Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer will provide a verbal update on the local arrangements for implementation of the changes to the “ethical framework” which will be introduced under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report advising that he had previously informed the committee that the implementation of the changes to the “ethical framework” would be taking place prior to July 2012. Since the last meeting, it had been announced that 1 July 2012 was the effective date and that Local Authorities must adopt the code on or after that date. The pecuniary interest regulations had also been published, with Members now required to register employment details, sponsorship, contracts, land, licences, corporate tenancies and shareholdings over £25,000.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he had drafted a new procedure, code and flowchart for future complaints and consulted with senior Members of the council on these proposals. He had received endorsement to take these forward earlier this week and had therefore been unable to circulate these to the committee prior to the meeting. The proposals were based on responding to Members’ concern at the recent high number of complaints and the cost associated with them.

The committee was informed that, legally, the highest level of sanction would be to censure a Member and he therefore proposed to deal with most complaints on an informal basis. With regard to Parish Council complaints, he would ask them to resolve these internally, if it was not too much of a burden, and he had spoken with most of the Parish Clerks about this. He also proposed that if, proportionally, it was unjustifiable to hold an investigation which could only lead to censure at the highest level, then he would not hold an investigation.

The committee was advised that the Monitoring Officer wished to be clear about how rare an investigation would be under the new proposals, as he would take every opportunity to deal with a complaint at the lowest level. If, however, an investigation was held, this would take place quickly and by correspondence. Once it was decided to hold an investigation, the matter would be given to an independent person, recruited by the council, for judgement and if there was no informal resolution it would be submitted to a newly formed committee for decision. The committee would be established with a membership of eight Councillors and an advert would be placed shortly to seek recruitment of the independent person, and it was expected that they should have appropriate legal experience.

The Monitoring Officer advised that this was a unique approach and a much simpler approach to how other Local Authorities had responded to the Localism Act 2011. Other councils had retained a similar procedure to their current system but this was because they did not receive the same number of complaints experienced at Medway. His proposals were not about reducing costs but that the current format was not positive for Medway which was why he proposed to significantly change the current system within the legal regulations.

The committee was further advised that the Monitoring Officer had considered the following issues whilst drafting the proposals:

·        that the unhelpful release of information to the press before a matter was dealt with.

He proposed in the future, if information was put in the public domain through a leak to the press, he would stop the process and the matter would be concluded, as that was all that could happen in the worst-case scenario of a Member being censured.

·        that the new code produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was seen on a national basis as too simplistic.

He proposed to adopt the DCLG code, without amendment. This meant that Medway would not share a code with the other Local Authorities in Kent, as they had agreed a different model.

·        that the draft proposals would be circulated to members of this committee for consideration and comment.

It contained a number of working assumptions, such as: being a quick process; no publicity until it was concluded; based on correspondence; group matters would be dealt with in the group; Parish Council matters would be dealt with in the Parish Councils; and the expectation that complainants would contact the Monitoring Officer before a formal complaint was lodged.

Councillor O’Brien added that he hoped that the new procedure would stop frivolous complaints and the unfairness of information leaked to the press before the conclusion of a case that resulted in ‘no action’. He advised that he would discuss these proposals with Members of his group within the next week and would then invite the leaders of the other political groups to discuss this with him during the following week.

A member of the committee raised their grave concern and disappointment that Councillor O’Brien had a copy of the draft proposals at the meeting, when no other member of the committee had seen it. The Monitoring Officer had given a verbal report and therefore other committee members had less information than Councillor O’Brien. Other members of the committee agreed that they were also unhappy with this and consideration was given whether to proceed with this agenda item.

Councillor O’Brien responded that he had a draft of the proposals, as he was the Portfolio Holder for this matter. However, the final decision was a matter for Full Council and members of the committee would be asked for their comments, which would be considered and accepted in the final proposal put to Full Council for decision, if appropriate. The Monitoring Officer advised that he understood the committee’s disappointment and noted the comments that had been raised. He stated that there had been a shift from the current process to a new one where politicians now had to take responsibility for standards matters and not independent members. Senior Members of the council had considered his draft proposals and given their endorsement earlier this week, which was why he had been unable to circulate them prior to the meeting. He advised that he would circulate the draft proposals to the committee for comment, which was in plenty of time before Full Council on 26 July 2012.

