Agenda item
Code of Conduct for Members - Complaints and Investigation Monitoring
- Meeting of Standards Advisory Committee, Tuesday, 21st October, 2014 7.30 p.m. (Item 31.)
- View the background to item 31.
To note the complaints and investigation monitoring information contained in this report.
Minutes:
Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer [IMO]) 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.
· Advised of reporting requirements, under the arrangements, in cases where the Monitoring Officer (MO) extends the time period of investigations into complaints from 2 to 3 months.
Points highlighted by Meic Sullivan-Gould included:-
· His intention that the current backlog of long outstanding complaints [of failures to comply with the Code of Conduct for Members] should be concluded later in 2014 and that because of much work undertaken by Mark Norman (Legal Services) with the exception of 1 complaint these were ready to progress to an Investigation and Disciplinary Sub-Committee (IDSC) of the SAC, the arrangements for which (and related mandatory training) were now being finalised. .
· The exception was complaint IDSC02/2013 which had recently been identified as requiring progression and conclusion, and which had slipped through the net due to the responsible officer leaving the Authority’s employ in March. He had now reviewed the case, and it was now being progressed in accordance with the arrangements.
· There had been no new complaints since he had joined the Authority’s employ in January 2014 which required processing under the arrangements.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Comment that given the investigation of a complaint about Member conduct was very stressful for the subject of the investigation. Accordingly when the Council had discussed the arrangements for dealing with such complaints as a corporate body [September 2013], it had considered that where a complaint was referred for investigation, it was preferable for such an investigation to be completed within 1 month, but agreed a requirement for completion within 2 months, with provision for a further extension of 1 month [by the MO] but also agreed a process for this. It was not therefore unreasonable to expect investigations to be completed within 3 months, however the duration of several investigations set out in the report were much longer (3 over a year and 1 of 18 months). There was also certainty that the investigation report relating to a complaint lodged by a SAC member had been received by the Authority 5 months previously. Accordingly consideration that:-
o It appeared little effort was being made to progress complaints through the process, and the process for extension of investigations by the MO was not being adhered to.
o It was disrespectful to Members for complaints not to be completed in a timely way.
o It was necessary for the SAC to express displeasure over the unacceptable duration of investigations, and for the SAC Chair to take a personal interest in the progression of complaints requiring investigation, as this could not be allowed to continue.
Meic Sullivan-Gould acknowledged that the comments/ consideration regarding the durations of investigation He responded that the Authority’s arrangements for dealing with complaints had not been revised to reflect the reduction in the scope of related sanctions, due to the Localism Act 2012, resulting in overly elaborate complaints processes in the context of the sanctions available. The SAC had already discussed this and its aspiration was to streamline processes which would deliver the faster conclusion of complaints, and business later on the agenda included proposals for future principles on sanctions.
· Noting the Officer response consideration that:-
o Due process was also important.
o With great understanding of the issues on relating to both sides of a complaint, the arrangements/ procedures for dealing with complaints were not the cause of undue delay, rather it was the application of these. Further reference to the investigation report relating to a complaint lodged by a SAC member having been received by the Authority 5 months previously, but the complaint still not having been progressed.
o Also the subjects of a complaint often declined interview dates, or did not attend, and where this occurred there was a need for the complaint process to be moved forward without this.
· The Chair acknowledged the comments around investigations taking too long, commenting that:-
o He considered the current arrangements for dealing with complaints were overly restrictive and disproportionately elaborate for the sanctions available, needed re-balanced; and that this was a matter of forward looking policy revision. The SAC was being pro-active in addressing this.
o The MO and Independent Person (IP) made an assessment of complaints/ the need for investigations, and as SAC Chair he would not be aware of undue delays in completion until the matter was reported to SAC.
o Noting the intention of the IMO to clear the backlog of long outstanding complaints as a positive step towards addressing the issue of unduly lengthy periods to conclude some complaints.
o A more robust approach to undertaking interviews in relation to complaints was needed.
· Elizabeth Hall (IP) commented that although she had no authority over the duration of investigations, the arrangements for dealing with complaints and the undue delays in their conclusion were a matter for concern. Ms Hall would endeavour, so far as she was involved in the process, to ensure that complaints were dealt with in a timely way. Ms Hall endorsed the comments of the Chair and IMO that the process for dealing with complaints needed streamlined. Ms Hall added that the new SAC membership would require training in relation to its sub-committees and associated processes which would delay further the conclusion of current complaints.
· Clarification sought as to the rationale for only training some SAC members in relation to its sub-committees and associated processes and consideration it would have been appropriate to make arrangements to train all SAC members at the start of the Municipal Year thereby increasing the pool of members available to sit on the sub-committees. Meic Sullivan-Gould responded that training of all SAC members in this regard was not required only those selected to sit on the Sub-Committees and this had not been known several months ago. Given that there were no new complaints since January 2014 there was not currently a need for a pool of SAC members to sit on the Sub-Committees. Also under the current review of complaints arrangements it was hoped for earlier involvement of Members and resolution at that point, and this would obviate the need for so many Sub-Committee meetings. The training required to deal with current complaints under the existing arrangements would differ from that needed under the envisaged arrangements post-review. However the training could be available to all SAC members excepting where there were specific matters pertaining to individual cases being referred to the Sub-Committees.
· The Chair:-
o Commented that in previous years SAC members had been given training prior to the first SAC meeting of the Municipal Year but this had not happened this year; although the presentation received at the 8 September meeting had similar content.
o Summarised that the SAC considered that all of its members should be given training appropriate to ensure they could sit on SAC sub-committees, and thereby expand the membership pool. [Action MSG]
- Moved the recommendation, as set out in the report; and it was: -
Resolved:
That the complaints and investigation monitoring information contained in Appendix 1 to the report be noted.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services)
Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer, LPG)
Supporting documents: