To note the powers and responsibilities of the Audit and Governance Committee, and of other bodies in relation to Standards complaints against Councillors, and to consider best practice within the Council’s adopted process.

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer submitted a report which explained the powers and responsibilities of the Audit and Governance Committee and other bodies in relation to standards complaints against Councillors.

 

The Committee was advised that, in view of the comments made during the discussion at the Committee on 12 November 2012 and at Council on 4 January 2013 in respect of the report ‘Breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Mark Hubbard’, this report sought to clarify the process adopted by Council in relation to standards matters within a single document.

 

It was noted that the Localism Act 2011 had removed the standards regime which had been in place since 2001, thereby requiring local authorities to introduce local processes to handle standards complaints.  Consequently, Council approved a new Code of Conduct and a system to implement the provisions of the Act at its meeting on 20 July 2012 (minute 31).  The report set out the related functions of the Audit and Governance Committee, Council, the Monitoring Officer, Independent Persons, and the Standards Panel.

 

In relation to the complaints about Councillor Hubbard, a Committee Member said that new material had been brought to the attention of Council which had not been available to the Committee when making its decision on the case.  Another Committee Member commented that a Councillor had obtained this information through a Freedom of Information request.  The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer said that he had not been the Monitoring Officer when the complaints were considered by the Standards Panel and by the Committee and he was not aware of the advice provided at that time.  He noted that the complaints had commenced under the previous standards regime and he outlined the new process for dealing with complaints.  The Committee was advised that the new system focused on improving standards and this was reflected in the limited scope of the sanctions: the Council could not fine, suspend or disqualify a member from membership of the authority.

 

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer said that the Independent Person, in consultation with the Standards Panel, considered substantial amounts of material to inform the recommendations but the Committee could request further detail if required.

 

Councillor EMK Chave asked that her comments to* be recorded, these included: it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the new system at this stage given the few cases to date but the process should be monitored carefully; if the intention was a ‘light touch approach’, the treatment of the Councillor Hubbard case at Council had been disproportionate, with some comments perhaps appearing slightly malicious; clarity was sought about the time taken to deal with the recent cases and whether any complaints about other Councillors were still outstanding; and the value of apologies sought from subject members was queried.

 

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer advised that the handling of the complaints involving Councillor GA Powell and Councillor MAF Hubbard had been subject to delays, in part resulting from the transition to the new arrangements.

 

A Committee Member said that very serious complaints had been made and Councillor Hubbard did not dispute the facts.  It was commented that, in view of the information that* had come to light, the extent of the sanctions available did not seem sufficient.

 

Another Committee Member suggested that, to avoid unwarranted criticism, Council should be reminded about the limitations of the new standards system, the status of the Independent Person and the expectations of the role of the Committee, and the constraints in terms of sanctions.  Nevertheless, it was critical that the Committee received adequate briefing about the cases before it, particularly if anyone could access full papers through Freedom of Information requests.

 

Referring to Appendix A to the report ‘Audit and Governance Committee - Procedure to be followed when considering standards complaints’, it was suggested that the following amendment be made ‘The Chairman states that the general attitude premise of the Committee is to accept the findings of the Independent Person…’.

 

Other Members spoke in support of continuing with the system in its present form and, through experience, improve upon it.  However, it was also recognised that further consideration would need to be given to achieving the right balance in terms of the level of detail provided to the Committee.

 

A Committee Member commented that the satisfactory resolution of complaints was important to the integrity of the Council.  It was also commented that the sanctions recommended to the Committee needed to be clear; for example, to specify who would provide training and what it would be about.

 

The Vice-Chairman said that the Independent Person, in consultation with the Standards Panel, had been appointed to consider all the information relating to complaints and the Committee should not second-guess their findings.  It was the duty of the Committee, prior to making a decision, to gain assurance that due process had been followed, consider any new evidence, and receive representations on the sanctions proposed.  Referring to the examples of possible action in Appendix B, ‘How the Council deals with complaints about member conduct’, the Vice-Chairman expressed concern about the gap between lighter touch and heavier sanctions and felt that the examples given might appear to be too simplistic.  He suggested the inclusion of a paragraph (h) to the effect that ‘further or alternative actions may be considered subject to Monitoring Officer advice’.

 

The Chairman invited the Independent Persons present to address the Committee.  Some of the key points raised by the Independent Persons are summarised below.

 

David Stevens MBE

 

i.           The former Standards Committee had been empowered to deal with complaints and had the respect of Councillors.  Whereas the Localism Act only required that an Independent Person’s ‘views are to be sought, and taken into account’.

 

ii.          The new system was principally about improving governance, not implementing punishments for misconduct.

 

iii.         The transition had inevitably extended the time taken to deal with some complaints, compounded by delays in receiving external investigation reports in certain cases.

 

iv.        Both Mr. Bharier and Mr. Stevens had accrued significant experience of the complaints process but, as former independent members of the Standards Committee, would be required to stand down before 1 July 2013; Mr. Rob Cook would remain as an Independent Person and additional appointments would be made in coming months.

