The Monitoring Officer introduced her report which provided an overview of the Monitoring Officer work in the past year; an opportunity to review and learn from experience; and a wider context to the importance of good ethical behaviour. 

The Monitoring Officer briefly outlined each section of the report, and welcomed questions and comments from Members on her first report as Monitoring Officer.  The report showed that the year to end of October 2017 had been one of the busiest in terms of hearings and complaints received, however, the position had remained relatively stable with any emerging issues being identified and dealt with appropriately.

In respect of section 5 – Good Governance and the Code of Conduct – the Monitoring Officer referred to the Annual Standards Conference where it had been clear that all Monitoring Officers shared the same frustrations regarding the lack of sanctions available under the Localism Act.  She drew attention to the update on case law, drawing attention in particular to Dedmen v ICO 2016, and Hussain v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 2017.  The only case to be prosecuted under the new Standards regime remained R v Flower, details of which were set out in the report.

The increasing use of social media continued to raise issues throughout the country, and the Monitoring Officer referred to the guidance that had been issued to Members regarding this and drew attention to the case law set out in the report.

In response to questions on paragraph 5.13 under the section ‘Local Context’, the Monitoring Officer advised that the term ‘friends’ had replaced the term ‘close associations’, and this was often a matter of predetermination or bias.  It was a matter for the Member to consider and declare, and it was important for the Member to consider perception, i.e., what a fair minded individual might think.  Any issues of concern of this nature should be reported to the Monitoring Officer.  The Monitoring Officer also referred to the training session she had held earlier in the year on the Code of Conduct, and confirmed that parish councillors would be welcome to attend future training on this topic.

In respect of paragraph 5.15 of the report which set out details of historic cases, the Monitoring Officer advised that there were no sanctions to check that the training had been carried out as they were recommendations for the Parish Council.  In terms of new complaints, there had been a rise in the number of complaints received, with two being referred for investigation and one hearing being held.

In response to a question concerning Section 8 of the report – Whistleblowing (Protected Disclosure Policy), the Monitoring Officer advised that this was on the intranet as it was an internal document for Council staff, however, she would look into why this document was not also on the Council’s website.  She also agreed to clarify the meaning in Section 2 ‘report on sufficiency of resources’ following a question regarding whether there had been a report regarding resources for housing.

In response to further questions, the Monitoring Officer advised that they were not aware of any changes required to the Code of Conduct as a result of changes to the Data Protection legislation.  She also agreed to include how many applications had been made regarding applications for directed surveillance (paragraph 13.1) in future reports.

Resolved:

(1)That the report be noted.

(2) That there be no further action to review the Code of Conduct at the present time.

(3) That the Hearing Sub-Committee procedurebe reviewed.