Agenda item

This report proposes changes to the Council’s arrangements, as set out within the Constitution, for how the Monitoring Officer deals with complaints submitted to him or her alleging breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct.  The Standards Committee are invited to consider and debate the proposed changes before agreeing what changes, if any, should be recommended to Full Council for adoption.    

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Standards Committee consider and debate the proposed changes before agreeing what changes, if any, should be recommended to Full Council for adoption.    

The Head of Policy and Governance, Robin Taylor, presented a report proposing changes to the Council’s arrangements as set out in the Constitution, for dealing with complaints submitted to him in his capacity as Monitoring Officer, alleging breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct.

There was a discussion around the timescale in which it was permissible to make a complaint.  Some Councillors felt two months was too short and suggested three months.  They felt it was unfair on the subject of the complaint if too much time had passed as they might no longer have the relevant paperwork and might struggle to recollect the incident in detail.  It was felt that as soon as someone thought there had been a breach they should complain.  Some councillors felt the whole process might take 6 months as it could take 3 months for the process to get started as the Monitoring Officer might have to go back for clarification.

Councillors also discussed the issue of accountability if a complaint was made about a speech and somebody other than the person who made the speech had actually written it.

Some councillors felt that there should be other forms of redress which could be options for people as a conduct investigation would cost public money.

There were some typos and issues of clarification in the report which councillors discussed:

·         Paragraph 3 of the report appeared to have words missing

·         Paragraph 4.5 item vi should read without not with

·         Item 6 of the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors appeared to have words missing in the first paragraph

·         In item 9 of the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors the person was referred to as a “Chairman” in one place and a “Chair” in others.  It was felt that it needed to be consistent.

·         In the first paragraph of item 11 of the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors it should read members of the community not councillors of the community.

·         There was a discussion about whether a town or parish councillor at a conduct hearing had voting rights as the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors seemed to contradict the Waverley Borough Council constitution

·         There was a discussion regarding item 8.7 as some felt it was unfair to deprive the Councillor who was subject of an allegation of IT equipment as they would be cut off from communication.

·         Some councillors felt that the Monitoring Officer needed to report back if there were to be a significant delay before a conduct hearing got underway.

·         With regard to item 4.7 there was a discussion around whether the subject of the complaint had the right to know why anonymity had been granted to the complainant.  Some councillors felt the complainant had a right to challenge this or that at the very least the Monitoring Officer should explain why anonymity was granted.

·         It was felt some of the timescales quoted within the document might contradict or that it needed to be made clear if they were overlapping

One councillor wanted to bring a motion that there needed to be a system  to establish the validity of officers’ statements and that councillors should have the right to obtain a written answer from the Chief Executive or Monitoring Officer.   There was no seconder for the motion so it was not brought.  Some councillors suggested that there was nothing in the code of conduct to suggest that if a councillor received an answer that they did not like that this constituted a breach of the code of conduct as advice was open to interpretation.  The Borough Solicitor also suggested that the proposal in the motion wasn’t appropriate for the process in question.

The Chairman proposed a motion, seconded by the Vice Chairman, that before the changes to the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors were agreed at Council it should be passed to the Independent Person and Parish Clerks for comment.  This motion was passed by 9 for, 1 against and no abstentions.

Resolved

·         That complaints against councillors should be made to the Monitoring Officer  within three months of the alleged incident.

·         That before the changes to the arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations against Councillors and Co-opted Councillors were agreed at Council it should be passed to the Independent Person and Parish Clerks for comment.