Memorandum by Leeds City Council Standards
Committee (STA 20)
1. INTRODUCTORY
COMMENTS
1.1 The Standards Committee of Leeds City
Council is committed to and supportive of the new ethical framework
and the work of the Standards Board in investigating complaints
and the Adjudication Panel role in determining serious allegations
of misconduct.
1.2 The Council has appreciated the advice
and guidance given by the Board and its staff on a number of difficult
issues following the introduction of the new ethical framework.
1.3 The Council recognises the difficulties
faced by the Board, particularly the problems resulting from the
piecemeal introduction of legislation, which prevented the Board
from referring less serious allegations of misconduct for consideration
at a local level.
1.4 The Council would offer the following
views on the specific issues identified in the consultation document:
2. THE BOARD'S
EFFECTIVENESS IN
PROMOTING AND
OVERSEEING THE
CODE OF
CONDUCT
2.1 The City Council welcomes the Board's
efforts to promote the requirements of the code of conduct within
relevant authorities. The Board's excellent website is an invaluable
resource, particularly the comprehensive list of frequently asked
questions on the interpretation of the code.
2.2 The Standards Board Roadshow last year
was another welcome innovation and the Council was pleased to
help stage one of the roadshows in Leeds in February 2003; this
gave elected City Council and Parish Members and senior officers
the opportunity to meet colleagues from the Board and discuss
the implementation of the code's requirements.
2.3 In addition, the detailed booklets issued
by the Board and the subsequent Standards Board Case Review provide
definitive guidance on the interpretation of the code.
3. THE BOARD'S
RELATIONSHIP WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STAKEHOLDERS
3.1 The City Council has developed a good
working relationship with the Board's officers over the last three
years. The Council is particularly grateful for the direct support
and guidance offered by the Board's staff, particularly during
the introduction of the code.
4. SUPPORT FOR
STANDARDS COMMITTEES
AT A
LOCAL LEVEL
4.1 The Annual Assembly of Standards Committees
provides a real opportunity to meet and discuss ethical standards
and governance issues with senior members of the Board as well
as colleagues from other authorities.
4.2 Leeds has maintained a strong presence
at the Annual Assembly and this year, the chair of Leeds City
Council's Standards Committee was invited to lead on a workshop
looking at matters of conscience.
4.3 The committee has also welcomed the
monthly bulletins issued by the Board, a useful guide to recent
developments.
4.4 The Standards Committee newsletter,
aimed specifically at local Standards Committee members, was another
welcome innovation.
5. ROLE OF
THE STANDARDS
BOARD IN
UPHOLDING THE
CODE OF
CONDUCT AND
ITS ABILITY
TO ASSESS
ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT
5.1 It is felt that the Board's role in
this respect has been hampered by delays in the introduction of
the necessary legislation to allow the investigation and determination
of less serious allegations of misconduct at a local level.
5.2 The recent introduction of regulations
to allow the local investigation of complaints is a welcome development
and should allow the Board to continue to reduce its backlog of
cover and concentrate on more serious allegations.
5.3 However, the City Council's Standards
Committee has previously expressed concern in relation to certain
aspects of the Board's work and handling of specific cases. These
are set out below:
6. NAMING OF
MEMBERS
6.1 The Committee has expressed concerned
over the inconsistency between the respective policies adopted
by the Standards Board and the Adjudication Panel for England
towards the naming of complainants.
6.2 The Standards Board operates a policy
whereby though complainants are never named, all Members subject
of allegations are, even if they are subsequently exonerated of
any breach of the code of conduct.
6.3 Leeds' Members feel that only Members
who have been found to have breached the code should be named
and identified on the Board's website and publications.
6.4 Allegations tend to bring more publicity
than any decision to clear a Member and the public tends to assume
that there is "no smoke without fire".
6.5 The committee feel that the Board's
policy of naming does not help people understand the code of conduct
or the way in which Ethical Standards Officers (ESOs) conduct
their investigations.
