Agenda item

A revised Local Assessment Procedure was adopted by the Council on 8 November 2017 and it was agreed that a review would be undertaken following a year of operation.  This report therefore considers how the Procedure has worked in practice, proposes some minor amendments for clarity, and seeks the views of the Committee on any other changes to be put forward.

The Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer reminded the

Committee that a revised Local Assessment Procedure had been adopted by Full Council on 8 November 2017 and that it had been agreed that a review would be undertaken following a year of that Procedure’s operation.

            The Committee received a report reviewing how the Procedure had worked in practice and it proposed some minor amendments for the Committee to consider for clarity purposes and to increase transparency of the process for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints. The Committee’s views were also sought on any other changes that it felt should be put forward and proposed.

The Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer outlined that the procedure had worked well and had met the aims that the Committee had wanted in introducing a two staged review process in terms of practical use and application.

Taking into account comments received, there were six sections where change was being proposed, as set out below:

Paragraph 4

There were three additions proposed:

(i) Whilst the flow chart at Appendix 3 confirms that this stage will be completed within 28 working days, it is suggested that an additional paragraph be added to confirm this timescale for clarity. This new paragraph (4.2) also confirmed the timescale for acknowledging any complaint received.

(ii) In practice, the Monitoring Officer has been consulting with an Independent Person before using her discretion not to proceed with a complaint under one of the sub-paragraphs in paragraph 4.3. This was so that some independence could be seen to all parties from any decision taken. It was therefore proposed that this practice be formalised.

(iii) This stage had no right of review and for clarity it was suggested that an additional paragraph be added to confirm this and that the Monitoring Officer’s decision would be reported to the Standards Committee for information.

The Committee agreed to these changes.

Paragraph 5

Clarity was being proposed in:

(i)            A new paragraph 5.5 to confirm that the investigation would be completed within 28 working days (as explained in Appendix 3), unless the Monitoring Officer advised within that timeframe that more time was needed by the Investigating Officer to conduct their review.

(ii)           This stage also had no right of review and for clarity it was suggested that an additional paragraph be added to confirm this and that the Monitoring Officer’s decision would be reported to the Standards Committee for information.

The Committee agreed to these changes.

Paragraph 6

To reflect the practice introduced, it was proposed that:

(i) The third, fourth and final bullet points in paragraph 6.6 be amended to state that the report would be issued when the decision notice was published as well as in a report to the Standards Committee, so Members and the relevant Town/Parish Council were made aware as soon as the final decision notice was issued to all parties.

The Committee agreed to these changes.

Paragraph 8

To reflect the practice introduced, it was proposed that:

(i) An additional paragraph 8.6 be added to confirm that if no review was requested by either the Complainant or Subject

Member, both would be advised in writing that the decision had been confirmed and how the decision would be published.

The Committee agreed to these changes.

Paragraph 9

Clarity was being proposed in:

(i) Paragraph 9.1 to confirm that the Chairman of the Assessment Panel would not always be the Chairman of the Standards Committee, except when the Chairman was in attendance and that the decision notice would initially be sent to the Complainant and Subject Member only for review.

(ii) Paragraph 9.2 to confirm that the decision notice would be published once the review period had passed and to clarify the publication arrangements.

The Committee agreed to these changes.

Appendix 3 – Procedure Flowchart

It was proposed that a further timescale be introduced for those complaints dealt with under a Stage 1 investigation. As currently, the initial investigation needed to be completed within 28 working days.

However, as confirmed in paragraph 5.5, there was then a 14 day period for consultation with both the Complainant and Subject Member before the Investigation Officer’s report would be presented to the

Independent Person for review. For clarification, it was suggested that the flowchart confirmed this and that the Monitoring Officer may request an extension of time if required. This extension being to allow for those few occasions where the complaint was complex or the investigation required interviews with multiple witnesses.

The Committee agree to these changes.

Finally, the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer highlighted a further three issues where the Committee’s views were sought.

These are as set out below:

1.            Would Members of the Standards Committee wish to be circulated the decision letter issued by the Monitoring Officer for complaints that did not proceed to further investigation or for these to continue to only be referenced in the monitoring report presented to each meeting? The Monitoring Officer and Chairman’s view was that the former approach would help the Committee to be aware of any complaint dealt with in this way as soon as it has been resolved in case any question was raised with them prior to their next meeting and provide them with the full details.

2.            If the complaint did not go any further than Stage One (as paragraph 5.8 of the report confirmed), would Members wish for the Investigating Officer’s report to be published to the Council’s website and presented to the next Standards Committee for information or for these to continue to only be referenced in the monitoring report presented to each meeting? The Monitoring Officer, Chairman and Independent Persons were all of the view that for transparency reasons the decision notice should be published as otherwise the Complainant and Subject Member needed to be asked to keep this confidential.

3. Should the Complainant’s name be published in the decision notice as the Procedure was silent on this? Paragraph 2.4 of the Procedure confirmed that the Subject Member would usually be told who had complained about them. However, it was silent on whether the Complainant’s name would be published in the decision notice. The Monitoring Officer had not been publishing this in the absence of a clear direction. The Monitoring Officer, Chairman and Independent Persons were all of the view that the Complainant’s name should be included in the decision notice in the interests of fairness to all parties, unless they had been granted anonymity.

The Committee agreed that the points above be introduced and applied to the appropriate paragraphs of the Assessment Procedure.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1)    the Local Assessment Procedure be amended to reflect the changes shown in Appendix A to the report and as highlighted at the meeting;

(2)    a copy of the amended Local Assessment Procedure be sent to all Town and Parish Councils; and

(3)    a review of the Procedure be undertaken following a further two years of operation, or sooner if required, and reported back to the Standards Committee.