m. pearson mcmi clerk to the authority service … · 2018. 3. 28. · m. pearson mcmi clerk to the...

M. Pearson MCMI CLERK TO THE AUTHORITY

To: The Members of the Standards Committee (See below)

SERVICE HEADQUARTERS THE KNOWLE CLYST ST GEORGE EXETER DEVON EX3 0NW

Your ref : Date : 27 June 2008 Telephone : 01392 872200 Our ref : DSFRA/MP/SS Please ask for : Samantha Sharman Fax : 01392 872300

Website : www.dsfire.gov.uk Email : [email protected] Direct Telephone : 01392 872393

STANDARDS COMMITTEE (Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority)

Monday 7 July 2008

A meeting of the Standards Committee will be held on the above date, commencing at 10.00hours in Conference Room A at Service Headquarters to consider the following matters. Mr. M. Pearson Clerk to the Authority

A G E N D A

1. Apologies 2. Election of Chair

(NOTE: In accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended), the Chair MUST be an Independent Member as defined by that Act).

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2008 attached (). 4. Items Requiring Urgent Attention

Items which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be considered at the meeting as matters of urgency.

5. Election of Vice-Chair

(NOTE: To ensure compliance with the statutory requirement for meetings to be chaired by an Independent Member [as defined by the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended)], the Vice-Chair MUST be an Independent Member as defined by the Act).

PART 1 – OPEN COMMITTEE 6. Declarations of Interest

Members are asked to consider whether they have any personal/personal and prejudicial interests in items as set out on the agenda for this meeting and declare any such interests at this time. Please refer to the Note 2 at the end of this agenda for guidance on interests.

7. Local Assessment of Complaints

To note that the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 provide for all allegations of breaches of the Members Code of Code to be addressed at a local level.

(a) Copy of guidance “Local Assessment of Complaints” issued by the Standards Board for England (SBE) enclosed with this agenda (page numbered separately);

(b) Copy of DSFRA “Guide to Making a Complaint”, developed in conjunction with this guidance, attached (Page 4).

RECOMMENDATIONS

(i) that the SBE Guidance, together with the advisory timescales contained within it for addressing initial assessments and reviews, be noted;

(b) that the Committee considers the DSFRA “Guide to Making a Complaint” and indicates whether there are any other local assessment criteria it would wish to introduce and, pending this, endorses the Guide.

8. Appointments to and Terms of Reference of Sub-Committees for Local Assessment

Regime Report of Clerk to the Authority (SC/08/1) attached (Page 10).

PART 2 – ITEMS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESS AND PUBLIC Nil.

MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER

Membership:- Councillors Galloway, S Hughes, Mrs Nicholson, Phillips, Way and Yeomans. Independent Members: Messrs. D Phillips, D Watson and R Withers. Substitute Members Councillor Members (i.e. EXCLUDING Independent Members) may be substituted at any ordinary meeting of the Standards Committee by any other Councillor Member of the Authority. The Clerk (or his representative) MUST be advised of any such substitution prior to the start of the meeting.

Access to Information Any person wishing to inspect any minutes, reports or lists of background papers relating to any item on this agenda should contact Ms. Sharman on the telephone number shown at the top of this agenda.

NOTES 1. ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to inspect any minutes, reports or lists of background papers relating to any item on this agenda should contact Sam Sharman on the telephone number shown at the top of this agenda.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS What Interests do I need to declare in a meeting? As a first step you need to declare any personal interests you have in a matter. You will then need to decide if you have a prejudicial interest in a matter. What is a personal interest? You have a personal interest in a matter if it relates to any interests which you must register, as defined in Paragraph 8(1) of the Code.

You also have a personal interest in any matter likely to affect the well-being or financial position of:- (a) you, members of your family, or people with whom you have a close association; (b) any person/body who employs/has employed the persons referred to in (a) above, or any firm

in which they are a partner or company of which they are a director; (c) any person/body in whom the persons referred to in (a) above have a beneficial interest in a

class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £25,000; or (d) any body of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management and

which:- • you have been appointed or nominated to by the Authority; or • exercises functions of a public nature (e.g. a constituent authority; a Police

Authority); or • is directed to charitable purposes; or • one of the principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy

(including any political party or trade union) more than it would affect the majority of other people in the Authority's area.

Anything that could affect the quality of your life (or that of those persons/bodies listed in (b) to (d) above) either positively or negatively, is likely to affect your/their “well being”. If you (or any of those persons/bodies listed in (b) to (d) above) have the potential to gain or lose from a matter under consideration – to a greater extent than the majority of other people in the Authority’s area - you should declare a personal interest. What do I need to do if I have a personal interest in a matter? Where you are aware of, or ought reasonably to be aware of, a personal interest in a matter you must declare it when you get to the item headed "Declarations of Interest" on the agenda, or otherwise as soon as the personal interest becomes apparent to you, UNLESS the matter relates to or is likely to affect:-

(a) any other body to which you were appointed or nominated by the Authority; or (b) any other body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. membership of a constituent

authority; other Authority such as a Police Authority); of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management. In such cases, provided you do not have a prejudicial interest, you need only declare your personal interest if and when you speak on the matter. Can I stay in a meeting if I have a personal interest? You can still take part in the meeting and vote on the matter unless your personal interest is also a prejudicial interest. What is a prejudicial interest? Your personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest if all of the following conditions are met:-

(a) the matter is not covered by one of the following exemptions to prejudicial interests in relation to the following functions of the Authority:-

• statutory sick pay (if you are receiving or entitled to this); • an allowance, payment or indemnity for members;

• any ceremonial honour given to members; • setting council tax or a precept; AND

(b) the matter affects your financial position (or that of any of the persons/bodies as described in Paragraph 8 of the Code) or concerns a regulatory/licensing matter relating to you or any of the persons/bodies as described in Paragraph 8 of the Code); AND

(c) a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

What do I need to do if I have a prejudicial interest? If you have a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, you must declare that you have a prejudicial interest (and the nature of that interest) as soon as it becomes apparent to you. You should then leave the room unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter by statutory right or otherwise. If that is the case, you can also attend the meeting for that purpose.

You must, however, leave the room immediately after you have finished speaking (or sooner if the meeting so decides) and you cannot remain in the public gallery to observe the vote on the matter. Additionally, you must not seek to improperly influence a decision in which you have a prejudicial interest. What do I do if I require further guidance or clarification on declarations of interest? If you feel you may have an interest in a matter that will need to be declared but require further guidance on this, please contact the Clerk to the Authority – preferably before the date of the meeting at which you may need to declare the interest. Similarly, please contact the Clerk if you require guidance/advice on any other aspect of the Code of Conduct.

- 1 -

STANDARDS COMMITTEE (Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority)

17 January 2008

Present:- Councillors Galloway and Mrs Nicholson. Mr D Phillips and Mr D Watson (Chairman) (Independent Members). Apologies:- Councillor Barton and Mr R Withers (Independent Member). In attendance:- Joy Norris – Assistant Chief Executive, Devon and Cornwall Police Authority. *SC/7. Minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2007 be signed as a correct record.

*SC/8. Declarations of Interest

Members of the Committee were asked to consider items to be discussed as part of this meeting and declare any personal/personal and prejudicial interests they may have in any item(s) in accordance with the Authority’s approved Code of Conduct. No interests were declared.

