Agenda item

(Report of the Monitoring Officer)  To set out arrangements for the receipt, assessment, review and hearing of  complaints received locally alleging that Members have failed to comply with the Members Code of Conduct.  To adopt terms of references for the Standards Assessment, Review and Hearing Sub-Committees.

In a brief introduction of the report the Monitoring Officer – Mr Suddaby, advised the Committee that the report set out the arrangements for the receipt, assessment, review and hearing of complaints received locally alleging the failure of Members to comply with the Members Code of Conduct. 

(Councillor Lister arrived at 19.45hrs from making difference meeting) 

Mr Suddaby outlined the process as detailed in the report from receipt of complaints and his role as Monitoring officer upon receipt at the initial stage,  and the assessment process of for the complaint.  Mr Suddaby gave an in-depth explanation of the role, composition and quorum of the proposed Standards Assessment Sub-Committee, the Standards Review Sub-Committee, and the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee, and referred the Committee to the terms of reference of each, as detailed in the appendices to the report. Mr Suddaby outlined that when complaints were received in writing that an elected or co-opted Member of the Council had failed or may have failed to comply with the Member’s Code of Conduct the complaint would be sent to the Chair of the Standards Assessment Sub-committee of the Standards Committee c/o the Monitoring Officer.  On receipt, the Monitoring Officer would

a)     notify the subject member that a complaint had been received against them and that an assessment sub-committee will take place to determine what further action to take in relation to it and refer the complaint to the ASC for an assessment hearing,  or

b)     Take other appropriate action – e.g.  in the case of a complaint unrelated to the code of Conduct or a complaint received orally, the Monitoring Officer may consider informal resolution. 

c)      At his/her discretion inform the subject member of the nature of the complaint received and the identity of the complainant and of the action that will be taken

d)     Notify the complainant of the action that will be taken in relation to his/her complaint.

Mr Suddaby advised that in his capacity as Monitoring officer he would ensure that all complaints against elected and co-opted Members received by the Council were directed to him/her to allow the necessary steps outlined to be taken.  In the instances where the Monitoring Officer referred the complaint to the ASC for an assessment hearing a draft written summary report would be prepared for the assessment sub-committee confirming that the complaint appeared to be within their jurisdiction, referring to the relevant code paragraph that appears to be engaged, to key aspects of complaint and including any further relevant information as per the Standards Board for England’s guidance.

In respect of the assessment of complaints received Mr Suddaby advised that the Standards Committee must set up an assessment sub-committee, a review sub-committee and lastly must arrange for any complaint which is investigated to have a hearing.  The Standards Assessment sub-committee (SASC) would be composed of 5 members of the Standards Committee. Two of the members of the sub-committee will be independent members and three will be elected Members. The membership of the SASC will be determined by the Clerk to the Standards Committee on a rotation basis subject to availability. The SASC would function in accordance with the Terms of reference proposed at Appendix A to the report.

In respect of the Standards Review Sub-committee (SRSC) Mr Suddaby advised thatit would be composed of 3 members of the Standards committee who were not members of the assessment sub-committee that considered the complaint. One of the members of the sub-committee would be an independent member and two of the members will be elected members.  The membership of the SRSC would be determined by the Clerk to the Standards Committee on a rotation basis subject to availability and subject to the restriction outlined.

Mr Suddaby commented that the Standards Committee would then be required to meet to consider a report following an investigation by the Monitoring Officer as requested by a SASC or SRSC.  The Committee would then consider and make one of the following decisions:

1. A finding of acceptance – accepting the monitoring officer’s finding of no failure to comply with the Code
2. That the matter should be considered for determination at a hearing by the full Standards Committee or at a hearing by the standards hearing sub-committee.
3. That the matter should be referred to the Adjudication Panel for England for determination.

Mr Suddaby advised that should the Standards Committee agree to convene a Standards Hearing Sub-committee – this Committee would becomposed of 5 members of the Standards Committee of whom 2 members will be independent members.  The membership of the SHSC would be determined by the Clerk to the Standards Committee on a rotation basis subject to availability. The SHSC will function in accordance with the Terms of reference proposed at Appendix C of the report.

The Chair thanked Mr Suddaby for his succinct introduction.

The Committee then discussed the report and its contents – the main concerns and points of clarification being:

·        The composition of the Sub-Committees and the matter of Members sitting on the Assessment Sub-Committee being precluded from sitting on another, and possible difficult timescale for the Hearing Sub-Committee to meet following the deliberations of the Standards Committee and perceived difficulties of attempting to convene balanced Sub-Committees. The Committee were advised that the composition of the Sub Committees was designed to be as fair as possible, and every effort would be made to ensure a balance and this process would be managed by the Head of Local Democracy and Member Services and carefully monitored to ensure the correct allocation.  The timescales were likely to be tight between the Sub-Committee processes but with careful planning the prescribed timescales would be adhered to.

·        Clarification of the number of cases that could be heard in one Sub-Committee hearing and the Committee were advised that that would be dependent on the nature of the individual case, as well as the volume of cases, and therefore it may have to be initially a ‘suck it and see’ situation;

·        The process for assessing the complaints received from the initial stages of the complaint and the actions of the Monitoring Officer in assessing a complaint, in terms of the complaint breeching the Members Code of Conduct, or being non code of conduct complaints.

·        The receipt of verbal complaints and the requirement to have receipt of such in writing prior to the formal investigation process commencing, and the possibility of a verbal complaint being dealt with informally and therefore resolved in a conciliation process without being formally investigated and the options open to the complainant in such instances

·        the need to ensure that the Committee were informed of those complaints received and then not proceeded with, and the Committee in response were advised that the Chair of the Committee would be informed of the number of cases informally resolved, not acted upon or where the Monitoring Officer had determined that a case should not proceed further;

·        The ambiguity of para 7.1 point (2) and the contradiction of its sentiments in relation to 7.1 (1) and whether this point was required; 

·        The need to ensure clear guidance and explanation to the public in terms of the complaints process, and the need for a leaflet to be produced to explain, as well as it being clearly stated on the web etc, and that officers ensure that the communications service have sight of any proposed leaflet or web information;

There being no further points of clarification the Chair MOVED and it was:

RESOLVED

i.                    that the arrangements for the processing of complaints that Members have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, as outlined in the report and appendices, be approved subject to the deletion of para 7.1(2) in respect of Receipt of complaints;

i.                    that authority be delegated to the head of Local Democracy and member Services  to appoint the membership of the Standards assessment Sub-Committees, Standards Review Sub-Committees, and Standards Hearing Sub-Committees in accordance with the Regulations (S.I 2008/1085) and the procedures set out in the report and in consultation with the Chair of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer;

ii.                  that a further report be considered containing suggested objective local criteria to be used in the assessment process in order to ensure fairness and transparency; and

iii.                that any leaflet or web publication detailing the process for public viewing/use be cleared through the Council’s Communication Service prior to publication.

iv.                 That the pro-formas set out at Appendix ? be adopted for immediate use but that they would be reviewed for plain English as soon as reasonably possible.

The Chair MOVED and it was agreed unanimously that the Committee adjourn for a period of 15 minutes. The Committee adjourned at 20.30hrs and reconvened at 20:45hrs.