The committee commented that, with regard to information being leaked to the press before the conclusion of a case, the proposal set out by the Monitoring Officer might encourage people to go to the press rather than prevent it.

Members of the committee asked that when a complaint was referred to a political group to be dealt with, would the Monitoring Officer offer help and advice to that group? The Monitoring Officer advised that he preferred not to be involved with political disputes. He had successfully managed problems behind the scenes in other Local Authorities and was happy to continue with that process in Medway. If a Member behaved inappropriately, he may speak to them in his role as Monitoring Officer, but where that was not possible he would, on most occasions, refer the matter to the political group.

An independent member asked how the public was to be informed of the new scheme, particularly around the role of self-regulation. They were informed that the new scheme would be published on the council’s website with a written process for the public to follow.

The Parish Council representatives asked how the Parish Councils would adopt a new scheme, as previously they had adopted a similar code to Medway Council. In this instance, some Parish Councils might not have a meeting scheduled before the regulations came into force on 1 July 2012 or have an opportunity to comment before Full Council made its decision. The Monitoring Officer advised that he had met six Parish Clerks in March 2012 where it had been agreed that he would send Parish Councils the draft code. The Parish Council was required to decide whether to adopt it, with caveats, if they wished to as soon as possible after 1 July 2012. The draft code would be sent to them next week and he would speak to the remaining Parish Clerks in the meantime.

A member of the committee advised that some Parish Councils only had a membership of five councillors so if there was a dispute between two of them, this would be particularly awkward and difficult for the remaining three councillors to resolve. What would the Parish Council be expected to do in such circumstances? The Monitoring Officer suggested that in this scenario he would consider and implement the best course of action to resolve the matter, which might mean his own involvement in the resolution of the complaint.

The Monitoring Officer was asked if he anticipated whether there would be a role for existing independent members, in any capacity, in the future. He advised that the law had changed and independent members could not be fitted into the new process other than to become non-voting members of the committee.

A committee member asked whether the committee existed in its current form until 30 June 2012, as the new regulations came into force on 1 July, or whether it continued until 26 July 2012 when the council formally made its decision on the new process it would adopt. The committee member added that if it was formally constituted until 26 July, then there was an opportunity for the committee to arrange another meeting to consider and respond to the draft proposals. The Monitoring Officer stated that he believed the committee would remain in its current format until 30 June but undertook to clarify this point with the committee outside of the meeting.

The independent members of the committee asked whether the new role of independent member recruited by the council would be open for them to apply for and would the council only use one independent member for all cases? They also asked if this role would receive remuneration. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there would only be one independent member recruited to consider the complaints referred to them and they would receive a daily rate (pro-rata) for the work they carried out.

Following a question about the interviewing and recommendation of candidates for the independent member role, the Monitoring Officer advised that this had previously been carried out by officers but he would be happy to involve Members. The committee asked that clarification on this point was provided, as it would be unhappy to see the independent member interviewed and referred to Full Council for final decision by politicians. The Monitoring Officer advised that he had asked the Conservative and Labour Groups to indicate who may be interested in this role, as they possible knew suitable individuals. However, the advert would be open for anyone to apply. The committee was concerned at this approach as informal discussions could take place behind the scenes with no transparency to the recruitment process. The Monitoring Officer stated that he acknowledged the committee’s concerns on this point but that the individual must show that they had relevant experience, were not politically active, not aligned to a particular political party and that they preferably had legal ability.

The committee asked about the sanctions that could be taken by a political group, other than for criminal acts, which would be dealt with by the police. The Monitoring Officer advised that, for example, the group could remove a member from the Audit Committee if the complaint related to financial irregularity but there would be no sanction on the scale of suspension or disqualification.

A Parish Council representative asked about the new regulations with regard to non-disclosure of interests and how the Parish Clerks would advise Parish Councillors of the importance of accurately completing the form, as they were not lawyers. The Monitoring Officer responded that he had started to form relationships with each of the Parish Clerks and he would work to ensure the Clerks were competent in this matter but that he would assist them, when necessary.

Decision:

The Committee noted the progress to set a new standards regime in Medway.