 

v.         The value of independent perspectives on Councillors’ conduct was emphasised.

 

Jake Bharier

 

1.          Faced with a difficult piece of legislation in the Localism Act, a new standards system had been produced for Herefordshire, involving not just Herefordshire Council but also town/parish councils.  It was acknowledged that the details of the system would need to be improved as experience was gained of managing the system.

 

2.          Although the former Standards Committee had a more formal status within the Council, the Standards Panel provided a useful forum for the Independent Person to consider wider perspectives, as it involved both an advisor from the Council and an advisor from the town/parish councils.

 

3.          In law, the Council must have arrangements for investigating allegations against Councillors and making decisions about allegations.  However, there had been early recognition that it would not be appropriate to debate complaints on the floor of full Council.  Consequently, these arrangements had been delegated to the Monitoring Officer and the Audit and Governance Committee, informed by the views of the Independent Person, assisted by the Standards Panel.

 

4.          The Standards Panel provided an opportunity to explore good governance, in line with the ‘Nolan principles’, and to coax full disclosure from all parties involved in complaints.

 

5.          On the whole, the process had worked well so far, with a number of complaints dealt with over the past seven months and referred to the relevant decision maker.

 

6.          In terms of the amount of information presented to Councillors, the Committee was advised that the complaint against Councillor GA Powell (minute 41 of 5 December 2012 refers) involved three large boxes of paperwork and it was suggested that it might not be an efficient use of time or resources to circulate all the material in every case.  The level of detail provided was a matter of judgement but Councillors should be assured that the Independent Person would carefully consider all available information and representations.

 

7.          It was commented that the fundamentals in the Councillor Hubbard case had been included in the Independent Person’s report provided to the Audit and Governance Committee (minute 34 of 12 November 2012 refers).

 

8.          The powers available to the authority in terms of sanctions were limited; it was the duty of the police to investigate any potential criminal activity reported to it.

 

9.          Experience had shown that it was sometimes difficult to extract meaningful apologies, as a sanction, to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

10.        It had been considered that the recent cases were sufficiently serious to warrant notification to Council for information.  It was recommended by the Independent Persons that a statement should be provided in such cases to indicate to Council  what action they were permitted to take in such cases.

 

11.        A typographical error was noted in Appendix B, with the following amendment suggested ‘cannot … suspect suspend’ in respect town/parish councils.

 

12.        The Independent Person was detached from the political arena and provided independent assurance that complaints were being dealt with properly.

 

13.        There had been three cases unresolved from the previous standards regime which had required consideration under the new system, and these had all been concluded.

 

Some Committee Members maintained that the full nature of the allegations about Councillor Hubbard’s conduct had not been brought to the attention of the Committee when it considered the complaints.  It was acknowledged that the Committee should not examine the minutiae of cases but the full facts of the breaches should be disclosed prior to making a decision on possible actions.

 

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer made a number of comments arising from the discussion on this item, including:

 

i.           He welcomed the comments from Members that the new system should be allowed to bed down.

 

ii.          An overview was provided of the role of the police in dealing with any allegations of criminal activity.

 

iii.         The length of time taken to receive the report about Councillor Hubbard at Council was unfortunate; it was initially delayed because of time constraints at Council and subsequently by the introduction of material* at the meeting by a member of material*, a report by an independent investigator, that had been considered fully by the Standards Panel but which had not been made available to all members.

 

iv.        A commitment was provided that level of detail reported to the Committee would be reviewed.

 

v.         Certain cases were notified to Council as a form of sanction, to give a degree of publicity to instances of misconduct, or to impose certain sanctions but it should not be the function of Council to deal with the cases again.

 

A Committee Member commented that Councillors would need all the relevant documentary evidence if the outcomes were to be determined by Council.  If it was agreed that Council was not an appropriate forum for a quasi-disciplinary process, however, then clarity was needed about the procedure and the rules of debate at Council.

 

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer confirmed that there was no appeal mechanism within the new system, although procedural irregularity could be challenged through the courts.  He also provided further details about the process undertaken by the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, following the receipt of a complaint.

 

The complaints against Councillor Hubbard were further discussed in the context of the information received by the Committee.  It was re-iterated that all pertinent material needed to be considered by the Committee to enable it to make reasoned decisions.  It was commented that confidence in the system could be undermined if serious misconduct received the same level of sanction as relatively minor incidents.

 

A Committee Member questioned whether a breach of confidentiality could be established where material should have entered the public domain or if it was clearly in the wider public interest.

 

The Head of Governance / Monitoring Officer said that, informed by the comments of the Committee, the report be provided to Group Leaders, for subsequent circulation to all Councillors.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(a)       the report be noted;

 

(b)       subject to the matters raised above, the Committee endorses its procedures for dealing with Standards complaints at meetings, and within the Council’s adopted process; and

 

(c)     a report be provided to Group Leaders, for subsequent circulation to all Councillors.