Subject:
|
Update on Standards matters
|
Date of Meeting:
|
12 January 2021
|
Report of:
|
Head of Law and Monitoring Officer
|
Contact Officer:
|
Name:
|
Victoria Simpson, Senior Lawyer – Corporate Law
|
Tel:
|
01273 294687
|
|
Email:
|
Victoria.Simpson@brighton-hove.gov.uk
|
Ward(s) affected:
|
All
|
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT AND POLICY CONTEXT
1.1
To update this Committee on complaints that Members have breached the
Code of Conduct for Members determined and/or received in during this quarter,
and in addition to provide an annual review of complaints against Members made
between 1.01.20 and 5.12.20.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
That Members note the information provided in this Report on those
member complaints which have either been concluded since the last quarterly
report or which remain outstanding.
2.2
That Members further note the data provided regarding member complaints
received in during 2020, including the increase in the number of complaints
made against elected members of Brighton & Hove City Council during that
calendar year.
2.3
That the Committee agree to set up a cross party task and finish group
of Members to review the local Code and the Council’s arrangements and to make
any recommendations they see fit to the Committee, with particular regard to
any changes they consider might assist in dealing with the increase in
complaints.
3
MEMBER COMPLAINTS – CURRENT
3.1
The complaint referred to as O in the
last report remains at preliminary assessment stage. However, complaints R
and S – which concerned the same comments made by a single member on social
media about an individual – have now been the subject of informal resolution.
The resolution involved a published admission by the subject member on social
media that they had acted inappropriately by posting their strongly felt views
in their capacity as a councillor of Brighton & Hove. A series of
complaints – W, X, Y, Z, A & B were all described in the last
report, which omitted to mention a seventh complaint (‘Ba’) due to an
administrative oversight. They have all now been resolved informally via
a resolution which involved the member concerned publishing a statement
offering their regret for the upset caused and also agreeing to undertake
refresher communications training.
3.2
Complaints C & D, described in the last Update, have now been
resolved by a decision to take no action on the basis that neither complaint
had potential to amount to a breach of the Code. Complaints E & F
were each the subject of an informal resolution, in both instances on the basis
that the member who was the subject of the complaint published a statement
apologising for the upset that had been caused to the subject of their
comments. In the case of complaint F, the resolution also involved
refresher equalities training.
3.3
The new complaints received in since the last Update are as follows: Complaint
G/2020 concerned an allegation of disrespect made by a constituent during
an email exchange. This was dealt with by a decision to take no action as on
the available facts it was not considered to be in the public interest to
progress it. Complaint H/2020 concerned a comment made by the subject
member on social media about allowing others access to a resource which they
might potentially have available to them in the future. This too was determined
by a decision that it did not have potential to amount to a breach of the Code.
Complaint I/2020 was made against four members of the same party Group
in relation to a letter sent to national government and remains at preliminary
assessment stage, as does Complaint J/2020: a complaint about a
councillor taking a position, allegedly inappropriately, on a ward matter.
Finally, Complaint K/2020 was referred to the council by the Ombudsman,
who asked that it first be considered via the council’s member complaints
procedure. That complaint concerned a descriptive term used by an elected
member during a debate on a matter of key importance to them. It was determined
by a decision to take no action on the basis that it did not give rise to a
breach of the Code.
3.4
All of the complaints referred to above have been determined by the
Monitoring Officer in accordance with the procedure which governs member
complaints, having first consulted with one of the council’s Independent
Persons.
4
MEMBER COMPLAINTS – ANNUAL REVIEW
4.1
This part of the report reviews key data re complaints received in
during 2020, up to 5.12.20.
4.2
This period has seen an increase in the number of complaints against
Members. A total of 33 complaints about the conduct of Members of the Council were
received in during this period. So, the figure for (most of) 2020 represents a
significant increase on the total number of complaints made in 2019 (for the
full year), which was 13.
