Appendix I – Draft arrangements with member comments added 09.07.2024

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which asked the committee to consider comments made by the Standards Committee on the draft code of conduct complaints arrangements, and determine what further steps should be taken.  He went through the comments made by Members, one-by-one, and responses to these are set out below:

·         Paragraph 1.1: Remove the word ‘co-opted’ from the last line – Members agreed.

·         Paragraph 2: The interpretation at the beginning was better than the previous policy – Members agreed.

·         Paragraph 3.2: Why was a substitute needed now but not previously? Members considered it was helpful to have a substitute.

·         Paragraph 4.1: Should information be provided on the methods to complain, and an explanation that all complaints would be referred to the Monitoring Officer? Any complaints in writing had met the test in law.

·         Complaint form: Could the process/form be made simpler? Members agreed the complaint form provided consistency in information provided on complaints.

·         Complainant form: Was the Equalities Monitoring Information form necessary? Members agreed to add ‘Completion of the form is optional’ and to consider updating the language to be consistent with other Council documents.

·         Procedure to complain was an improvement and much clearer: Members agreed.

·         Hearing Panel Procedure - Paragraph 2: Should be made clearer who chose the Chair. Members agreed to include a sentence so that members of the sub-committee were chosen in advance and then those Members would agree who would chair.

·         Paragraph 11.3 (c) – Should be made clearer where it would be reported to. Members agreed to take out ‘or Monitoring Officer’.

·         Paragraph 12.1 – Having the sanctions listed was an improvement.

There was some discussion around the lobbying of Government to carry out a review of the process and sanctions and it was agreed this would be discussed under the final Agenda item.

·         Paragraph 2.3 – Suggested that the complainant must highlight the areas or how they felt the Member had breached the Code of Conduct.  Members agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s suggestion that this paragraph considered the definition of a complainant, so the amendment could be discussed later in the document.

·         Paragraph 2.6 (a) - Asked whether the Standards hearing panel should decide the date of a complaint? Members agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s suggestion of considering the suggestion later in the document.

·         Paragraph 2.7 – said the Investigating Officer should be external to the Council from a pool of Council-approved investigators.  After a long discussion on this, with Members having differing views, Members agreed to revisit this suggestion.

·         Paragraph 2.8 – asked whether it was necessary to keep the definition.  Members agreed to take this out.

·         Suggested an additional paragraph at 3.3 in respect of the keeping of notes and dates, as set out in the published appendix. During the discussion on this, the Independent Person advised that she was happy for this addition and Members agreed to include it.

·         Paragraph 4.1 (b) – a suggestion, as set out in the appendix, for a verbal complaint to be transcribed was agreed by Members.

·         Paragraph 4.2 – raised an issue of anonymity, as set out in the published appendix.  The Monitoring Officer clarified that anonymous complaints were extremely rare, and complainants would likely be identified by the circumstances of a complaint.

·         Paragraph 6.1 – said that anonymous complaints should not be accepted without documented evidence to support the allegation.  The Monitoring Officer said he had never granted an anonymous complaint.

·         Paragraph 13.1 – commented that reviews of decisions should be undertaken if basic procedures or the constitution had not been followed.  In the discussion that followed, the Monitoring Officer clarified there was no right of appeal of a decision but options were open to challenge the process.

·         Paragraph 14.1 – no change.

·         Suggested new paragraph 14.2 – a possible breach of standards should be decided within 14 days of the receipt of the complaint and the subject member being informed.  During clarification from the Monitoring Officer a Member said he was referring to an initial assessment of the complaint. Members agreed this paragraph to not be included in this section but be considered elsewhere in the document.

·         Paragraph 15.1 Members did not support the delegation to the Monitoring Officer and Hearing Panel and agreed that reference to this be taken out.

Annex 1

2.1 Members agreed the addition of ‘Notes/minutes of this assessment must be made’.

2.3 (f) The suggestion by a Member to reduce acceptability of a complaint from the time of the misconduct taking place from 3 months to 28 days was not supported.

(i) There was some discussion around circumstances where other legal action might be taken and whether it was appropriate to include reference to defamation.  Members agreed to add ‘or may be’ in front of ‘the subject’ in the first line. 

The Chair commented that seeing a clean, up to date draft of the document, with all updates included, would help Members when revisiting the document.

4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 (c)– Members agreed to revisit this.

4.7 – suggested that the right of review to an external body be included.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed this had already been discussed.

5.2 – Members agreed this had been discussed.

6.2 (e) – with reference to the suggested addition that the Standards Committee took the decision to informally resolve the complaint rather than the Monitoring Officer, this would fundamentally change the process and would not be included.

Complaint form

Appeal – it was agreed to add the word ‘statutory’ in front of ‘right of appeal’…and this had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

Annex 2

1.1  Members agreed to add ‘the Localism Act 2011’ after the ‘Human Rights Act 1988.’

1.2  The suggested comment would be covered when revisiting the document.

1.6 Members agreed to add ‘normally’ before 20 working days.

1.7 Members agreed to add a final sentence: ‘A date for receipt of documents, etc, should be set’.

4.1(b), 4.3 and 4.6 The additional comment would be covered when revisiting the document.

Annex 3

1.1  (e) and (f) Members accepted the additional comment ‘The default position must be that all hearings are public hearings.’

Members supported the Monitoring Officer’s suggestion that the document now be consulted upon with all Members.

Councillor Elliott Jayes proposed and Richard Palmer seconded the recommendations.

Resolved:

(1)  That the comments on the draft code of conduct be considered.

(2)  That, subject to the updates agreed by Members, all Members be consulted on the Code of Conducts arrangements.