*SC/9. Declarations of Personal/Personal and Prejudicial Interests

The Clerk reported upon the position in respect of the query raised by Mr Withers on the declaration of personal and/or personal and prejudicial interests. He advised the Committee that he had forwarded a request for clarification to the Standards Board for England (SBE) and that a response had been received by email to the effect that the initial view of SBE was that there was a personal interest but no prejudicial interest in the matter concerned. The Clerk advised that a copy of the email would be forwarded to all Members of the Committee for information. Reference was made at this point to the guidance that was given to Members of the Authority on the agenda paper in terms of the declaration of interests at meetings of the Authority. A copy of a guidance note on this matter was circulated at the meeting, whereupon it was felt that it would be useful if this was adopted for inclusion on all future agenda for Authority meetings and the Clerk undertook to make appropriate arrangements RESOLVED that the guidance notes on declarations of interest (as appended to these Minutes for ease of reference) be adopted for inclusion on all future agenda for meetings of the Authority.

- 2 -

*SC/10. Local Assessment of Complaints

The Committee considered the consultation paper on the local assessment of complaints that was launched by the Local Government Minister, John Healey, on 3 January 2008. The consultation focussed on local authority standards committees becoming responsible for assessing allegations of misconduct against members. The deadline for responses to the consultation was 15 February 2008 and these should be sent directly to Communities and Local Government. The Clerk circulated at the meeting a document setting out a draft response to the consultation paper for discussion. During the discussion, the following amendments to the draft response were agreed:

• Question 3 – to include as part of the response the guidance issued should reflect the need to consider how non-disclosure should be handled in the circumstances for a “dual hatted” member of an Authority;

• Question 6 – to reflect the Committee’s view that the maximum penalty that should be available for local standards committees to impose be 12 months instead of 6 months;

• Question 7 – the guidance needs to reflect the position in respect of exemptions from Freedom of Information legislation and whether this legislation should take precedence over the access to information legislation;

• Question 11 – the response should include reference to the point that, in terms of joint working, there should not be any limit set on the geographical area in which authorities could seek to establish joint committees;

• Question 13 – to delete the second sentence of the draft response in its entirety.

RESOLVED that, subject to the inclusion of the amendments above in the draft document circulated at the meeting, a formal response be sent to Communities and Local Government on the consultation exercise on the Orders and Regulations relating to the Conduct of Local Authority Members in England by 15 February 2008.

*SC/11. Joint working on the Local Assessment of Complaints

The Clerk to the Authority introduced Joy Norris, Assistant Chief Executive of Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, to the Committee. He referred to the request that had been received from Devon and Cornwall Police Authority to consider the possibility of joint working in terms of the local assessment of complaints. The Committee received for information a presentation at the meeting that set out the steps involved in the new determination process locally and a proposed process for joint working, together with the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Joy Norris advised the Committee that she would be presenting this information to the Devon and Cornwall Police Authority’s Standards Committee on 29 January 2008 in addition. The Clerk suggested that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee (that was scheduled to be held on Wednesday 12 March 2008 at 10.00hours) prior to consideration by the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority at its meeting on 27 March 2008, with a view to implementation by 1 April 2008 (subject to introduction of the new regulations before this).

- 3 -

SC/12 Seventh Annual Assembly of Standards Committees

The Committee received for information details of the Standards Board for England seventh Assembly of Standards Committees which was to be held at the International Convention Centre (ICC), Birmingham on 13-14 October 2008. This was the leading conference on all issues concerned with the local government Code of Conduct and improving ethical standards. The Committee was invited to consider attendance at the conference in 2008 so that places could be secured at an early stage. RESOLVED that it be recommended that the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority approves the attendance of 3 Members of the Committee at the seventh Assembly of Standards Committees to be held at the International Convention Centre (ICC), Birmingham on 13-14 October 2008.

*DENOTES DELEGATED MATTER WITH POWER TO ACT

The meeting started at 14.15hours and finished at 16.45hours

- 4 -

DEVON AND SOMERSET FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT

GUIDE TO MAKING A COMPLAINT

1. Summary This guide provides information on making a complaint against certain types of inappropriate behaviour by Members (elected Councillors appointed by constituent authorities) and Independent Members of the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority. The guide explains:-

• who you can complain about;

• what you can complain about; and

• what will happen to your complaint. If you have any questions or difficulties arising from this guide – for example, if English is not your first language – then please contact the Clerk to the Authority on Exeter (01329) 872200.

2. Background The Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority is a stand-alone local authority. As such, it is required by legislation to have its own Standards Committee and to adopt a Members’ Code of Conduct, based upon government guidance. A copy of the Members’ Code of Conduct as approved by the Authority can be found on the website (www.dsfire.gov.uk) or is available on request from:-

The Clerk Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority Service Headquarters The Knowle Clyst St. George EXETER EX3 0NW Tel: (01392) 872200 e-mail: [email protected] The Authority is made up of a total of 25 elected councillors (Members) appointed to it by four constituent authorities (Devon and Somerset County Councils; Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council). The Authority also has – as required by law – three Independent Members. These are not councillors or employees of the Authority or its constituent authorities. All Members and Independent Members are required to follow the Authority’s approved Members’ Code of Conduct. This guide explains how – from 8 May 2008 - you can make a complaint to the Authority if you feel that a Member or Independent Member has failed to follow the Code.

- 5 -

3. Who and What You CAN Complain About You can only use this complaints procedure to complain that a Member or Independent Member may have failed to follow the Authority’s approved Members’ Code of Conduct. Please remember that a “Member” is an elected councillor appointed to the Authority by one of its constituent authorities (Devon and Somerset County Councils; Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council). An Independent Member is someone appointed under statute to serve on the Authority’s Standards Committee. Your complaint may be that the Member or Independent Member has:-

• failed to treat others with respect;

• acted in a way that may cause the Authority to breach an equality enactment

• bullied someone;

• intimidated, or attempted to intimidate a person involved in an allegation against them;

• compromised the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the Authority;

• disclosed confidential information;

• brought an office of, or the Authority itself, into disrepute;

• used their position as a Member or Independent Member improperly to confer or secure an advantage or disadvantage;

• not used the resources of the Authority in accordance with its requirements

• disregarded advice when reaching decisions

• failed to give reasons for decisions where there is a statutory requirement to do so;

• failed to declare a personal or prejudicial interest as defined by the Code;

• had a prejudicial interest as defined by the Code and failed to act appropriately;

• failed to register (an) interest(s) as required by the Code.

4. What CANNOT dealt with under this procedure This procedure cannot be used for:-

• complaints where a Member or Independent Member is not named;

• complaints that are NOT in writing;

• incidents or actions that are not covered by the Authority’s approved Members’ Code of Conduct (e.g. that the complaint concerns acts carried out in the Member or Independent Member’s private life UNLESS, in certain circumstances, the act constitutes a criminal offence for which the Member or Independent Member has been convicted);

• incidents that are about a fault in the way the Authority has or has not done something. This is known as maladministration and may be a matter for the Local Government Ombudsman;

• complaints about people employed by this Authority;

- 6 -

• incidents that happened before OR after the person complained of was a Member or Independent Member of the Authority;

• incidents that happened before the Authority adopted is approved Members’ Code of Conduct;

• complaints about the way in which the Authority conducts and records its meetings.