Complaints against members made during 2019
|
Complaints against members made between 1.1.20 and 5.12.20
|
13
|
33
|
4.3
Members from all of the Party Groups as well as Independent Members have
been the subject of complaints.
4.4
The following may be useful to explain how the figures are calculated:
·
where more than one complaint is received in about a Member, then
- even if the complaints concern the same allegation of misconduct - each is
counted separately for statistical purposes.
·
where a single complaint alleges misconduct by more than one
elected Member of Brighton and Hove City Council (say X number of Members) then
for these purposes it is considered to give rise to X number of complaints.
·
7 of the 33 complaints received in during this period all concerned
substantively the same allegations of misconduct by a single Member.
·
Two other complaints were made against groups of Members: one
complaint against 3 Members and the other against 4.
Outcomes
4.5
6 complaints out of the total 33 complaints made during this period
remain outstanding at the current time:
Total new complaints received during period
|
Complaints outstanding
|
Complaints determined
|
33
|
6
|
27
|
4.6
Of the 27 complaints which had been determined at preliminary
assessment stage at the time this report was finalised (21.12.20), just over half
were determined by an informal resolution including an apology or some other
step. The rest were determined by a decision to take no action either on the
grounds that if proven the allegation would not amount to a breach of the Code,
or that it was not in the public interest to progress the complaint.
Total complaints determined during period
|
Complaints resolved informally via an apology or other
means
|
Complaints resolved via a decision to take no further
action on the basis that if proven they would not amount to a breach OR that
it was not in the public interest to progress the complaint.
|
27
|
14
|
13
|
Trends in subject matter
of complaints:
4.7
As a starting point, it was noted that most if not all Members now use
email and social media to carry out their roles. Given the widespread reliance
on this and (latterly) on virtual meetings, it was not considered helpful to
identify where the conduct which gave rise to complaints had occurred.
4.8
Consideration was then given to identifying thematic trends in the
complaints received in.
Table showing trends in themes:
Complaints about
members’ discharge of their ward responsibilities (normally made by
constituents)
|
8
|
Complaints about comments or conduct either at council
meetings, or at meetings at which they are representing BHCC
|
4
|
Complaints about conduct taking place outside council meetings
(incl. on social media) which nonetheless concerned either council business
and/or other current Members of the Council
|
11
|
Complaints about a
member’s conduct or position on an issue not on council business or a ward
matter, including a statement reported in the press or made on social media
|
10
|
Total
|
33
|
4.9
It is noted that complaints about how members carry out their ward
business make up less than 25% of complaints (8). While conduct at council
meetings accounts for a relatively low proportion of complaints (4 out of 33),
there is almost an even split between conduct outside of meetings which
concerned council business or other current Members (11) and that which – while
allegedly occurring whilst the Member was acting in their capacity as an
elected Member of the Council – involved their taking a position or other
behaviour not related to council or ward matters (10).
5
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
5.1
Members will have their own thoughts about the factors behind the
number of complaints received in during 2020. There may well be a link with the
additional pressures experienced by all local authorities this year and the
specific challenges of the current time. Either way, the increase in complaints
during 2020 is notable and carries its own resource burden.
5.2
Members will be aware that - since the passing of the Localism Act 2010
– local authorities have a greater degree of control over their arrangements
for dealing with Member complaints. That is part and parcel of the current
framework, which gives authorities very limited power to impose sanctions. Standards
Committees have no power to suspend a Member and may only censure a Member or
take measures such as recommending training or other steps which the subject
Member is free to accept or reject.
5.3
Notwithstanding the limited sanctions available, local authorities are
nonetheless obliged to have in place arrangements for dealing with complaints
against elected members, and the Council has adopted arrangements which aim to
be relatively light touch whilst also being fit for purpose.
5.4
In this context, the carrying out of a formal investigation leading to a
Panel is undoubtedly the most resource-intensive process for all parties,
including for the members of the Panel and the subject member as well as for officers.
