Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer introduced an overview of Councillor Code of Conduct complaints received against district and town and parish councillors for 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 (to date).

An error within complaint number 42 in the report was identified by the Monitoring Officer where one of the sanctions agreed at the Hearing Review Panel had been omitted. However full details of sanctions were set out within paragraph 3.11 of the report where details of all cases referred for a Code of Conduct Hearing Panel were outlined. It was a requirement of the Constitution that findings from these Hearing Review Panels were reported to the Standards Committee for information.

During discussions between members and officers, the following points were highlighted:

-       The Monitoring Officer referred several complaints to Wilkin Chapman solicitors for reasons of volume (over a short space of time) and complexity. The Monitoring Officer did not have the capacity to investigate this volume of complaints in a timely manner. Normal practice with a singular complaint would be for the Monitoring Officer to investigate.

-       Increasing the response time for a Code of Conduct complaint would not have made a difference in these instances.

-       Procedurally, the Monitoring Officer could investigate incidents that had occurred within the previous six months. Anything older than this would not normally be investigated, dependent on the severity of the complaint.

-       The reduction in District Councillor Code of Conduct complaints seen between 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 demonstrated progress, however it was key that individuals should still feel able to make complaints should they need to.

-       If the Monitoring Officer felt he needed legal advice he had this resource available through Legal Services Lincolnshire (LSL) but could utilise other external specialists if necessary. The recent referral to external solicitors was due to the sheer volume of complaints in a short timeframe and confirmation received from LSL that they did not have the capacity to undertaken them on the Council’s behalf. Wilkin Chapman Solicitors were a highly regarded firm well renowned for expertise in relation to the Councillor Code of Conduct and the investigation of complaints against Councillors.

-       Some local councils had retained an in-house legal team, but South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) and others within Lincolnshire had employed the services of LSL. LSL were not just used to assist with Councillor Code of Conduct complaints and their work spanned other departments at SKDC.

-       Whilst there were inevitably differences in how councillor and officer complaints were dealt with, there were still processes and procedures attached to both issues. With officer issues, HR would play their part, as potentially would line management. One main point of difference however was the fact that there was no process by which a complaint could result in a Councillor losing their position, whereas this was possible for members of staff.

-       There had not been any complaints by members of staff of SKDC against councillors in this period. All complaints had been submitted by other councillors, or members of the public.

-       All supporting documents related to the Code of Conduct Hearing Review Panels were available for councillors to review. The Hearings had also generated an amount of legal advice that could be drawn on for future investigations.

-       Freedom of speech was not an absolute right.

-       In the view of one member, the advice given by Wilkin Chapman could have been more concise. However, they had been engaged to conduct an investigation, which would ordinarily result in a relatively lengthy document.

-       Face to face contact throughout an investigation may lead to improved outcomes, rather than sustained contact through emails.

The Overview of Cases was NOTED.