5. How Do I Make a Complaint? Your complaint MUST be in writing – this includes fax and electronic submissions. If, however, this would be difficult for you (for example, because of a disability or if English is not your first language) then please contact the Clerk to the Authority (whose contact details are provided above).

A complaints form is available on the Authority website (www.dsfire.gov.uk) or on request from the Clerk to the Authority (e-mail: [email protected]). If you wish to make a complaint you are encouraged to use this form although you may prefer to write a letter setting out your complaint. If you choose to write a letter, it is important that you include in it ALL of the following information:-

• your name, address and other contact details (telephone number(s), e-mail address etc.);

• your status (e.g. member of the public; local authority member; monitoring officer; Member of Parliament);

• for the purposes of the Authority’s ethnic monitoring, brief details of your ethnic origin (e.g. British; Irish; Other White Background; White and Black Caribbean etc)1;

• the name of the Member or Independent Member of the Fire and Rescue Authority who the complaint is about;

• details of the alleged misconduct with, where possible, dates, witness details and other supporting information.

1 For full details or ethnic origin classifications used by the Authority, please refer to the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Form

Please note that your identity will normally be disclosed to the Member or Independent Member about whom you complaining. This information may, however, be withheld from that Member or Independent Member in exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee if it considers that following criteria are met:-

• you have reasonable grounds for believing that you will be at risk of physical harm if your identity is disclosed; and/or

• you are an officer (i.e. employee of the Authority or a constituent authority) who works closely with the Member or Independent Member who is the subject of the complaint and you are afraid of the consequences to your employment or of losing your job if your identity is disclosed; and/or

• you suffer from a serious medical condition and that there are medical risks associated with your identity being disclosed. In this event, the Assessment Sub-Committee will require medical evidence of your condition.

- 7 -

6. Anonymous Complaints Anonymous complaints will only be referred by an Assessment Sub-Committee for investigation or some other form of action if the complaint includes photographic evidence indicating an exceptionally serious or significant matter.

7. What will happen to my complaint? On receiving your complaint, the Clerk will refer it to an Assessment Sub-Committee to reach a decision, within an average of 20 working days, on what should happen with the complaint. The Assessment Sub-Committee is required to reach one of the three following decisions on a complaint about a Member or Independent Member’s actions in relation to the Authority’s approved Members’ Code of Conduct:-

• to refer the complaint to the Authority’s Monitoring Officer for investigation or for some other course of action to be undertaken;

• to refer the complaint to the Standards Board for England;

• that no action should be taken in respect of the complaint. Meetings of the Assessment Sub-Committee are CLOSED meetings and are not subject to the notice and publicity requirements under Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1972. Specifically, they are not subject to the following rules:-

• rules regarding notices of meetings;

• rules on the circulation of agendas and documents;

• rules over public access to meetings; and

• rules on the validity of proceedings.

8. How will the Assessment Sub-Committee make its decision?

(a) Initial Tests Before any other assessment of the complaint begins, the Assessment Sub-Committee will need to be satisfied that the complaint meets ALL of the following tests:-

• it is a complaint against one or more named Members or Independent Members of the Authority;

• the named Member or Independent Member was in office at the time of the alleged conduct and the Code of Conduct was in force at the time;

• the complaint, if proven, would be a breach of the Code under which the Member or Independent Member was operating at the time of the alleged misconduct.

If the complaint fails one or more of these tests it cannot be investigated as a breach of the Code and you will be informed that no further action will be taken in respect of your complaint.

- 8 -

(b) Other Assessment Criteria

If your complaint meets the above tests, it may be that the Assessment Sub-Committee may still decide to take no further action in respect of your complaint if one or more of the following criteria apply:-

• your complaint falls within any of the areas that CANNOT be dealt with under this procedure, as set out in Section 4 of this guide;

• the Assessment Sub-Committee does not consider that you have provided sufficient information to enable it to reach a decision on whether the complaint should be referred for investigation or some other action;

• your complaint is about someone who is no longer a Member or Independent Member of this Authority BUT is a Member or Independent Member of another Authority. In this case, the Assessment Sub-Committee may decide to refer your complaint to the Monitoring Officer of the other authority concerned;

• your complaint has been the subject of an investigation or other action relating to the Code of Conduct, or by other regulatory authorities, and there is nothing to be gained by further action being taken;

• your complaint is about something that happened so long ago that there would be little or no benefit in taking action now;

• your complaint is considered to be not sufficiently serious to warrant further action;

• your complaint appears to be simply malicious, politically motivated or “tit-for-tat”.

9. What can I do if the Assessment Sub-Committee decides, at first, to take no further action on my complaint?

You are entitled to request a review of a decision of an Assessment Sub-Committee to take no further action after giving initial consideration to your complaint. A decision by the Assessment Sub-Committee to take no further action is the ONLY decision about which you can request a review. If you wish to request a review, you MUST do this in writing not more than thirty days after the date of the notice provided to you notifying you of the initial decision to take no further action. Any review request complying with this will be carried out by a Review Sub-Committee. This will be made up of different Members to those on the Assessment Sub-Committee who made the initial decision. The review must be undertaken within a maximum of three months from the date of receiving the request, although the Authority will aim to complete the review within an average of twenty working days. In considering a valid review request, the Review Sub-Committee will apply the same initial tests and assessment criteria as set out in Section 8 of this guide and will have available to it the same decisions as are available to the Assessment Sub-Committee (see Section 7 of this guide) EXCEPT that there will be no further right of review in the event of the Review Sub-Committee deciding that no further action should be taken.

- 9 -

10. How will I be notified of the decision of an Assessment or Review Sub-Committee

We will provide you with a written notice of the decision. We will aim to do this within five working days of the date of the meeting of the Assessment or Review Sub-Committee at which the decision was made. The notice will:-

• in relation to a decision to take no further action, summarise the nature of the complaint and the reason(s) for deciding to take no further action. An Assessment Sub-Committee decision notice to take no further action will also give details of the right to request a review of this decision;

• in relation to a decision to a decision to refer a matter to the Monitoring Officer of the Authority or the Standards Board for England, summarise the nature of the complaint and:-

in the case of a referral to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, will summarise the potential breaches of the Code to which the conduct as set out in the complaint refers and will indicate how the investigation process will be conducted;

in the case of referral to a the Monitoring Officer for some other course of action, will summarise the potential breaches of the Code to which the conduct as set out in the complaint refers, will indicate what the other course of action is and, if appropriate, indicate what allowance is made for your involvement in the other course of action;

in the case of a referral to the Standards Board for England, may indicate the reason for the referral and will indicate how the Standards Board for England may deal with the referral.

- 10 -

REPORT REFERENCE NO.

SC/08/1

MEETING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING 7 July 2008

SUBJECT OF REPORT APPOINTMENTS TO AND TERMS OF REFERENCE OF SUB-COMMITTEES FOR LOCAL ASSESSMENT REGIME

LEAD OFFICER Clerk to the Authority

RECOMMENDATIONS (a) that the size and Terms of Reference for the Assessment, Review, Monitoring Officers Reports and Hearings Sub- Committees, as set out Section 2 of this report, be approved; (b) that, at this stage, appointments be made to the Assessment and Review Sub-Committees until the first meeting of the Standards Committee following the Annual Meeting of the Authority in 2009; (c) that the contents of Authority Standing Order 43 in relation to the appointment to and operation of Sub-Committees of the Standards Committee (including the provision for substitutions), as set out at Section 3 of this report, be noted; (d) that, in terms of an operating protocol, the Standards Committee approves that it would wish meetings of the Assessments and Review Sub-Committees to be called by the Clerk as and when business requires it - acknowledging the guidance for such matters to be addressed within an average of 20 working days of receipt; (e) that, subject to (a) to (d) above, the report be noted.

