Members received the report of the Monitoring Officer which set out several proposed amendments to the Council’s Arrangement for Dealing with Member Complaints, and consequential amendments to the Investigations and Hearings Procedures.  The main proposed amendments were in order to clarify the role of the Independent Persons (IPs) in complaint handling in light of recent experience and advice obtained.  Several other amendments to improve the documents were also detailed in the report and should all be supported, a minor amendment to Part 2 of the Constitution was also required, as detailed in the report, which would require full Council approval.

Following feedback from the IPs and advice received from leading consultants in the field of ethics and standards and knowledge gained at recent training events, it was considered that the role of the IPs required further clarity within the Council’s procedural documents.  It needed to be clear that a discussion with an IP would only be offered to a Subject Member (SM) (the Councillor against whom a complaint has been made) if a complaint made against them had been referred for an investigation and not at the initial assessment stage.  Indeed, the initial assessment stage could result in the complaint being dismissed, in which case there would be no need for a SM to speak to an IP. 

It also needed to be made clear that IPs were not there to provide legal advice or to represent the SMs; SMs should obtain their own legal advice, as appropriate.  It was further recommended that only one IP was used throughout each case, to ensure IPs were not ‘played off’ against one another and would provide a consistent approach for the management of each individual case.  Should a complaint that had been investigated proceed to a Hearing Panel, again, the same IP would be invited to attend that Hearing Panel.

It was also considered good practice to offer the IP as a “broker” between the two parties to a complaint, if there was dissatisfaction on either side with a proposed local resolution option.  It was noted that the IP’s role description allowed for this additional role, which they were both happy to undertake.

It was noted that requests for confidentiality by complainants or requests for suppression of complaint details would not automatically be granted and the Monitoring Officer would consider the request alongside the substance of the complaint.  The arrangements document would be amended accordingly to confirm the procedure as currently set out in the Member Complaint Form.

It was noted that should Members require support after a complaint had been made against them, they were able to access the Employee Assistant Programme that was available to Members for services such as counselling.

Members were happy to support the amendments proposed in the appendices attached to the report, therefore Part 2, Article 9, – Ethical Standards function of the Audit and Standards Committee paragraph 9.1 (c) iii) would require amendment to reflect the same.

RECOMMENDED: That the consequential amendments to Part 2, Article 9, – Ethical Standards function of the Audit and Standards Committee paragraph 9.1 (c) iii) be approved and adopted;

AND

RESOLVED: That the proposed amendments to the Arrangements for Dealing with Member Complaints, Investigations and Hearing Procedures be approved, as amended to include reference to the confidentiality request process.