Members will be aware that only rarely do member complaints culminate in a full
Panel hearing (just one took place in 2020).
5.5
However even where complaints are determined outside a formal Panel
hearing, the resource invested in progressing them to conclusion is
significant. Resolving matters at an early stage where possible - even where
there is an arguable breach – can often be the best way of moving forward in a
context where options are limited. While the Monitoring Officer has discretion
to resolve complaints informally at any point in the process (having first
consulted both with one of the Independent Persons and also – where the
complaint is capable of amounting to a breach – the complainants and the
subject member), the process is resource-intensive. This is because it involves
liaising with all parties (with communication between the complainant, the
subject member and other stakeholders, as well as the Independent Person and
the Monitoring Officer), while adhering to a process which is visibly fair to
all stakeholders.
5.6
A further factor is Members’ willingness to co-operate with the process,
which can vary significantly. Where a Member is unresponsive or fails to engage
then - whether or not a formal investigation ensues - this can cause unnecessary
and avoidable delay. This is an area which has been brought to the attention of
relevant Members with a view to ensuring that dealing with complaints does not
use up any more resource than they need to.
6
PROPOSAL FOR A TASK AND FINISH GROUP
6.1
The Council last reviewed its standards arrangements against the
detailed work done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (‘the CSPL’) in
2018-2019. The CSPL’s best practice recommendations for local authorities were
considered by this Committee in a detailed way by a cross party group of
Members. In January 2020 this
Committee considered that work and approved its recommendations, by amongst
other things updating the Code of Conduct and the Procedure for Dealing with
Allegations of Misconduct by members.
6.2
Given the increase in the number of complaints, and in the context of a
best practice CSPL recommendation that all authorities review their Codes every
twelve months in any event, it is considered that a task and finish working group
of members might again usefully review the council’s arrangements. This cross-party
group could review the Council’s options for further amending the Code,
including by taking into account the LGA model Code of Conduct which was due to
be published in November 2020 and is expected imminently. The task and finish
group could also identify and review the Council’s options for streamlining the
Standards process. This could for instance involve considering whether the
Procedure might be amended by clarifying or amending the Public Interest test
against which complaints may currently be assessed when deciding whether to
progress them, or by making other recommendations for change.
6.3
In conclusion: it is suggested that the reported upswing in complaints be
noted and that it be taken into account by a task and finish Member Working Group,
convened to review the Code of Conduct and to consider whether any changes to
the Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints might make a positive
difference.
7
ANALYSIS & CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
7.1
The Council is obliged under the Localism Act to make arrangements for
maintaining high standards of conduct among members and to make arrangements
for the investigation of complaints. The current arrangements and the proposals
in this Report reflect this. No alternative proposals are suggested.
8
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & CONSULTATION
8.1
No need to consult with the local community has been identified.
9
CONCLUSION
9.1
Members are asked to note the contents of this Report, which aims to
assist the Committee in discharging its responsibilities for overseeing that
high standards of conduct are maintained in a way which is compliant with local
requirements.
10
FINANCIAL & OTHER IMPLICATIONS:
Financial Implications:
10.1
There are no additional financial implications arising from the
recommendation in this Report. All activity referred to has been met from
existing budgets. While future activity is expected to be manageable within
existing resources, a sustained increase in complaints may ultimately lead to a
consideration of a change in the resources required to support the process,
which, if this were to require an increase in resources, may have a budgetary
implication.
Finance Officer Consulted: Nigel
Manvell Date: 21/12/20
Legal Implications:
10.2
These are covered in the body of the Report.
Lawyer Consulted: Victoria Simpson Date:
21.12.2020
Equalities Implications:
10.3
There are no equalities implications arising from this Report.
Sustainability Implications:
10.4
There are no sustainability implications arising from this Report.
Any Other Significant Implications:
10.5
None
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Appendices:
None
Background Documents:
The
report on Local Government Ethical Standards published by the Committee on
Standards in Public Life on 20.01.19.