DEVON & SOMERSET FIRE & RESCUE AUTHORITY

- 11 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report addresses the introduction of the new local assessments regime in relation to the Members Code of Conduct and proposes the establishment of appropriate machinery to enable the regime to be effectively and efficiently implemented in accordance with the relevant legislation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

APPENDICES Nil.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Local Government Act 2000.

2. Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

3. The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.

4. Local Assessment of Complaints – Guidance Issued by the Standards Board for England.

- 12 -

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 (the “Regulations”), made under

the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) set out the framework for the operation of a locally based system for assessment, referral, investigation and hearing of complaints of Member misconduct.

1.2 The assessment of complaints that a Member may have breached the Code of Conduct

is a new function for Standards Committees (having previously been undertaken centrally by the Standards Board for England – SBE). The SBE has issued guidance stipulating that, to carry out their functions efficiently and effectively, Standards Committees must create sub-committees to allow the separate functions involved in the handling of cases to be carried out without conflicts of interest. These functions are:-

• the initial assessment of a complaint received by the Standards Committee – this should be undertaken by an Assessment Sub-Committee;

• any request a Standards Committee receives from a complainant to review a decision made by an Assessment Sub-Committee to take no action in relation to a complaint. Any such requests should be considered by a Review Sub-Committee;

• any subsequent hearing to determine whether a Member has breached the Code and, where this is considered to be the case, to impose a sanction on the Member. This function should be undertaken by a Hearings Sub-Committee.

1.3 It is also suggested that there is also a need for a fourth Sub-Committee – that required

to consider the outcome of a Monitoring Officer’s report following a decision that a matter should be investigated. This Monitoring Officer’s Report Sub-Committee could, however, comprise the same membership of either the initial Assessment Sub-Committee OR Review Sub-Committee (as the case may be) as its job would not be to undertake the full hearing and potentially impose a sanction but rather to determine whether or not it agreed with the conclusion of the Monitoring Officer’s Investigation and require the appropriate action to be taken.

1.4 The SBE guidance, in relation to the Assessment and Review Sub-Committees,

stipulates that each should comprise no less than three Members, one of whom MUST be an Independent Member who MUST chair the Sub-Committee in question. The Authority has been aware for some time of the likely implications of the introduction of the new local assessment regime and has, as such, increased the overall size of its Standards Committee to provide for six Councillor Members and three Independent Members. The remainder of this report deals with the actual establishment of the Sub-Committees required to operate the regime in accordance with the regulations and SBE guidance.

2. APPOINTMENT AND TERMS OF REFERENCE OF SUB-COMMITTEES 2.1 As indicated above, it is suggested that four Sub-Committees are required to operate the

local assessment regime. The Terms of Reference for these, together with suggested size, are now set out below:-

- 13 -

Assessment Sub-Committee 2.2 It is suggested that this should comprise three Members – 2 Councillor Members on the

Standards Committee and one Independent Member (who will be required to chair the meetings).

2.3 Proposed Terms of Reference (TofR) are:-

1. To consider allegations of failure to observe the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority Members’ Code of Conduct with delegated powers to:-

a. refer the allegation to the Authority’s Monitoring Officer for investigation;

b. refer the allegation to the Standards Committee of another relevant authority;

c. refer the matter to the Standards Board for England;

d. refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer of the Authority for action short of formal investigation and to adjourn consideration of the allegation until completion of such action; or

e. decide that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation;

2. To make recommendations to the Standards Committee to secure improved standards of conduct and to secure the effective handling of allegations of misconduct by members of the Authority.

2.4 TofR 1(b) is designed to address the situation where – by virtue of the fact that all Devon

and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority Councillors are “dual hatted” (i.e. they also respond to another, constituent authority) – a complaint is received that would either be more appropriate for the other authority (e.g. because the Member concerned had ceased to be a Member of the Fire and Rescue Authority BUT was still a Member of the constituent authority) or which, potentially, breaches the Code of both authorities. In such an instance - and to avoid duplication of effort and resources - the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) provides for liaison in determining which would be the most appropriate Standards Committee to deal with the allegation.

2.5 TofR 1(c) is available as an option although the scope for its use is extremely limited to,

for example, those instances where the seniority of the Member concerned might mitigate against local investigation OR where there is substantial governance dysfunction in the Authority. The scope for the Standards Board accepting a complaint is, as indicated, extremely limited and the Board retains the right to refer the matter back to the local Standards Committee for determination.

2.6 TofR 1(d) refers to action such as a requirement to attend appropriate training or engage

in conciliation. 2.7 It is suggested that appointments be made to this Sub-Committee at this meeting. Review Sub-Committee 2.8 It is suggested that this should comprise three Members – 2 Councillor Members on the

Standards Committee and one Independent Member (who will be required to chair the meetings). ALL of the Membership of this Committee MUST be different to that of the Assessment Sub-Committee

- 14 -

2.9 Proposed Terms of Reference are:-

1. To consider requests from complainant(s) to review a decision by the Assessment Sub-Committee to take no further action in relation to the complaint(s) in question with delegated powers to:-

a. refer the allegation to the Authority’s Monitoring Officer for investigation;

b. refer the allegation to the Standards Committee of another relevant authority;

c. refer the matter to the Standards Board for England;

d. refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer of the Authority for action short of formal investigation and to adjourn consideration of the allegation until completion of such action; or

e. decide that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation;

2. To make recommendations to the Standards Committee to secure improved standards of conduct and to secure the effective handling of allegations of misconduct by members of the Authority.

2.10 It is suggested that appointments be made to this Sub-Committee at this meeting.

Monitoring Officer’s Report Sub-Committee

2.11 It is suggested that this should comprise three Members – 2 Councillor Members on the Standards Committee and one Independent Member (who will be required to chair the meetings).


1. To consider the report of the Monitoring Officer following an investigation into an alleged breach by a Member of the Authority of its Code of Conduct and to make one of the following findings:-

a. that it accepts the Monitoring Officer’s finding of no failure (“a finding of acceptance”); or

b. that the matter should be considered at a hearing of the Hearings Sub-Committee;

c. that the matter should be referred to the Standards Board for England Adjudication Panel for determination.

2.13 The Regulations stipulate that this Sub-Committee may only make the determination

referred to at 1(c) above if it has determined that the action it could take against the Member would be insufficient were a finding of failure to be made AND that the president or deputy president of the Adjudication Panel has agreed to accept the referral.

2.14 Given the remit of this Sub-Committee, it is suggested that its Membership should be the

same as the Assessments OR Review Sub-Committee that required the matter to be investigated as it is considered there is only limited scope for “perceived bias” at this stage AND subject to the Hearings Sub-Committee comprising different membership from the earlier stage(s) – see paragraph 2.12 below.

- 15 -

Hearings Sub-Committee

2.15 It is suggested that this should comprise three Members – 2 Councillor Members on the Standards Committee and one Independent Member (who will be required to chair the meetings). To prevent possible allegations of apparent bias, it would be preferable (although not mandatory) for none of the Members of this Sub-Committee may have had any involvement in the previous stages of the process (i.e. initial assessment, review etc.).


