Agenda item

When introducing the item, the Monitoring Officer outlined that the complaints procedure against Councillors was not currently part of the Constitution, and it was suggested that any approved procedure should form part of Part 5 of the Constitution, Codes and Protocols.

The Local Government Association Guidance was extremely comprehensive, and this had been factored in when re-writing the complaints procedure. The latest version of the LGA guidance would always be read alongside South Kesteven’s complaints procedure when considering complaints involving Councillors.

The ‘new’ first assessment stage before Councillors gave more clarity for people reading the procedure. For example, this stage would make clear whether a Councillor was acting in that capacity, or whether they were just going about their business as a resident, meaning that the Code of Conduct was not engaged. In all cases, the Monitoring Officer would share these complaints with the Independent Persons.

The second assessment stage dealt with the complaint after it had been determined that the Councillor was acting in such a capacity, and that the Code of Conduct was engaged. This stage would also determine whether the complaint merited further investigation.

Decision notices had not been used for all complaints previously, but decision notices would now be issued for any Code of Conduct complaints, including those where no breach had been found. Decision notices for any hearings would be placed online, whereas currently those issued to individuals and relevant parties involved in a complaint as part of the assessment stages were not.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

·           For the Code of Conduct to be engaged in social media disputes, a Member would have to post something online that had a direct link to their role as a Councillor, or the authority that they were a Member of. If a Councillor was posting something on a private account but the material posted was linked to Council business, then then the Code of Conduct would still be engaged.

·           Councillors were still entitled to freedom of speech; the Code of Conduct could not supersede the rights of individuals under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, it was advocated that Councillors use their freedom of speech in a respectful manner.

·           The Monitoring Officer, under the proposed procedure would be entitled to dismiss a complaint relating to an incident that occurred over six months prior to the date of the complaint, and in the opinion of the Monitoring Officer was not serious enough to justify further investigation.

·           The training that Members received on Standards confirmed that pre-hearings should take place well in advance of any formal hearing, and as often as required.

·           Any advice on excluding the public and press from a Hearing Panel would be specific to the case in question. Ultimately it would be the decision of the Panel on the day as to whether the use of exemptions in place was correct.

·           Any amendment to the Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure would be within the gift of the Standards Committee.

·           There was no right of appeal through the complaints process, and it was important to distinguish between the Code of Conduct complaints process and court proceedings. If an individual believed that the process had not been followed correctly, then this could be explored through the Member/Officer Protocol. This would be reported to the Chief Executive, and beyond this stage, to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Code of Conduct process would not affect any other rights an individual had, which included Judicial Review and referrals to the Local Government Ombudsman.

·           Where there was any conflict between the Council’s adopted procedure and the LGA guidance, then the latest LGA guidance would take precedence. This distinction would be added into point 9 of the procedure. However, it was noted that the LGA guidance was lengthy, and it would be problematic to adopt the LGA guidance in its entirety as it was aimed at all Local Authorities and was not specific to South Kesteven District Council.

Note:  The meeting adjourned at 4:20pm and reconvened at 4:31pm.

·           Any sanctions placed on a Group Leader were only recommendations. However, it could be considered a further breach of the Code of Conduct if these recommendations were not met.

Two amendments had been suggested to form part of the formalised Complaints Procedure:

·           Any complaint about the process not being followed correctly would form part of paragraph 8, under ‘Appeals’.

·           An addition to paragraph 9 in relation to the LGA guidance to say that in the event of any conflict between this guidance and the South Kesteven District Council Code of Conduct Complaints procedure, the LGA guidance would take precedence.

The recommendation, encompassing the above amendments was duly moved, seconded, and following a vote it was AGREED:

DECISION:

That the Standards Committee approves the revised procedure for dealing with complaints against Councillors and recommends to Full Council that this document forms part of the Constitution under Part 5 (Codes and Protocols).