Agenda item

This report provides an annual review of the complaints received pursuant to, and a review of, the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints procedure.

Biancia Robinson, Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, introduced a report from the Director of Law providing an annual review of the complaints received under the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure.

In considering the report the Committee noted:

·            The summary of complaints received in the last 12 months, as detailed in section 3.5 and Appendix A of the report. During this period the Director of Law, as Monitoring Officer, had received eight complaints and made determinations regarding six councillors.  Of these, one complaint had been resolved at Initial Assessment Stage, seven had been resolved at Assessment Criteria Stage with none proceeding to investigation stage. In terms of outcomes, one complaint had been upheld as a breach of the code and two had been subject to review requests, of which one had not been upheld, and one remained under review.

·            The overview of the complaints procedure provided within section 3 of the report and consistency produced as a result of the detailed procedure and assessment criteria.

·            The outline of trends identified in relation to complaints and outcomes, as detailed with section 3.11 – 3.13 of the report.  These had included:

Ø  No issues being identified as having arisen during 2025 from the Code only permitting the investigation of complaints against Members made in their official capacity or when giving the impression they were acting as a member of the Council, unless the issue related to a serious criminal offence committed in the Member's private capacity.

Ø  The main reason given for complaints not proceeding beyond the initial assessment stage being that the complaint had not disclosed sufficiently serious breaches of the code to merit further consideration, or there was insufficient documentation to support the allegation. The main rationale supporting this finding had been that insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the allegation and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was not significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off.

Ø  The main recurring factor for escalating complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage which was based on the contents of the complaint and that there may be a serious issue to consider, with an opportunity for the councillor concerned to comment being necessary to establish if this was the case before a conclusion was reached.

Ø  The value and role of the Independent Persons in providing external scrutiny in relation to any complaints that reached the Assessment Criteria Stage.

·            Whilst no substantive changes had been recommended as a result of the review of the Member Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, the Committee was advised that the potential for any future changes would be kept under review, pending the outcome of the government's review of the standards regime and framework for local authorities in England.

Having considered the report the Committee was then invited to raise any comments/questions, which are summarised below:

·            In noting the outline of the complaints received against members during the previous 12 months, as set out within Appendix A of the report, further details were sought on whether these had been submitted by members of public or other councillors, which it was agreed would be included as part of future updates.

·            Following on, clarification was also sought on the reporting period covered in terms of the complaints listed within Appendix A of the report, which officers confirmed covered the 12 months January to December 2025 and included complaints received and resolved in that period, with it noted that one remained ongoing under the review process.  Confirmation was provided that in these instances cases would also be rolled forward to the next monitoring update pending completion.  In response to a further query relating to other complaints which it was felt had been resolved during the year but had not been listed, officers advised they would liaise directly with the member following the meeting to provide a further update.

·            In response to details also been sought on the comparison between the process followed when investing complaints against members and officers, members were advised both involved different processes with the Monitoring Officer involved in the investigation of complaints received against members under the Member Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure and officers subject to a separate procedure.  The sanctions currently available under the Members procedure were also different to those under the Council’s procedures relating to officers, with the powers available to sanction a member found to have breached the Code of Conduct specified within the Localism Act 2011.

·            Concern was also highlighted at the process currently followed in terms of members being informed when a complaint about them had been received.  Under the current process, members would not be informed whilst the complaint was at initial assessment stage should a decision be made that the matter fell outside the remit of the Code of Conduct and would not therefore need to progress to the Assessment Criteria Stage.  If identified to progress to the Assessment Criteria Stage, it would be at this stage that members were formally advised of the complaint providing the opportunity for members to comment and make representations.  Drawing a comparison to the process followed when dealing with Freedom of Information requests where members had been referenced, the difference in process was emphasised, with members automatically advised when the information being disclosed include reference to them, as a matter of good practice.  Recognising the concerns highlighted in relation to members being informed when initial complaints against them were received, even if subsequently found to be unsubstantiated, officers advised this could be taken away for further consideration.  Given the nature of the process set out within the Member Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure members were, however, advised that any change in relation to the stage at which councillors were informed of any complaint received was likely to require formal approval.

·            In response to a query, further clarification was provided in relation to the distinction between members being assessed to have acted in an official capacity as a member of the Council and in their private capacity under the Code of Conduct based on the example of the use of councillor and private email addresses with the nature of each depending on the type and context of the communication undertaken.

As there were no further questions, the Chair thanked Biancia Robinson for presenting the report and it was RESOLVED to note the contents of the report with no recommendations identified as needing to be made to the Audit and Standards Committee.