1. To consider representations from all relevant parties following a decision - following investigation - by either the Monitoring Officer, Monitoring Officer’s Report Sub-Committee OR an Ethical Standards Officer as the case may be – that the matter should be considered at a hearing with delegated powers to make one of the following findings:-

a. that the Member who is the subject of the hearing has not failed to comply with the Authority’s Code of Conduct;

b. that the Member who is the subject of the hearing has failed to comply with the Authority’s Code of Conduct BUT that no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters for which were considered at that hearing;

c. that the Member who is the subject of the hearing has failed to comply with the Authority’s Code of Conduct and that a sanction as provided for by the Regulations should be imposed.

2. In the event of a finding described in 1(c) above, delegated power to impose a sanction OR combination of sanctions as provided for by the Regulations.

2.17 It is anticipated that, in light of the time taken to conduct an investigation, there would be

sufficient time prior to the outcome of the investigation to call a meeting of the Standards Committee to appoint the appropriate Members to sit on the relevant Monitoring Officer’s Report Sub-Committee and the Hearings Sub-Committee. It is suggested, therefore, that at this stage appointments to these two Sub-Committees are not made – this will afford greater flexibility in making appointments to them as and when required.

3. AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS 3.1 The Committee is reminded that, at its Annual Meeting on 28 May 2008, the Authority

approved revised Standing Orders including, amongst other things, the following relating to the appointment of Sub-Committees by the Standards Committee:-

“43. APPOINTMENT AND OPERATION OF SUB-COMMITTEES OF

STANDARDS COMMITTEES

(1) The Standards Committee will, at its first meeting following each Annual Meeting of the Authority, appoint:-

• an Assessment Sub-Committee to discharge functions under Sections 57A of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) (and any subsequent amending legislation);

• Review Sub-Committee to discharge functions under Sections 57B of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) (and any subsequent amending legislation);

- 16 -

• A Monitoring Officer’s Report Sub-Committee to consider and make an appropriate finding on any report of a Monitoring Officer compiled following an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct;

• An Hearings Sub-Committee to consider a relevant finding of a Monitoring Officers Reports Sub-Committee, or a report referred by an Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board for England, and to determine whether there has been a breach of the Code and if so what sanction if any to impose.

(2) The Sub-Committees appointed in accordance with Paragraph (1) above of this Standing Order will comprise, as a minimum, one Independent Member and two other Members of the Standards Committee appointed in accordance with Standing Order 41(1)(a).

(3) Every meeting of a Sub-Committee MUST be chaired by an Independent Member.

(4) Meetings of the Sub-Committees appointed in accordance with Paragraph (1) above of this Standing Order may be determined in advance by the Standards Committee and will be called by the Clerk to the Authority as and when business requires.

(5) Subject to Paragraph (6) below of this Standing Order, should any Independent Member or other Member of the Standards Committee (as appointed in accordance with Standing Order 41(1)(a)) appointed to a Sub-Committee be unable to attend any meeting of a Sub-Committee they may arrange for a substitute to attend on their behalf from other Independent/other Members (as the case may be) on the Standards Committee;

(6) An Independent Member or other Member (as the case may be) may NOT act as a substitute on a Review Sub-Committee if they were a Member of the Assessment Committee that initially considered the allegation in question.

(7) The provisions of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended (Access to Meetings and Documents of Certain Authorities, Committees and Sub-Committees) will NOT apply to meetings of Sub-Committees appointed to discharge functions under Sections 57A and B of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) (and any subsequent amending legislation).”

4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Frequency of Meetings of Appointments Sub-Committee 4.1 Since the operation of the ethical conduct regime introduced by the Local Government

Act 2000, there have only been to date some 6 or so complaints to the Standards Board for England relating to either Combined Fire and Rescue Authorities and Police Authorities. The vast majority of complaints relate either to District or Parish councils. The Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority (and its predecessor, the Devon Fire and Rescue Authority) has not experienced one complaint to the SBE.

4.2 It is hoped that the introduction of the new local assessment regime will not see any

drastic change in this pattern although the Authority is required to have appropriate systems in place to address any complaints so received. The earlier sections of this report propose the mechanics of this in terms of sub-committees to be established although it is also appropriate to consider how these sub-committees will meet.

- 17 -

4.3 The SBE guidance indicates that initial complaints should be addressed within 20 working days of their receipt. Similarly, the guidance anticipates requests for reviews being dealt with in a similar timeframe. Given the expectation that there will not be significant numbers of complaints received, it is as such proposed that meetings of the Assessment and Review Sub-Committees are called by the Clerk as and when required.

Provision of appropriate Member/Officer training/Monitoring Officer capacity and

Conflict of Interest issues 4.4 It is felt that by increasing the size of its Standards Committee the Authority now has in

place appropriate Member/Independent Member resources to operate the local assessment regime. This is further bolstered by a provision in the Regulations to enable the Authority (should it so require) to utilise the services of the Independent Members of the Standards Committees of neighbouring authorities – either on a time-limited or case-by-case basis.

4.5 More pertinently, however, there remains the issue of ensuring that appropriate

Member/Officer training on operation of the new regime is provided and that capacity exists to enable investigations to be undertaken in a manner so as not to cause conflicts of interest for the Monitoring Officer in providing procedural advice to the Standards Committee (or any of its Sub-Committees) – the role advocated in SBE guidance.

4.6 Work is in hand to seek to address both of these issues and the outcome of this will be

reported to a future meeting. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 has introduced a new local

assessment regime for all authorities including combined fire and rescue authorities. Operation of this regime forms the basis of the SBE guidance “Local Assessment of Complaints”.

5.2 This report proposes a mechanism – the establishment of sub-committees – to

effectively and efficiently operate this regime in accordance with both the Regulations and Guidance. The Committee is, therefore, commended to establish the sub-committees as indicated with the Clerk to call meetings of the Assessment and Review Sub-Committees as and when business dictates.

MIKE PEARSON Clerk to the Authority

LO

CA

L A

SS

ES

SM

EN

TO

F C

OM

PLA

INT

S

Contentsintroductionpre-assessmentassessmentdecisionreviewother issues to consider

LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINTS 1

contents

introduction 3Regulations 4Background 4Responsibilities 4

pre-assessment 7Publicising the complaints system 7The submission of complaints and accessibility 7Acknowledging receipt of a complaint 9Pre-assessment reports and enquiries 10

assessment 11Initial tests 11Developing assessment criteria 11

decision 13Initial assessment decisions 13Referral for local investigation 13Referral to the Standards Board for England 13Referral back to a standards committee from theStandards Board for England 15Referral for other action 15Decision to take no action 17Notification requirements – local assessment decisions 18

2 LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINTS

contents

review 20Reviews of 'no further action' decisions 20Notification requirements – reviews of local assessment decisions 20

other issues to consider 22Access to meetings and decision making 22Withdrawing complaints 22Multiple and vexatious complaints 23Case history 24Confidentiality 25Anonymous complaints 25Members with conflicts of interest 26Officers with conflicts of interest 27Personal conflicts 27Complaints about members of more than one authority 28


introductionThis guidance is designed to help members and officers in relevantauthorities who are involved in the assessment of complaints that amember may have breached the Code of Conduct.

