Agenda item

At the Council meeting held on 31 January 2019, a question was put during the Members’ Open Questions session:

Councillors might be aware that since June 2017, the Council has paid around £60,000 to a recruitment consultancy called ‘Davidson and Partners’ for professional advice regarding Senior Officer appointments including attendance and participation at Employment Committee.

Presumably, the Chair of the Employment Committee is aware that the principal Director of Davidson and Partners, Mr. Hamish Davidson, is also a Company Director of a company called LKS Quaero Ltd and that our Chief Executive, Aidan Rave is also a Director of the same company.

Has the ongoing business relationship between Mr. Rave and Mr. Davidson been discussed and noted at Employment Committee and has a ‘Declaration of Interest’ been recorded in the proper manner?

In response to the question, the Chairman of the Employment Committee agreed to consider the matter at a meeting of the Committee. To support the Committee in its consideration, a report had been prepared by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, which outlined requirements within the Council’s Constitution and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounts Code of Practice for Local Government Accounting 2017-18 and assessed whether there had been any breaches. The report of the Monitoring Officer considered the allegations against the following principles:

·         Use of contractors

·         Declaration of personal interests by officers

·         Corrupt practices

·         Disclosure of related party transactions

Following his assessment of each of those principles, the Monitoring Officer concluded that there had been no wrongdoing or breach of the Officer Code of Conduct or the CIPFA Code of Practice.

The report highlighted a number of areas where the Monitoring Officer felt the Council’s arrangements could be made more robust, the first of the recommendations related to the creation and maintenance of a centralised register of interests for officers which encapsulated declarations required as part of the Council’s Officer Code of Conduct and the CIPFA required related party declarations. The second recommendation related to a review of the Code of Conduct for Council staff as part of the wider review of the Council’s Constitution.

During discussion on the Monitoring Officer’s report, Committee Members considered the following points:

·         The role the Chief Executive played in the company where he and Mr Davidson were co-directors and his level of control within that company

·         Whether the company of which the Chief Executive was a Director had been contracted to do any work on behalf of the Council

·         At no point were LKS Quaero a potential supplier to the Council

·         The Monitoring Officer had seen no evidence to suggest a transactional relationship between LKS Quaero and Davidson and Partners

·         Those individuals (officers and Members) who were aware of the connection between the Chief Executive and Mr Davidson

·         Davidson and Partners were recommended to HR Officers by colleagues from North Kesteven District Council

·         Occasions on which Davidson and Partners were used by the Council for one-off projects prior to the procurement exercise

·         The arrangements for the procurement exercise through which the contract with Davidson and Partners was awarded

·         The types of interests that officers were required to disclose and the way those disclosures could be brought to the attention of Members

·         The requirement for third parties to disclose any relationships with members of Council staff

Committee members clarified that the Monitoring Officer had consulted with the Section 151 Officer during the preparation of the report, together with a solicitor from LGSS Lawshare. A suggestion was made that it might be appropriate to consult CIPFA or external audit to ask them to provide an independent endorsement of the report’s findings. A further alternative of referral to the Independent Person was also put forward. The suggestion was not supported by the majority of Members as they recognised the role of the Council’s statutory officers and the independence of the legal check to which the report had been subject.

Members agreed with the recommendation of the Monitoring Officer in respect of the introduction of a centralised register of interests for officers and agreed that an item should be put before a future meeting of the Council. There was some discussion around whether those interests that officers were required to disclose should mirror the requirements for Members, and the need to introduce a process to ensure that they were subject to regularly review.

It was noted that it was incumbent on Members to update their interests as they arose and to disclose those interests at meetings, and that officers should also be subject to the same requirements. Suggestions were made that the requirement to register interests could sit with officers of a specified grade or politically restricted posts.

It was proposed, seconded and the Committee AGREED:

1.    To note the contents of the report of the Monitoring Officer and accept the finding that there has been no wrongdoing or breach of the Officer Code of Conduct or the CIPFA Code of Practice

2.    The Monitoring Officer should create and maintain a centralised register of interests for officers

3.    The Code of Conduct for the Council’s staff should be reviewed as part of a future wider review of the Council’s Constitution

Councillor Dilks requested that his vote against the proposition be recorded in accordance with Article 4.13.5 of the Council’s Constitution.

Following debate on the report of the Monitoring Officer, the Committee considered the most appropriate forum for raising similar concerns in future. It was noted that the question was put in a public meeting, at which the Chief Executive did not have the opportunity to respond. Instead it was agreed that it would be most appropriate for any such comments to be raised with the Monitoring Officer in the first instance, or with the Leader or Chairman of the Employment Committee. It was suggested that the appropriate route for raising any concerns about the conduct of a Council officer should be communicated clearly with Members.