the Council’s website.

4.    That the findings should be reported to full Council for information.

5.    That the Councillor’s Group Leader be recommended to remove the Subject Member from the Council’s Standards and Ethics Committee.

During the discussion on the item it was noted by the Leader that Councillor Ireland had voluntarily resigned his seat on the Standards and Ethics Committee.

Resolved: - That the outcome of the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee Hearing held on 18 January 2021 be noted.

Mover: Councillor McNeely                               Seconder: Councillor Clark

Councillor Jepson re-joined the meeting at this point.

To consider recommendations from the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committees in respect of Councillor Ellis.

Councillors Cowles, Ellis and M. Elliott who had declared an interest in this item left the meeting at this point and did not take place in the subsequent discussion and vote.

Consideration was given to a report that set out the outcome of a Standards and Ethics Sub Committee Hearing that took place on 18th January, 2021, in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Sue Ellis.

It was noted that at the Sub-Committee Hearing that two similar complaints had been considered to the effect that Councillor Ellis had been overpaid in respect of her Chairing of the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority after she had finished in that role.

The Sub-Committee Hearing had found that Councillor Ellis’ conduct did amount to a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct under General Obligations Section 5 – “you must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute”. However, the Sub-Committee did not find a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the sixth Nolan Principle - Honesty.

The full Decision Record in respect of the complaint and Hearing was attached as an appendix to the officer’s report.

As a result of their considerations, the Sub-Committee decided that the following sanctions should be applied to Councillor Sue Ellis:

1.    The Member shall be censured

2.    The formal decision notice setting out the findings of the Sub-Committee shall be published on agenda of the next meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee

3.    That the findings in respect of the Subject Member’s conduct should be published on the Council’s website.

4.    That the findings should be reported to full Council for information.

Resolved: - That the outcome of the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee Hearing held on 18th January. 2021, be noted.

Mover: Councillor McNeely                               Seconder: Councillor Clark

Councillors Cowles, Ellis and M Elliott re-joined the meeting at this point.

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Planning Board.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on 4th February, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor Sheppard                 Seconder: - Councillor Williams

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Staffing Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Staffing Committee held on 10th February, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor Alam                        Seconder: - Councillor Read

To consider a recommendation from the Staffing Committee in respect of the Pay Policy Statement 2021/22.

Further to Minute No. 39 of the Staffing Committee held on 10th February, 2021, consideration was given to a report that detailed the proposed the Pay Policy Statement for 2021-22.

It was noted that the Localism Act 2011, Chapter 8 Pay Accountability, made it a legal requirement for authorities to produce and publish a Pay Policy Statement by 31st March each year and that this must be agreed by Council and detail the remuneration of its Chief Officers.   The Pay Policy Statement for 2021-22 was attached as an appendix to the officer’s report

Resolved: - That the Pay Policy Statement for 2021-22 be approved.

Mover: - Councillor Alam                        Seconder: - Councillor Read

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the, Licensing Board Sub-Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Board Sub-Committee held on 1st February, 2021, be adopted.    

Mover: - Councillor Ellis                          Seconder: - Councillor Beaumont

To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).

(1)  Councillor Cowles referred to a recent article in the local paper by the Police and Crime Commissioner, in his bleeding-heart comment about how sorry he was to impose a further tax increase on hard working people. He said he would first need to consult; but did not say with whom. Since it was not Joe Public, with whom did he consult?

Councillor Sansome explained the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) had a statutory duty to consult with the public and with rate payers to obtain their views before the precept was set and, although Councillor Cowles obviously missed it, that was what he had done.

This year a pre-consultation on policing priorities and willingness to pay more in their Council Tax was undertaken during the autumn.  Then, on 19th December, 2020, the PCC launched the formal statutory consultation around the setting of the precept.

During the 4 week period the survey was promoted heavily across the OPCC social media channels (Twitter and Facebook) and was supported by South Yorkshire Police social media accounts – both corporate and neighbourhood accounts – as well as on social media accounts of partners. The survey was circulated twice via SYP Alerts to in excess of 30,000 residents who have signed up to receive the service via email. It was also supported by a press release and articles within the local media.

A total of 2,160 responses were received and the results show that 67% of respondents were supportive of the maximum £15 (Band D property) increase, which was 19p per week.

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked when the PCC wrote articles why did he not make this clear and then residents would not need to ask.  The point being was why did the PCC want an increase when people have suffered in the way they have.  Even in his Ward Councillor Cowles was aware of many self-employed people who were increasingly upset about this approach and suggested that any increase in Council Tax for this should be matched with increases in productivity.  He asked, therefore, would Councillor Sansome go back to the PCC and  make that recommendation to him.

Councillor Sansome was concerned that residents were raising their concerns with Councillor Cowles.  During his time on the Police and Crime Panel there had been no questions from the public to the PCC from the Sitwell Ward.  Councillor Sansome struggled to understand the correlation. 

In terms of performance of the PCC, this was measured and considered by Police and Crime Panel; a Panel which Councillor Cowles was nominated to and did not take up the seat, yet continued to write letters to the local press.

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).

(1) Councillor Fenwick-Green referred to one of the main messages being heard during the pandemic, stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. She asked what measures did the Cabinet Member feel needed to be taken to ensure the NHS was protected, both now and in the future? 

Councillor Roche explained he was very proud of the NHS, but needed adjustment with some areas requiring improvement.  Throughout the pandemic the NHS had come under excess strain and pressures, such as in the number of patients in areas like critical care where these pressures affected both primary and secondary care. Rotherham could be especially proud of its vaccination roll-out which had already started to show the impacts on the severity of illness.  The success was partly due to the fantastic partnerships in Rotherham in the health and care field.  The work done by the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (RCCG), Rotherham Council and NHS had been fantastic and deserved our praise and thanks.

The NHS did need protection and the pandemic had  shown this.  Before the pandemic there were signs of weakness in the NHS and there were attempts to run it down and make it ripe for privatisation.  The potential move to an American health care system would be a disaster.  This Council had committed itself to resisting any further privatisation of the NHS. 

The NHS could not work on a supermarket just in time model.  The lack of availability of PPE in everyday life showed that very clearly the NHS needed the cushion to be ready for divergences, especially in the need of critical care beds to ensure these were available when needed.

It was hard to see how a product company could make a profit in running the NHS without reducing standards or service.  Nevertheless, creeping privatisation by stealth was being seen.  Only 2 weeks ago a USA company took over a large number of GP surgeries in London making it the biggest provider of GP services in the UK.

Coventry had also seen a takeover with a private healthcare company running its hospitals despite the fact it had been severely criticised.  Currently 26% of NHS contracts were private.  The NHS should be for people and not for profit, although of course the supply of drugs and equipment would have to be from private companies.

What was of concern was the long-term sustainability and focus needed to be given  to workforce issues and pressures.  A five-year plan for its nurses had been agreed, with them due to get 2.1% increase that was agreed by the present Tory Government yet only a couple of weeks ago they reduced this to 1%.  This was shocking after all the country had been through. 

There was a need for more work to support the NHS in preventative services and early intervention and in restoration of elective care following the pandemic.  These health inequalities needed support in integrated fashion with CCG's and Councils.  The White Paper had some positive and negative elements that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 483.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items.