It details each stage of the assessment of complaints and offerssuggestions for effective practice. In addition, it provides a toolkit of usefuldocument templates that may be used or adapted by authorities asrequired.

The guide is aimed primarily at members of standards committees andmonitoring officers, but will also provide a useful reference tool for allmembers and officers involved in the assessment of complaints.

It applies to:

� district, unitary, metropolitan, county and London borough councils� English police authorities� fire and rescue authorities (including fire and civil defence authorities)� the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority� passenger transport authorities� the Broads Authority � national park authorities� the Greater London Authority� the Common Council of the City of London� the Council of the Isles of Scilly

Each authority must develop effective procedures to fulfil its legislativerequirements. Members and officers involved in the assessment ofcomplaints must take this guidance into account when doing so.

You can contact the Standards Board for England on 0845 078 8181 or [email protected]


introductionRegulations

The Standards Board for England hasissued this guidance to reflect theStandards Committee (England)Regulations 2008 (the regulations) inrespect of the local assessment ofcomplaints. These regulations derive fromthe Local Government Act 2000, asamended by the Local Government andPublic Involvement in Health Act 2007.

The regulations set out the framework forthe operation of a locally based system forthe assessment, referral, investigation andhearing of complaints of membermisconduct. Under the regulations,standards committees must take thisguidance into account.

The regulations do not cover joint workingbetween authorities. The governmentplans to issue more regulations to providea framework for authorities to work jointlyon the assessment, referral, investigationand hearing of complaints of misconductby their members.

Background

More than 100,000 people give their timeas members of authorities. The majority doso with the very best motives, and theyconduct themselves in a way that is beyondreproach. However, public perception tendsto focus on a minority who in some wayabuse their positions or behave badly.

Anyone who considers that a member mayhave breached the Code of Conduct maymake a complaint to that member’s local

standards committee. Each complaintmust then be assessed to see if it fallswithin the authority’s legal jurisdiction. Adecision must then be made on whethersome action should be taken, either as aninvestigation or some other form of action.

When a matter is referred for investigationor other action, it does not mean that thecommittee assessing the complaint hasmade up its mind about the allegation. Itsimply means that the committee believesthe alleged conduct, if proven, mayamount to a failure to comply with theCode and that some action should betaken in response to the complaint.

The process for dealing with matters at alocal level should be the same for allmembers. It must be fair and be seen tobe fair.

Responsibilities

The assessment of complaints that amember may have breached the Code ofConduct is a new function for standardscommittees. It was previously undertakencentrally by the Standards Board forEngland.

Where a member is the subject of anallegation, we shall refer to that memberas a subject member.

We shall use the term independentmember to describe a person – not amember or officer of that or any otherrelevant authority – who is appointed to anauthority’s standards committee.Independent members work with the


introductionauthority to develop and maintainstandards of conduct for members and areappointed under Section 53 of the LocalGovernment Act 2000 and Regulation 5 ofthe regulations. At least 25% of themembers of a standards committee mustbe independent members.

In order to carry out its functions efficientlyand effectively, the standards committeemust establish sub-committees. Creatingsub-committees will allow the separatefunctions involved in the handling of casesto be carried out without conflicts ofinterest. These functions are:

� the initial assessment of a complaintreceived by the standards committee

� any request a standards committeereceives from a complainant to reviewits decision to take no action inrelation to a complaint

� any subsequent hearing of astandards committee to determinewhether a member has breached theCode and, where appropriate, toimpose a sanction on a member

The standards committee must establish asub-committee which is responsible forassessing complaints that a member mayhave breached the Code. We shall refer tothis as the assessment sub -committee.

The assessment sub-committee will needto consist of no less than three membersof the standards committee, including anindependent member. They must also bechaired by an independent member.

A complainant may make a request for areview of a standards committee’s decisionwhere it decides to take no further actionon a complaint. The standards committeemust establish a sub-committee which isresponsible for carrying out these reviews.We shall refer to this as the reviewsub-committee.

This committee will also need to consist ofno less than three members of thestandards committee, including anindependent member. They must also bechaired by an independent member.

There should be a minimum of threeindependent members on the standardscommittee to ensure that there is anindependent member available without aconflict of interest for both the assessmentand review sub-committees.

The standards committee can theneffectively carry out these statutoryfunctions, allowing for the situation of oneindependent member of the standardscommittee being absent or unavailable.

If the authority is responsible for anyparish or town councils there should alsobe a minimum of three parish or towncouncil representatives on the standardscommittee. This will ensure that there is aparish or town council representativeavailable without a conflict of interest forboth the assessment and reviewsub-committees when a complaint isconsidered about a member of a parish ortown council.


introductionThe assessment and reviewsub-committees are not required to havefixed membership or a fixed chair.

Standards committee members who havebeen involved in decision making on theinitial assessment of a complaint must nottake part in the review of that decision.This is to minimise the risk of conflicts ofinterest and ensure fairness for all parties.

Standards committee members involved ina complaint’s initial assessment, or in areview of a standards committee’sprevious decision to take no further action,can take part in any subsequent standardscommittee hearing.

The purpose of the initial assessmentdecision or review is simply to decidewhether any action should be taken on thecomplaint – either as an investigation orsome other action. The assessment andreview sub-committees make no findingsof fact. Therefore, a member involved atthe initial stage or the review stage mayparticipate in a subsequent hearing,because a conflict of interest does notautomatically arise.


pre-assessment Publicising the complaints system

Each authority is required to publish anotice detailing where Code of Conductcomplaints should be sent to. This is toensure that members of the public areaware of the change of responsibility forhandling Code complaints and what theprocess entails. If an authority isresponsible for parish and town councils,the notice should make this clear.

The complaints system may be publicisedthrough:

� an authority’s website� advertising in one or more local

newspapers� an authority’s own newspaper or

circular� notices in public areas such as local

libraries or authority reception areas

It is important that the public noticereaches as many people as possible sothat members of the public know how tocomplain if necessary.

The standards committee must alsocontinue to publicise regularly the addressthat misconduct complaints should be sentto. In addition, the standards committeeneeds to alert the public to any changes insuch arrangements.

Authorities need to think carefully abouthow publicity for their complaints system isworded. This is to ensure that members ofthe public are clear about how to complain,who to complain to, and if there may be analternative to a formal complaint to thestandards committee.

Authorities should also consider whethertheir constitution requires an amendmentto reflect the introduction of the localassessment of complaints. Theconstitution should make it clear that thecitizen's right is to complain to the localstandards committee and not to theStandards Board for England.

The standards committee must publish, inwhatever manner it considers appropriate,details of the procedures it will follow inrelation to any written allegation receivedabout a member.

The submission of complaints andaccessibility

There are two main ways in whichauthorities can set up procedures for thesubmission of complaints that a membermay have breached the Code of Conduct:

� Authorities may choose to integrate themaking of Code complaints into theexisting complaints framework. Thiswill mean that when a complaint isreceived, it can be analysed to decidewhich of the complaints processes ismost appropriate. The authority canthen advise the complainantaccordingly.

� Authorities may choose to develop aseparate process for Code complaintsso the process for such complaints isdistinct from all other complaints.

When deciding which option is mostappropriate, authorities should considerthat some complainants will not knowwhere to direct their complaint.


pre-assessment Some complaints may also need to beconsidered through more than one of anauthority’s complaint processes.

