Agenda item
Code of Conduct for Members: Complaints Monitoring & Proposed Revisions to the Arrangements for Dealing with Complaints
To note the monitoring information in the report. Also to consider and comment on proposed revisions to arrangements for dealing with complaints.
Minutes:
Ms Jill Bell, Head of Legal Services (Environment), introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which:
· Reported on the number and nature of complaints received about alleged failures to comply with the Code of Conduct for Members, and action taken as a result, for the information of the SAC, in accordance with the arrangements for dealing with such complaints agreed by the full Council in June 2012.
· Recommended revisions to the arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct, prior to the Monitoring Officer submitting proposals to full Council.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Clarification sought and given as to the number of complaints received about Member conduct in LBTH compared to other London boroughs. Complaint numbers exceeded those in other London boroughs, and Ms Bell, Deputy Monitoring Officer, expressed concern at the level of resources required to deal with these.
· Comment that the explanation for the higher level of complaints was misuse of the complaint process with inappropriate/ less constructive complaints than the arrangements were intended for; also that LBTH may have higher levels of sub-standard Member conduct. In this context consideration that future monitoring of the cost of processing each complaint, although requiring some additional resource, might prove beneficial in reducing the level of complaints when the level of resources used for processing them and diverted from more productive uses for Council priorities became apparent.
· Consideration also that such an exercise, and use of resources for it, should only be undertaken if there were tangible steps the Authority could take to streamline arrangements to reduce the number of complaints.
· Consideration that the outcomes of complaints about Member conduct made under the arrangements should also be reviewed and the process streamlined. There had been cases where, in accordance with the arrangements for dealing with such complaints agreed by full Council in June 2012, an Investigation and Disciplinary Sub-Committee of the SAC (IDSC) had been convened when there was clearly insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. This was wasteful of Council resources, and it would be more efficient to make provision within the arrangements for 2 independent people to agree non-progression to an investigation at the IDSC, provided there had been a thorough assessment. Consideration also that streamlining the process with a focus on local dispute resolution may prove beneficial. Ms Bell advised that since the arrangements agreed in June 2012 the Monitoring Officer (MO) and Independent Person (IP) were required to convene an IDSC in all cases to adjudicate on the MO recommendation not to refer a complaint for an investigation. However at the last meeting IDSC members had considered the case did not merit the convening of an IDSC, and Officers could review the complaints process so the MO in consultation with the IP could terminate a complaint at an earlier point, if appropriate, and report back to SAC accordingly; and that would be more cost effective. It was however important that complaints were considered and an appropriate level of investigation was undertaken before the matter was closed.
· Consideration that, in the context of concerns raised by SAC members and Officers of a need to streamline the complaints process to make it resource efficient, it was not necessary to undertake a lengthy monitoring exercise on the cost of processing each complaint. Accordingly Councillors Davis and Edgar proposed that Officers informally consult the political group leaders, the Mayor and the Speaker of the Council, about streamlining the complaints process to make it resource efficient, within the constraints of the Law and Constitution, with a view to achieving consensus on this, and report back to the next meeting of the SAC. The report back to include a breakdown of IDSC decisions endorsing (or not) the MO recommendation reached after consultation with the IP.
· Clarification sought and given as to whether the proposed revision to arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct was primarily prompted by logistical issues caused by the diary commitments of people needed to process complaints. This had led to matters taking longer than anticipated. Whether interviews could be undertaken over the telephone, written submissions could be made, email used to ascertain necessary information, audio conferencing used rather than holding interview meetings at the Town Hall. Such mediums had been used, but person to person discussion was acknowledged to produce a better picture/ fuller facts. Emailing of agenda papers to IDSC members was not appropriate because of the need to ensure confidentiality for the information they contained.
· Consideration by some SAC members that the investigation of a complaint about Member conduct was very stressful for the subject of the investigation; accordingly concern expressed regarding the significant extension of the timescales for completion of an investigation/ convening of an IDSC proposed in the report. Acknowledgement by some SAC members that there was a need for pragmatism given the operational difficulties experienced with current timescales for completion of an investigation/ convening of an IDSC. Consideration also that extension of these timescales could be mitigated in part by a streamlining of the complaints process, as proposed earlier in the discussion.
