Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to set out the Council’s ethical governance arrangements relating to member conduct following a request made by the Scrutiny Commissioners in January this year.  The report focused on the framework, processes and governance measures in place but did not consider individual allegations of misconduct, nor the merits of any specific complaints which fall outside the remit of scrutiny.  The report also highlighted where leadership on conduct and standards is exercised alongside the formal standards framework, particularly through the expectations placed on all elected members.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               The Monitoring Officer advised of her intention to present a report to the Corporate Governance Committee at its meeting in June.  This would be to provide an update on Member conduct complaints since the last report of the Monitoring Officer in November last year.  The current practice was to provide an annual report, however, due to the increased number of complaints received, it was considered appropriate for a mid-year update to also be provided.

(ii)              As part of the report to the Corporate Governance Committee, Members noted that a summary setting out the context and seriousness of particular complaints where a public apology had been made would be included, and this would also name the members who had been the subject of those particular complaints.  The Committee would also be asked to amend the current procedure for dealing with complaints to allow for this summary to be published at the time the public apology is made, rather than relying solely on reporting to the Committee.  The Commission supported this proposed change in approach, and agreed that for the public apology to be meaningful such details should be published at the same time.

(iii)            Members questioned how it was determined that a member was acting in their ‘official capacity’, particularly in relation to social media comments.  It was noted that members might state they were acting in a personal capacity but if comments related to Council business or their role, the Code could still apply.  Posts unrelated to Council business would be unlikely to fall within the remit of the Code, however, each complaint and the circumstances surrounding this would need to be considered on a case by case basis.  It was recognised that this caused some confusion amongst members of the public. The Monitoring Officer emphasised that members were not expected to be acting as councillors 24/7, but some actions (such as referencing their role even if expressing their personal views) could bring their behaviour within the remit of the Code.

(iv)            Members commented on the limitations of current sanctions available when a member was found to have breached the Code.  Existing sanctions were widely considered not to be fit for purpose and relied heavily on party group discipline which did not cover independent or parish councillors.  Members noted that historically, a national standards regime existed but that this had been replaced due to lengthy appeals and politically motivated complaints.  The Monitoring Officer advised that national reforms were expected from the Government which might reintroduce more severe sanctions, including temporary suspensions, but details of how this would operate in practice had not yet been made clear.

(v)             The implications of a temporary suspension were queried regarding how this would interact with the rule which meant members who did not attend a meeting during a six month period were disqualified from office. The Monitoring Officer advised that this had been a concern raised during the Government consultation on proposed changes to the standards regime and it remained a matter under consideration.

(vi)            Some Members commented that whilst stronger sanctions were to be welcomed, care was needed to ensure problems that arose under the previous system were not re-created.

(vii)          Members expressed concern regarding both repeat offenders and repeat complainers.  The Monitoring Officer assured members that patterns of behaviour could be addressed through training and targeted support which was provided to groups and individual members where needed.  Members further noted that the Corporate Governance Committee had agreed criteria to be applied by the Monitoring Officer and the Member Conduct Panel which included the ability to reject complaints considered to be politically motivated or vexatious.

(viii)         A Member questioned whether consistent standards were applied to both officers and elected members.  It was noted that both were governed by distinct statutory frameworks but that the Nolan principles applied to both.  Also the Member Officer Protocol within the Council’s Constitution ensured officers and members worked together in an environment of trust and respect.  It was acknowledged that different Codes were needed to reflect the different roles officers and members played within the Authority.  Officers, as employers, were restricted in ways that elected members were not particularly regarding political expression, for example.

(ix)            In response to questions regarding the most common themes of complaints received, the Monitoring Officer advised that key issues related to respect and perceptions of bringing the Council into disrepute.  Members noted the need to balance robust political debate, which was acceptable, against personal or targeted attacks, which were not

(x)             A Member queried how the number of complaints received in Leicestershire compared with neighbouring and comparator councils. The Monitoring Officer agreed to look into this and share more information if this was available when reporting to the Corporate Governance Committee.  It was noted that not all councils published such data and those that did were not necessarily in comparable formats.

(xi)            Members queried whether conditions such as autism, which may affect communication or understanding of consequences, were considered as part of the Council’s current complaints processes.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that where such information was known, it would be taken into account by both her and the Panel.

(xii)          The Commission noted that an unprecedented number of complaints had been received in the last 12 to 18 months and that this had increased processing time due to necessary checks having to be undertaken in line with the Council’s procedures which included meeting with the independent persons.

(xiii)         Members expressed concern about the overall cost to the Council arising from the increased number of complaints and questioned what additional costs were incurred when an investigation had to be carried out. The Monitoring Officer advised that complex cases often required investigation following consideration by the Member Conduct Panel, and that the cost of such investigations could range significantly from £2,000 to £20,000.

(xiv)        Members strongly supported enhancing the Council’s current training requirements.  Training on the Code of Conduct was not currently mandatory, however, members agreed that this should be introduced and requested that reporting on those that had and had not completed this should be included in the Monitoring Officers update to the Corporate Governance Committee.  It was noted that training on the Code was often required by the Member Conduct Panel where a breach was found to have occurred.  The Monitoring Officer also advised of additional training and support resources now available through the LGA. 

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the contents of the report and additional information now provided by the Monitoring Officer on member conduct matters be noted;

(b)  That the Corporate Governance Committee be requested to consider:

·        Making training on the Members’ Code of Conduct mandatory, with compliance to be monitored and reported annually;

·        Allowing for a summary of complaints to accompany the publication of a public apology to provide some contextual information;

(c)   That the Monitoring Officer be requested to consider how the number of complaints received in respect of Leicestershire members compared to other similar county authorities and to provide such benchmarking information in future reports to the Corporate Governance Committee.