Officers dealing with incoming complaintswill need to be alert to a complaint that amember may have breached the Code. If awritten complaint specifies or appears tospecify that it is in relation to the Code,then it should be passed to theassessment sub-committee forconsideration.

Where an authority is responsible forparish and town councils, it should makethis clear. It should also consider whethera separate complaint form or section of acomplaint form should be used.

Where an existing complaint system isused, complaint forms may need to beamended to take into account complaintsunder the Code. Alternatively, authoritiesthat choose to develop a separate systemfor the submission of Code complaintsmay produce a separate complaint formfor this.

Without using a separate complaint form,authorities may find it sufficient to giveclear guidelines as to the information thatcomplainants need to provide.

This should include:

� the complainant’s name, address andother contact details

� complainant status, for example,member of the public, fellow member orofficer

� who the complaint is about and theauthority or authorities that themember belongs to

� details of the alleged misconductincluding, where possible, dates,witness details and other supportinginformation

� equality monitoring data if applicable,for example nationality of thecomplainant

� a warning that the complainant’sidentity will normally be disclosed tothe subject member. Note: inexceptional circumstances, if it meetsrelevant criteria and at the discretion ofthe standards committee, thisinformation may be withheld.

Complaints must be submitted in writing.This includes fax and electronicsubmissions. However, the requirement forcomplaints to be submitted in writing mustbe read in conjunction with the DisabilityDiscrimination Act 2000 and therequirement to make reasonableadjustments.

An example of this would be in assisting acomplainant who has a disability thatprevents them from making their complaintin writing. In such cases, authorities mayneed to transcribe a verbal complaint andthen produce a written copy for approvalby the complainant or the complainant’srepresentative.

Authorities should also consider whatsupport should be made available to


pre-assessment complainants where English is not thecomplainant’s first language.

When a complaint is addressed to theauthority’s monitoring officer, themonitoring officer should determinewhether the complaint should be directedto the assessment sub-committee orwhether another course of action isappropriate. If the complaint is clearly notabout member conduct, then themonitoring officer does not have to pass itto the assessment sub-committee.

A complaint may not necessarily be madein writing, for example it may be a concernraised with the monitoring officer verbally.In such cases, the monitoring officer shouldask the complainant whether they want toformally put the matter in writing to thestandards committee. If the complainantdoes not, then the monitoring officer shouldconsider the options for informal resolutionto satisfy the complainant.

Acknowledging receipt of a complaint

The monitoring officer has the discretion totake the administrative step ofacknowledging receipt of a complaint andtelling the subject member that a complainthas been made about them. Whenconsidering whether to do so, they shouldbear in mind the standards committee’sprocedures with regard to withholdingsummaries. Please see the section onNotification requirements on page 18 forfurther information.

The notification can say that a complainthas been made, and state the name of the

complainant (unless the complainant hasrequested confidentiality and thestandards committee has not yetconsidered whether or not to grant it) andthe relevant paragraphs of the Code ofConduct that may have been breached. Itshould also state that a written summary ofthe allegation will only be provided to thesubject member once the assessmentsub-committee has met to consider thecomplaint, and the date of this meeting, if known.

If a monitoring officer chooses to tell asubject member, the monitoring officer willneed to be satisfied that they have thelegal power to disclose the informationthey choose to reveal. In particular, themonitoring officer will need to consider anyof the restrictions set out in Section 63 ofthe Local Government Act 2000 and asmodified by Regulation 12 of theregulations. These are the provisionswhich deal with restrictions on disclosureof information. Additionally, the impact ofthe Data Protection Act 1998 should beconsidered.

Only the standards committee has thepower, under Section 57C(2) of the LocalGovernment Act 2000, as amended, togive a written summary of the allegation toa subject member.

The administrative processes that theauthority adopts should be agreed with thestandards committee as part of theprocesses and procedures that they mustpublish.


pre-assessment Pre-assessment reports and enquiries

Authorities may decide that they want themonitoring officer, or other officer, toprepare a short summary of a complaintfor the assessment sub-committee toconsider. This could, for example, set outthe following details:

� whether the complaint is withinjurisdiction

� the paragraphs of the Code of Conductthe complaint might relate to, or theparagraphs the complainant hasidentified

� a summary of key aspects of thecomplaint if it is lengthy or complex

� any further information that the officerhas obtained to assist the assessmentsub -committee with its decision – thismay include:

a) obtaining a copy of a declarationof acceptance of office form andan undertaking to observe theCode

b) minutes of meetingsc) a copy of a member’s entry in

the register of interestsd) information from Companies

House or the Land Registry e) other easily obtainable

documents

Officers may also contact complainants forclarification of their complaint if they areunable to understand the documentsubmitted.

Pre-assessment enquiries should not becarried out in such a way as to amount toan investigation. For example, they shouldnot extend to interviewing potentialwitnesses, the complainant, or the subjectmember.

Officers should not seek opinions on anallegation rather than factual informationas this may prejudice any subsequentinvestigation. They should also ensuretheir report does not influence improperlythe assessment sub-committee’s decisionor make the decision for it.


assessment Initial tests

Before assessment of a complaint begins,the assessment sub-committee should besatisfied that the complaint meets thefollowing tests:

� it is a complaint against one or morenamed members of the authority or anauthority covered by the standardscommittee

� the named member was in office at thetime of the alleged conduct and theCode of Conduct was in force at thetime

� the complaint, if proven, would be abreach of the Code under which themember was operating at the time ofthe alleged misconduct

If the complaint fails one or more of thesetests it cannot be investigated as a breachof the Code, and the complainant must beinformed that no further action will betaken in respect of the complaint.

Developing assessment criteria

The standards committee or itsassessment sub-committee will need todevelop criteria against which it assessesnew complaints and decides what action, ifany, to take. These criteria should reflectlocal circumstances and priorities and besimple, clear and open. They shouldensure fairness for both the complainantand the subject member.

Assessing all new complaints byestablished criteria will also protect thecommittee members from accusations ofbias. Assessment criteria can be reviewedand amended as necessary but this shouldnot be done during consideration ofa matter.

In drawing up assessment criteria,standards committees should bear in mindthe importance of ensuring thatcomplainants are confident that complaintsabout member conduct are taken seriouslyand dealt with appropriately. They shouldalso consider that deciding to investigate acomplaint or to take other action will costboth public money and the officers’ andelected members’ time. This is animportant consideration where the matteris relatively minor.

Authorities need to take into account thepublic benefit in investigating complaintswhich are less serious, politicallymotivated, malicious or vexatious.Assessment criteria should be adoptedwhich take this into account so thatauthorities can be seen to be treating allcomplaints in a fair and balanced way.

To assist in developing the criteria foraccepting a complaint or for deciding totake no further action on it, a standardscommittee or assessment sub-committeemay want to ask itself the followingquestions and consider the followingresponse statements. These will provide agood foundation for developingassessment criteria in the context of localknowledge and experience:


assessment Q: Has the complainant submitted

enough information to satisfy theassessment sub-committee that thecomplaint should be referred forinvestigation or other action?

If the answer is no: “The informationprovided was insufficient to make adecision as to whether the complaintshould be referred for investigation orother action. So unless, or until, furtherinformation is received, the assessmentsub-committee is taking no further actionon this complaint.”

Q: Is the complaint about someonewho is no longer a member of theauthority, but is a member ofanother authority? If so, does theassessment sub-committee wish torefer the complaint to the monitoringofficer of that other authority?