6.6 Members are particularly concerned at
the effect that this issue has on Parish Councillors. Though the
Board argues that elected Members have put themselves forward
and should expect a higher level of scrutiny, Parish Councillors
tend to think of themselves as non-political, community based
representatives.
6.7 Whilst not suggesting that Parish Councils
should be exempt from the Code of Conduct, there are concerns
that such adverse exposure and lengthy investigation could affect
recruitment of Parish Members in the future.
6.8 Whilst the Standards Committee understands
the need to protect "whistleblowers" and the "whistleblowing"
policy, it also feels that complainants should stand by their
allegations, particularly if it is a matter of Members accusing
fellow Members or in the case of persistent complainers.
7. FRIVOLOUS/VEXATIOUS
COMPLAINTS
7.1 Another area that the committee feel
is a cause for concern is that of frivolous and vexatious complaints.
7.2 Frivolous/vexatious complaints and those
made on political grounds can be just as damaging as more serious
allegations and serve to contribute to the backlog of work of
the Board.
7.3 Leeds Members recognise that the Board
was initially involved in a large number of relatively trivial
allegations and welcomes the action recently taken by the Board
to discourage such trivial complaints. This is borne out by the
relatively high percentage of allegations not referred for investigation
(73% according to the statistical information in the latest Standards
Board for England bulletin).
7.4 The committee feel that the web banner
designed and supplied to authorities by the Standards Board comprises
provocative wording, which may have led to, and continue to lead
to, further examples of frivolous/vexatious complaints (the wording
is "unhappy with a councillor's behaviour?").
7.5 Members also expressed concern that
particularly in cases of frivolous/vexatious complaints, there
is no arrangement for formal redress.
8. FORMAL COMPLAINT/EXAMPLE
OF CONCERNS
8.1 Leeds has submitted a formal complaint
to the Standards Board over its handling of an investigation into
one of its Members, which highlights most of these issues. The
issue is currently with the Board's Chief Executive and the complaint
still in the system.
8.2 During an investigation into a Leeds
Member, an ESO uncovered some information that related to another
Member, which was completely unrelated to the original investigation.
The ESO decided to initiate a formal investigation, despite the
fact that no complaint had actually been received and without
contacting the Monitoring Officer, which Members feel would have
cleared up the matter.
8.3 The Member in question was cleared of
any breach of the code of conduct, but has nonetheless been named
on the Board's website and publications.
8.4 The Board responded to Leeds City Council's
concerns over this matter, explaining that under s59 of the Local
Government Act 2000, ESOs were obliged to investigate cases where
the prima facie evidence led them to believe that a Member
had, or may have, failed to comply with the code of conduct.
8.5 Leeds' Chief Legal Services Officer
advised the Committee that whilst the Section set out the functions
of the ESO, it did not indicate that there was the obligation
suggested by the Board. He went on to question that if it were
indeed the case that there was such an obligation, how could that
be reconciled with the Board deciding not to refer matters for
investigation where there is a prima facie case but the
likely penalty would not merit an investigation?
8.6 The Committee agreed with the Chief
Legal Services Officer's views that there was no obligation inferred
in this section.
8.7 They also felt that situations such
as this contributed to the backlog of cases being dealt with by
the Board.
9. MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Standards Committee Members have emphasised
their support for the role of the Monitoring Officer in helping
to resolve allegations of misconduct.
9.2 Concern has been expressed over the
length of time taken by the Standards Board to conclude its investigations,
though Members do acknowledge that there have been recent improvements
to this, which are continuing.
9.3 The Standard's Committee's concerns
in relation to the naming of Members and the time taken to conclude
Standards Board investigations were echoed by the Council's Scrutiny
Board (Central and Corporate Functions) during a recent inquiry
into the role of the Monitoring Officer.
9.4 Finally, whilst very grateful for the
opportunity to express Leeds' concerns, support and points, Members
and Officers are regretful that the timescale of this consultation
is so short. It is felt that given more time, a more comprehensive
and considered submission could be made.
| 
