Agenda item

This report brings forward a revised Protocol for Member and Officer Relations that brings the document up-to-date in order that it is fit for purpose and ensures that both Members and Officers understand their responsibilities, their relationships, where and how those intersect and how they work together in decision-making and day-to-day working.

[60 Minutes]

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Monitoring Officer introduced the report which brought forward a revised Protocol for Member and Officer Relations. The revised Protocol brought the document up-to-date in order that it was fit for purpose and ensured that both Members and Officers understood their responsibilities, their relationships, where and how those intersected and how they worked together in decision-making and day-to-day working. This document formed part of the Constitution and set out how this two-way relationship would be governed and it specified the way in which disagreements would be dealt with. Changes to the document were shown as tracked changes in the appendix. The Monitoring Officer then explained each of the changes and took questions from Members following each one. The questions from Members are summarised below.

Paragraph 7.1 – In cases where the Chair of a Committee found something in a report misleading or inaccurate, but the Officer disagreed, would this progress to the next level? The Monitoring Officer confirmed this was the case and the next step would be for it to be discussed with the relevant Group Head or Director. However, he stressed this would only be in extreme cases.

Paragraph 10.3 – it was felt by the Committee that some Members did not treat Officers with enough respect in meetings and via social media. What were the consequences of this for Members? The Monitoring Officer explained that failure to adhere to the Member/Officer Protocol could be a breach of the Code. He also explained that part of his role was to speak to Members and Group Leaders when necessary to offer advice. This could be done with or without a formal complaint being made.

It was felt the wording on 10.3 ‘Members should not’ should be made stronger and be amended to ‘Members shall not’. The Monitoring Officer agreed to change this wording to ‘Shall not’.

It was understood by some Members that anything they wrote on their personal social media accounts did not count as being in their Councillor capacity, it was asked whether this should be reviewed? The Monitoring Officer explained that the first filter for a complaint was whether the Councillor had been acting in their capacity at the time. If this was not the case it was unlikely to fall within the scope, however, advice from the Monitoring Officer to inform that their actions were not in line with the Member/Officer Protocol, could still be given.

Paragraph 10.6 – The Monitoring Officer confirmed this wording should say ‘they should raise the matter withtheir line manager or Group Head’ and the comma should be removed between ‘line manager’ and ‘Group Head’.

Clarification was sought on whether Officers and Members were still able to go down the route of a complaint if they considered a matter to be serious enough. The Monitoring Officer confirmed this was a choice that the individual could make, however there was also an informal option available to them.

Paragraph 13.1 – There was a discussion around whether Members only being able to approach very senior Officers for information on all matters was the best option and most appropriate use of resources. Members understood that some more helpful Officers were at risk of being bombarded with requests if there was not a correct system in place. Members felt that the correct procedure should be to approach a Group Head in the first instance, who could then filter down to their team, or up to the Directors or Chief Executive as appropriate. The Monitoring Officer agreed to re-order the list of Officers to approach in this paragraph to Group Heads, Directors and/or the Chief Executive.

Members felt that a directory covering which Group Head to contact for which matters, including contact telephone numbers would be beneficial to them. The Monitoring Officer explained that this was not within his remit, however, he agreed to feed this request back to his colleagues.

Paragraph 13.2 – Some Members felt that there should be a fixed response time for Officers to reply to Members that was quicker than for members of the public, as they were elected to represent the public, and should have quicker access to information in order to carry out their roles.

          The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Gregory.

          The Committee

RESOLVED

That the position set out in the report regarding the operation and efficacy of the Protocol for Member and Officer Relations be noted; and

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the revised version of the Protocol for Member and Officer Relations be adopted.