Agenda item
Review of Code of Conduct for Members and standards arrangements (Oral Report)
The OSC will receive an update on progression of draft proposals relating to the review following a meeting of the Interim Monitoring Officer, SAC Chair and Interim Monitoring Officer on 16 October.
Minutes:
Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer) introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided the SAC with information on:-:
· Background to the review of the Code of Conduct for Members (Code) and the nature interests to be encompassed by it.
· Potential principles to form the basis for a revised Code.
· The range of sanctions currently available for breach of a revised Code.
Points highlighted by Meic Sullivan-Gould included:-
· Para 8 of the Hoey Ainscough review paper at Appendix , which identified a lack of clarity in the current Code in relation to expected behaviours and both Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) and other interests; and recommended re-writing with greater clarity.
· His recommendation that the SAC agree that behaviours in the Code be recast on the basis on the 7 Principles of Public Life identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CPSL) at Appendix 2.
· Appendix 3, provided at the request of the Chair and Independent Person (IP), comprised of a list of sanctions agreed by Monitoring Officers across the country for breaches of the Code, although SAC should note that in response to requests for more specific sanctions the CSPL would be reviewing the list. Due to the Localism Act 2012 the sanctions were now very limited in scope, ranging from censure to further training and withdrawing of Council equipment/ facilities rather than suspension or disqualification of a Councillor as before.
· SAC had previously identified that the Authority’s arrangements for dealing with complaints had not been revised to reflect the reduction in the scope of related sanctions, resulting in overly elaborate complaints processes in the context of the sanctions available, that now needed streamlined.
· SAC had previously identified that there was a need for greater openness about a wider class of personal interests, in particular personal relationships which could give rise to a reasonable perception of bias in decision-making, that were not captured by the narrow statutory definition of a DPI. There needed to be a wider range of registerable interests at Tower Hamlets, in the context of potential Judicial Reviews for maladministration; but also greater separation and clarity between DPIs non DPIs and other interests.
· Given that the most significant sanction for a breach of the Code was a rebuke of the Member by full Council, this was essentially already available to meeting Chairs in powers to deal with obstructive or improper behaviour, so this should be broadened to establish a principle that chairs of meetings be empowered to enforce the Code of conduct. This would be a faster and more direct process for dealing with such misconduct.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Referencing discussion at agenda item 3.1 “Code of Conduct for Members - Complaints and Investigation Monitoring” on the unacceptable length of time that it took to conclude complaints under the Code, the Chair commented that SAC must note that there was now a limited range of sanctions to improve Member behaviour in relation to the Code, and the proposed expansion of the Code to encompass the principles set out at 4.1 to 4.3 of the report would provide a range of options for early resolution of complaints and challenge of unacceptable behaviours, even if arrangements were required to deal with complaints where this did not happen. Accordingly the Chair welcomed the proposals and proposed that SAC agree that a new Code encompass these principles and additionally proposed that a draft of the revised Code built around these principles be presented to the next SAC meeting for endorsement and onward recommendation to full Council.
· Elizabeth Hall (IP) also welcomed the proposals but cautioned that the SAC would also need to consider arrangements to handle instances where Members were not co-operative.
· SAC members also welcomed the proposals, and in particular establishing a principle within the Code that Chairs of meetings be empowered to enforce it. However concern was expressed over the suggestion in the Hoey Ainscough review paper that informal resolution should not require mutual agreement of the complainant and subject of the complaint, but could be endorsed unilaterally by the MO and IP if they felt the outcome was satisfactory. This was not the level of agreement needed and the suggested automatic process would create a lack of trust in the MO. The complaints arrangements needed to be above criticism and the referral of non-referrals to an investigation was not the cause of delays to the conclusion of complaints. Very careful thought was needed before checks and balances were removed. The Chair and Meic Sullivan-Gould commented that the first step was set the envelope for any complaints arrangements by setting the expected standards of behaviour within the Code and the sanctions available for breach and that required expansion of the Code to encompass the principles set out at 4.1 to 4.3. The next step would be examining the complaints arrangements and duration.
· Referencing para 4.2, consideration that the Code should require some personal interests to be declared/ registered, with a view to ensuring transparency of the governance processes, in the same way that charity boards required members to declare e.g. Chairmanship of the Patient Panel at the Royal London Hospital might be considered to make it inappropriate to sit on the Health Scrutiny Panel. Ward Members should also declare relevant interests that were not financial. The Chair commented that there was a difference between what interests statute required to be declared/registered and what the SAC considered Members should declare and a good Code would reflect that.
· Consideration also that the need for greater clarity in the Code around the declaration of interests should encompass the over-declaration of interests, normally done to avoid being party to a decision, and most commonly declaration of being a Ward Member when this was irrelevant.
· Clarification sought and given as to whether senior Officers would fall within the scope of the Code and whether a requirement for respect for Member/ Officer relationships/ communication could be ensured. Meic Sullivan-Gould responded that the Employee Code of Conduct was not currently based on the CPSL’s 7 Principles of Public Life, and if a new Member Code of Conduct was based on these, the Employee Code would follow suit as would other Codes; it was also logical that the same principles should apply to senior officers with delegated powers. The behaviours on which both Codes were based could be expanded to include respect.
· Noting the Officer response, consideration that further work was needed to update in a consistent way the Employee Code of Conduct, Complaints and Disciplinary Code for Chief Officers and the Member/ Officer protocol which had diverged over time.
· Clarification sought and given as to whether the Mayor would fall within the scope of the new Code and also the Complaints Procedure. Meic Sullivan-Gould confirmed the Mayor, Executive Members, Ward Members and Co-opted committee members would fall within the scope of both.
The Chair Moved the recommendations set out in the report with the additional amendment that he had proposed earlier in the deliberations; and it was: -
Resolved:
1) That the proposed principles of an updated Member Code of Conduct, as set out at paras 4.1 to 4.3 of the report, be endorsed;
2) That that a draft of the revised Member Code of Conduct built around these principles be presented to the next SAC meeting for endorsement and onward recommendation to full Council; and
3) That the range of sanctions available to the Authority in the event of a breach of the Code, as set out at Appendix 3 to the report, be noted.
4) That Officers be requested to take account of SAC member comments/ suggestions regarding a new Members Code of Conduct and associated standards arrangements.
Action by: Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer, LPG)
Supporting documents:
- Update Code Report 211014 BS1710141638pm, item 37. PDF 85 KB
- Update CofC Appx 1 Rev Stds Fwrk HA MSG2010141108am, item 37. PDF 56 KB
- Update CofC Appx 2 New Principles CSPL MSG2010141108am, item 37. PDF 45 KB
- Update CofC Appx 3 Sanctions summary MSG2010141108am, item 37. PDF 43 KB