Meeting documents
- Meeting of Standards Committee, Tuesday, 9th January, 2018 5.30 pm (Item 44.)
Minutes:
The District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer informed the Committee that the Member Standards Complaints process had been in place since July 2012. The Code of Conduct, adopted at the same time, had been reviewed and amended in the meantime. Member comments on the operation of the system in relation to some of the complaints recently submitted under the process suggested that now was a suitable time to review how the complaints process worked, and whether any amendments to it should be made. The following points had been raised for consideration by Members.
|
Points for consideration |
Recommendations to the Committee |
|
The Complainant could be anonymous, in the sense of requesting not to be identified to the Subject Member, which because the Subject Member was known to, and named by the Complainant, could be viewed as unfair. |
No action required. |
|
Complaints did not receive enough scrutiny at the outset for triviality, nuisance or frivolity. There was currently no facility for the Monitoring Officer to dismiss a complaint at pre-Stage 1 (i.e. before it was accepted as a complaint and sent to the member) where there was some obvious discriminatory motive on the part of a complainant which would be unlawful. |
That a new criterion be added to Paragraph 4 of the Complaints Procedure. "What happens Next?" as follows: "(h) the subject matter of the complaint reveals any manifest and/or obvious discriminatory motive on the part of the Complainant within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 in making the complaint". That criterion (g) in Paragraph 4 of the Complaints Procedure be amended to insert the additional wording in italics below, so (g) will read: "the same, or substantially the same issue has been the subject of a previous Code of Conduct allegation or service complaint and there is nothing further to be gained." |
|
There was no verbal discussion with the member before the complaint became formal. Communication with members was very formal, and could come as an unwelcome shock "out of the blue". Members lack an effective point of contact whom they could contact to find out more about how the process would work. Although it was accepted that the Monitoring Office’s role needed to display impartiality as far as possible once a complaint had been made, and this could preclude detailed discussion with the Monitoring Officer about the facts of the case, it would be useful to have a contact point who was knowledgeable about process, yet not directly involved in it. |
That the Head of Democratic Legal and Policy Services nominate a "member contact" officer who has no direct involvement with the complaints process and whom members can contact for support and advice on the process. In the first instance this would probably be the Democratic Services Manager, and the complaints process document be amended to reflect this. |
|
It was impossible to prove a negative. |
No action required. |
|
The 20 working day deadline for members to respond to the initial complaint could give the impression that the reply was expected to take this period to reply, rather than being a longstop date. |
That correspondence with Members made it particularly clear in future that the 20-working day reference was a long stop date, and that they should respond as soon as possible and in any event within 20 working days. |
As well as points noted by Members, it was also noted that paragraph 9 of the Complaint process still made reference, when explaining who was an Independent Person, to the transitional provisions up until July 2013, which were now obsolete. It was proposed that this wording be amended accordingly to remove the unnecessary wording.
It was debated whether an additional section of wording should be added to the 20-working day reference to encourage Members to respond within a target of 10-working days where possible. The Committee felt this might put Members under unnecessary pressure, would create additional work for officers and could give the complainant an unrealistic expectation.
The District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer informed the Committee that during the last four years the Council did not appear to have had any serial complainants. It was noted that the Monitoring Officer was entitled to dismiss a complaint at the outset if the same or substantially the same issue had been subject of a previous Code of Conduct allegation or service complaint and there was nothing further to be gained. Mr Houalla advised the Committee that in his experience it was important not to label persistent complainants as a nuisance as some were real victims who could be suffering on a regular, sometimes daily basis.
The Committee was content with the suggested recommendations, as detailed above, with some reservations around the issue of the Complainant being able to have their identity withheld from the subject member.
RESOLVED: That:
The District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer make enquiries with other Local Authorities to explore how they deal with complainants wishing to have their identity withheld from the subject member.
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That:
The following recommendations be presented to Full Council for approval, and incorporated into the Member Complaints system:
i) That a new criterion be added to Paragraph 4 of the Complaints Procedure. "What happens Next?" as follows:
"(h) the subject matter of the complaint reveals any manifest and/or obvious discriminatory motive on the part of the Complainant within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 in making the complaint".
ii) That criterion (g) in Paragraph 4 of the Complaints Procedure be amended, so (g) will read:
"the same, or substantially the same issue has been the subject of a previous Code of Conduct allegation or service complaint and there is nothing further to be gained."
iii) That the Head of Democratic Legal and Policy Services nominate a "member contact" officer who has no direct involvement with the complaints process and whom members can contact for support and advice on the process.
iv) That correspondence with Members makes it particularly clear in future that the 20-working day reference is a long stop date, and that they should respond as soon as possible and in any event within 20 working days.
v) That paragraph 9.1 of the Complaint process be amended to read ‘Is, or has been within the past five years, a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority.’
Supporting documents:
PDF 390 KB