Democracy in Crawley

How decisions are made and who represents you

Agenda item

Update Report on Standards, Including the Review of Local Government Ethical Standards by the Committee on Standards in Public Life

To consider report LDS/145 of the Monitoring Officer (Head of Legal, Democracy and HR).

Minutes:

The Committee considered report LDS/145 of the Monitoring Officer (Head of Legal, Democracy and HR) which provided the Committee with background information on the Council’s adopted Code of Conduct for Councillors and Standards Arrangements for dealing with written allegations that a Councillor had breached the Code of Conduct.  An update of Code of Conduct complaints was also provided.  In addition, the report summarised the recently published report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSIPL) on its review of current arrangements of Local Government Ethical Standards.

 

The Head of Legal, Democracy and HR advised the Committee that the report before them provided a summary of the CSIPL’s lengthy report and that it was intended that a more comprehensive report would be brought before the June meeting of the Governance Committee.  The Committee noted that this Council already complied with a number of the CSIPL’s key recommendations and best practice recommendations (included in paragraph 3.16 and Appendix B of report LDS/145) as Crawley’s Code of Conduct reflected the broader 2007 Model Code.  It was also noted that Codes of Conduct could vary considerably across Local Authorities in both content and length.  Although the necessity for a further report was questioned, the Committee agreed that such a report should be brought before the Committee for its consideration, even if it stated that this Council’s Standards Arrangements already reflect the CSIPL’s recommendation, as such a report would provide assurance.  The Committee noted that most other Local Authorities were considering a report on the outcome of the Review from the CSIPL.

 

The Committee discussed several of the key recommendations posed by the CSIPL.  Particular attention was paid to the CSIPL’s recommendation that the sanction system be strengthened, allowing Local Authorities to suspend Councillors without allowances for up to six months, with suspended Councillors having a right of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman for investigation.  The majority of the Committee were in favour of this recommendation as it was of the opinion that the sanctions a Local Authority could currently impose following a breach of the Code were not sufficient.

 

The Committee considered the level of transparency within its current Standards regime.  Following comments from the Committee, the Head of Legal, Democracy and HR informed the Committee that under the Council’s current Standards Arrangements the name of a Councillor who was the subject of a complaint was not published either when the complaint was upheld or when it was not.  She advised the Committee that it had the option to amend these Arrangements and an in-depth discussion then took place on anonymity and publication of complaints.

 

Whilst some Committee Members were of the opinion that the Monitoring Officer should give further consideration to the Council’s current policy regarding publication and anonymity and that more information be provided within the June report, other Committee Members were of the view that the Council’s Standards Arrangements should be amended immediately to make public a record of any upheld complaint.  Following a vote it was agreed that Standards Arrangements be amended immediately and that, a record be made public of any complaint upheld under the current Code of Conduct, with the Head of Legal, Democracy and HR consulting with other Local Authorities so to ensure that this Council’s approach was proportional.  The Committee also requested that the Head of Legal, Democracy and HR provide a steer in the June report regarding the possibility of publicising complaints which had been found to be vexatious.

 

Following the Committee’s conclusions the Appointed Independent Person addressed the meeting having observed (but not contributed) to the discussion.  He advised the Committee that he believed good Standards was the bedrock of any Local Authority.  He was aware of issues at other Local Authorities and advised that Councillor conduct at Crawley was very good by comparison with this being evident in the lack of complaints which had been made in recent years and the decrease in vexatious complaints made.  He stated that the aim of Standards was to ensure that every Councillor acted in accordance with the Code of Conduct and that any Councillor who fell short was brought to account.  He informed the Committee that in his opinion, and that of the Monitoring Officer, the aim of any Standards regime was firstly to correct any ‘wrongdoing’ and then to make sure that the behaviour/action did not occur again.  He urged the Committee to think carefully about how to proceed.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That report LDS/145 be noted.

 

2.    That the Council’s Standards Arrangements be amended immediately to make public a record of any upheld complaint under the current Code of Conduct.

 

3.    That the Monitoring Officer be requested to submit a further report to the Governance Committee in June for it to consider the implementation of the Best Practice recommendations as set out in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report on its review of Local Government Ethical Standards.

Supporting documents: