Agenda item

To consider an evaluation of the Council’s procedures for handling Councillor Code of Conduct complaints.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 9 to 18, which gave details of an independent review of the Council’s arrangements for handling Member Code of Conduct complaints.

The report stated that the Committee had agreed to commission the review from Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd., an independent company with significant experience and expertise relating to standards in local government. The review had benchmarked the Council’s procedures against good practice and the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The report stated that, in summary, the independent review concluded that the Council’s procedures were broadly in line with most authorities and represented good practice in many aspects. However, there were a number of comments on specific aspects of the procedures which the Committee may wish to consider. Paul Hoey attended the meeting to provide further analysis and to answer Member questions.

The Committee considered the following recommendations, set out in the Hoey Ainscough report:

·           Process for Considering Code of Conduct Complaints – this detailed process document was available online but not on the WBC website.

Recommendation – that the document “Process for Considering Code of Conduct Complaints” be added to the Council website along with a copy of the Code of Conduct.

·           Receipt and acknowledgement of a complaint – WBC’s internal timescale for acknowledgement of a complaint was three working days.

Recommendation – that the three working day timescale for acknowledgement of a complaint be formalised by adding it to the process.

·           Timescale for the Subject Member to comment on the complaint.

Recommendation – that the Subject Member should be given a timescale within which to provide comments and if no comments are received, the Monitoring Officer should proceed without the comments. Furthermore, the Monitoring Officer should not go back to the complainant for clarification in relation to any comments received by the Subject Member – this could form part of the investigation if necessary.

Note: The Committee agreed that a timescale of 15 working days was appropriate for Subject Member comments – this timescale to be extended at the Monitoring Officer’s discretion. 

·           In Parish or Town Council cases the process stated that the Monitoring Officer would seek the Clerk’s views, but it was not clear what the Clerk was being asked to comment on.

Recommendation – that the Clerk’s views be sought on factual matters (e.g. was the Member present at the meeting complained about) rather than matters of opinion.

·           Initial assessment of complaints currently undertaken by the Monitoring Officer in conjunction with an Independent Person and the Chairman of the Standards Committee.

Recommendation – that the Monitoring Officer only consult with the Independent Person when carrying out the initial assessment and deciding on a course of action.

·           Informal resolution – in cases where informal resolution has been pursued but has not been successful, the Council should reserve the option to refer the matter for formal investigation.

Recommendation – that the Monitoring Officer be able to refer a complaint for investigation where it is considered that informal resolution has failed – the Independent Person should be consulted in these circumstances.

·           Public disclosure of Subject Member’s name - in cases where informal resolution had followed an investigation and finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct, the current process stated that the Subject Member’s name was not to be disclosed.

Recommendation – that the Subject Member’s name be disclosed where the Investigating Officer has found a breach of the Code of Conduct following investigation and the case has been referred for informal resolution.

·           Hearing Panels meeting in Private – as a decision making body of the Council a Hearings Panel is covered by the rules relating to access to information and political balance.

Recommendation – that there should not be a blanket presumption towards closed hearings, with each meeting to consider the facts on their merits at the start of proceedings.

Note: the Committee agreed that the Hearings Panel could meet in public but the Panel would consider and make any decisions in private.

Recommendation – that the Standards Committee consider whether political proportionality should apply to Hearings Panel meetings.

Note: the Committee agreed that political proportionality should apply to Hearings Panel meetings.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Paul Hoey be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Member questions;

2)     the recommendations in the Hoey Ainscough report, as set out above, be approved;

3)     that the agreed recommendations be forwarded to the Constitution Review Working Group and full Council;

4)     the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman of the Standards Committee, be given delegated authority to draft the changes to the Constitution arising from 2) above.