Agenda item

This report seeks to advise Members of the changes to the “ethical framework” which will be introduced under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer and former Monitoring Officer introduced the report, which advised Members of the changes to the “ethical framework”, which will be introduced under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. Issues covered included: -

·        The changes provided an opportunity to reduce the bureaucracy of the current regime;

·        Members with a pecuniary interest needed to declare it, could not participate but were no longer required to leave the room;

·        Dispensations would be able to be granted by the Monitoring Officer;

·        Independent Person – advice sought by The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS) demonstrated that this could not be someone who had been a member, a co-optee or an employee in the last five years, which included current Independent Members.

Officers then drew the committee’s attention to section 13 of the report, which demonstrated areas for consideration in adopting the new regime and developing procedures.  The Monitoring Officer also explained that he intended on taking a report on proposed new procedures under the new regime to full Council on 26 April 2012.

The committee then made comments and asked questions, which included: -

·        Could the Council appoint a committee to under see the Independent Person’s work which could include current independent members;

·        How much of a role the Independent Person would have;

·        Procedures for parish councils - concern about responsibility of complaints being delegated to the parish council and consideration of offering Parish Councils the option of opting in to using the local authority to resolve complaints;

·        That new procedures should enable complaints to be flagged as vexatious and not carried forward if identified as such;

·        Possibility of working with other local authorities to share Independent Members to continue their knowledge and experience;

·        Suggestion that where a complaint is made by Councillor about another Councillor, that these be referred to the Group Whip for action, unless considered serious enough to be referred to the Independent Person;

·        What the role of this committee would be in the future, if to remain at all.

In response to the options around roles for current Independent Members, the Monitoring Officer explained that although it was regrettable to lose their knowledge and experience, there would be no voting role for the Independent Members and some of the suggestions could risk undermining the Independent Person and their statutory role.  In terms of looking to sharing Independent Members with other local authorities, the Monitoring Officer undertook to take the suggestion forward for a view from other Monitoring Officers at a meeting he would be attending later that week.

In relation to the role of the Independent Person, the officers explained that how much involvement the Independent Person had would depend on the procedures agreed by the Council.

In relation to Parish Councils, the Monitoring Officer explained that the concern for the local authority was that under the new regime, the time and cost of investigations on parish councillor complaints would be borne by the local authority and the Parish Council would not have to act on any sanctions suggested following investigation, therefore, work would need to be done to find a balance to enable the process to work for both parties.  In addition, officers clarified that parish councils could not appoint their own Independent Person and so if they dealt with their own complaints, where these were serious, they would still be required to consult with the local authority Independent Person.

In response to providing an opportunity to flag complaints as vexatious, where appropriate, the Monitoring Officer explained that wording would need to be careful for this but accepted it was something that could be included.

The Monitoring Officer explained that a committee would be needed to decide on, where appropriate, what sanction of the remaining five to give where a Member is found to breach the Code.  However, he added that this function could sit within Audit Committee or as a sub-committee of the Audit Committee, instead of a Standards Committee, if the Council wished.  He added that such committees were normally politically balanced.

The Monitoring Officer also asked for the committee’s view on whether or not the Council should implement a standing order requiring members with a pecuniary interest to leave the room.  Some felt strongly that this should be implemented and others felt that the member not speaking and voting was sufficient, without the need for them to withdraw from the room.

Decision:

The committee noted the report and requested the Monitoring Officer to forward the committee’s thoughts, outlined above, to the Group Leaders to inform their deliberations as to the way forward.