· Clarification sought as to how the proposed timescale of 3 months for completion of an investigation, once referred for investigation, compared with the Authority’s procedures for investigation of staff grievances.
· Welcomed the proposed extension of provisions, within the arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct, to seek a local resolution. Consideration that it would be appropriate to make use of mediation services used by the Authority in other areas to this end.
· Ms Bell advised that to retain the 1 month timescale for completion of an investigation, once a complaint was referred for investigation, placed the Authority at risk of challenge (for not adhering to its procedures) were the timescale not met. To date this timescale had rarely been met, and Ms Bell detailed examples/ reasons for this. Retention of the 1 month timescale might also require reports to state that interview appointments had not been kept and this could result in members not having sufficient information on which to make a judgment.
· Consideration that repeated cancellation of interview appointments by either party to a complaint were not acceptable, as this facility could be abused. The Judicial System did not permit this, and a more robust process was required at LBTH to encourage engagement by both parties with the complaints process: a limit on the number of appointments offered to complainants before the complaint fell and similarly for the subject of the complaint before it was dealt with in absentia. Clarification was sought and given on the procedure for dealing with cancelled interview appointments.
· Noted that the final paragraph of the current arrangements for dealing with complaints [Appendix A] stated that the timelines set out in the procedure [for dealing with complaints about Member conduct] were for guidance only and could be extended by the MO, so a challenge on procedural grounds for a more lengthy investigation was unlikely to be successful.
· Clarification was sought and given as to whether the proposed timescale of 3 months for completion of an investigation, once referred for investigation, could be extended by a further month by the MO under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the current arrangements [Appendix A].
· Clarification was sought and given as to whether there was a fundamental problem with the current arrangements, in that complaints could not be properly investigated/ were abandoned because of a lack of cooperation of Members who were the subject of complaint, without which the information to substantiate a complaint was insufficient. If the subject Member did not make a submission only one side of the case was available and a conclusion based on this engendered risk. Third party or alternative evidence could sometimes be obtained but this was much more difficult. Examples cited.
· Clarification sought and given on maximum timescale to date to complete an investigation.
· Councillor Davis proposed that, given the operational difficulties encountered in convening an IDCS, the recruitment to the current vacancies for co-opted SAC members should be prioritised. Ms Bell clarified that securing co-opted SAC members to sit on the IDSC had not been problematic to date, however a larger pool of candidates would be helpful.
· Summarising SAC discussion regarding the proposed extension of the timescale for completion of an investigation, once referred for investigation, Councillor Edgar proposed that full Council be recommended to extend this timescale from the current 1 month to 2 months, with the current provision for a further 1 month extension by the MO, under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the current arrangements, to remain; providing for a total of 3 months.
The Chair Moved the recommendations set out in the report (taking account of the additional recommendation proposed by Councillors Edgar and Davis, the amendment to recommendation 2.2 proposed by Councillor Edgar, and the additional recommendation proposed by Councillor Davis), and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the complaints monitoring information contained in the report, be noted;
2. That, subject to (a) below, the proposed revisions to arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct, prior to the Monitoring Officer (or designated deputy) submitting proposals to full Council for approval; be endorsed:
(a) Extension of the timescale for completion of an investigation, once a complaint is referred for investigation, from the current 1 month to 2 months, with the current provision for a further 1 month extension by the Monitoring Officer, under the provisions of paragraph 8 of the current arrangements, to remain; providing for a total of 3 months.
3. That the Monitoring Officer (or designated deputy) informally consult the political group leaders, the Mayor and the Speaker of the Council, about streamlining the current arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct to make it resource efficient, within the constraints of the Law and Constitution, with a view to achieving consensus on this; with the outcome to be reported back to the next meeting of the SAC.
4. That recruitment to the current vacancies for co-opted SAC members should be prioritised, in order to facilitate arrangements for dealing with complaints about Member conduct.
Action by:
Isabella Freeman (Assistant Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer)
John Williams (Service Head Democratic Services, Chief Executive’s).
Supporting documents:
- Complaint monitoring june 2013 DB1006131436pm, item 6.4 PDF 96 KB
- CofC Complaints Monitoring & Revised Arrangements Appx A DB1006131436pm, item 6.4 PDF 208 KB