If the answer is yes: “Where the memberis no longer a member of our authority butis a member of another authority, thecomplaint will be referred to the standardscommittee of that authority to consider.”

Q: Has the complaint already been thesubject of an investigation or otheraction relating to the Code ofConduct? Similarly, has thecomplaint been the subject of aninvestigation by other regulatoryauthorities?

If the answer is yes: “The matter ofcomplaint has already been subject to a

previous investigation or other action andthere is nothing more to be gained byfurther action being taken.”

Q: Is the complaint about somethingthat happened so long ago thatthere would be little benefit in takingaction now?

If the answer is yes: “The period of timethat has passed since the alleged conductoccurred was taken into account whendeciding whether this matter should bereferred for investigation or further action.It was decided under the circumstancesthat further action was not warranted.”

Q: Is the complaint too trivial towarrant further action?

If the answer is yes: “The matter is notconsidered to be sufficiently serious towarrant further action.”

Q: Does the complaint appear to besimply malicious, politicallymotivated or tit-for-tat?

If the answer is yes: “The matter appearsto be simply malicious, politically motivatedor tit-for-tat, and not sufficiently serious,and it was decided that further action wasnot warranted”.

The assessment criteria that the standardscommittee adopts should be made publiclyavailable.


decisionInitial assessment decisions

The assessment sub-committee shouldcomplete its initial assessment of anallegation within an average of 20 workingdays, to reach a decision on what shouldhappen with the complaint.

The assessment sub-committee isrequired to reach one of the three followingdecisions on a complaint about amember’s actions in relation to the Code of Conduct:

� referral of the complaint to themonitoring officer of the authorityconcerned, which under section 57A(3)of the Local Government Act 2000, asamended, may be another authority

� referral of the complaint to theStandards Board for England

� no action should be taken in respect ofthe complaint

New rules have been made about what theassessment sub-committee must do whena decision has been made. Please see thesection on Access to meetings anddecision making on page 22 for furtherinformation.

The time that the assessmentsub-committee takes to carry out its initialassessment of a complaint is key in termsof being fair to the complainant and thesubject member. It is also in the publicinterest to make a timely decision within anaverage of 20 working days. Theassessment sub-committee should

therefore aim to achieve this targetwherever possible.

Referral for local investigation

When the assessment sub-committeeconsiders a new complaint, it can decidethat it should be referred to the monitoringofficer for investigation.

The monitoring officer must write to therelevant parties informing them of thedecision and, if appropriate, advising whowill be responsible for conducting theinvestigation. Please see the section onNotification requirements on page 18 forfurther information.

Referral to the Standards Board forEngland

In most cases, authorities will be able todeal with the investigation of complaintsconcerning members of their authoritiesand, where relevant, the parish and towncouncils they are responsible for.However, there will sometimes be issuesin a case, or public interest considerations,which make it difficult for the authority todeal with the case fairly and speedily. Insuch cases, the assessmentsub-committee may wish to refer acomplaint to the Standards Board to beinvestigated by an ethical standards officer.

If the assessment sub-committee believesthat a complaint should be investigated bythe Standards Board, it must takeimmediate steps to refer the matter.It would be helpful if the assessment


decisionsub-committee let us know the paragraphor paragraphs of the Code of Conduct thatit believes the allegation refers to and thereasons why it cannot be dealt with locally.

We may accept cases for investigation byan ethical standards officer, take no action,or refer cases back to the standardscommittee which referred them. Whendeciding which of these actions to take, wewill be principally concerned with supportingthe ethical framework nationally and locally.

We will take the following matters intoaccount in deciding which cases weshould accept in the public interest:

� Does the standards committee believethat the status of the member ormembers, or the number of membersabout whom the complaint is made,would make it difficult for them to dealwith the complaint? For example, is themember a group leader, elected mayoror a member of the authority’s cabinetor standards committee?

� Does the standards committee believethat the status of the complainant orcomplainants would make it difficult forthe standards committee to deal withthe complaint? For example, is thecomplainant a group leader, electedmayor or a member of the authority’scabinet or standards committee, thechief executive, the monitoring officeror other senior officer?

� Does the standards committee believethat there is a potential conflict ofinterest of so many members of the

standards committee that it could notproperly monitor the investigation?

� Does the standards committee believethat there is a potential conflict ofinterest of the monitoring officer orother officers and that suitablealternative arrangements cannot beput in place to address the conflict?

� Is the case so serious or complex, orinvolving so many members, that itcannot be handled locally?

� Will the complaint require substantialamounts of evidence beyond thatavailable from the authority’sdocuments, its members or officers?

� Is there substantial governancedysfunction in the authority or itsstandards committee?

� Does the complaint relate to long-termor systemic member/officer bullyingwhich could be more effectivelyinvestigated by someone outside theauthority?

� Does the complaint raise significant orunresolved legal issues on which anational ruling would be helpful?

� Might the public perceive the authorityto have an interest in the outcome of acase? For example if the authoritycould be liable to be judicially reviewedif the complaint is upheld.

� Are there exceptional circumstanceswhich would prevent the authority or its


decisionstandards committee investigating thecomplaint competently, fairly and in areasonable period of time, or meaningthat it would be unreasonable for localprovision to be made for aninvestigation?

We will normally inform the monitoringofficer within ten working days whether wewill accept a case or whether we will referit back to the standards committee, withreasons for doing so. There is no appealmechanism against our decision.

Referral back to a standards committeefrom the Standards Board for England

If we decline to investigate a complaintreferred to us, we will normally send itback to the authority’s standardscommittee with the reasons why. Thestandards committee must then decidewhat action should be taken next.

The assessment sub-committee mustagain take an assessment decision andshould complete this within an average of20 working days.

This may be a decision not to take anyfurther action, to refer the matter for localinvestigation, or to refer the matter forsome other form of action. As theassessment sub-committee initiallydecided that the matter was seriousenough to be referred to the StandardsBoard for investigation, it is likely that it willstill think that it should be investigated.

However, if the circumstances of thecomplaint have changed since the

assessment sub-committee’s originaldecision, it may be reasonable to take adifferent decision. This decision will againneed to be communicated to relevantparties in the same way as the originaldecision was. Please see the section onNotification requirements on page 18 forfurther information.

If we decline to investigate a case referredto us, we may, in the circumstances, offerguidance or give a direction to thestandards committee, which may assistwith the standards committee’s decision.

In exceptional circumstances, we maydecide to take no further action on acomplaint referred to us by a standardscommittee. This is likely to be wherecircumstances have changed so much thatthere would be little benefit arising frominvestigation or other action, or becausewe do not consider that the complaintdiscloses a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Referral for other action

When the assessment sub-committeeconsiders a new complaint, it can decidethat other action to an investigation shouldbe taken and it can refer the matter to themonitoring officer to carry this out. It maynot always be in the interests of goodgovernance to undertake or complete aninvestigation into an allegation ofmisconduct. The assessmentsub-committee must consult its monitoringofficer before reaching a decision to takeother action.


decisionThe suitability of other action is dependenton the nature of the complaint. Certaincomplaints that a member has breachedthe Code of Conduct will lend themselvesto being resolved in this way. They canalso indicate a wider problem at theauthority concerned. Deciding to dealpro-actively with a matter in a positive waythat does not involve an investigation canbe a good way to resolve matters that areless serious. Other action can be thesimplest and most cost effective way ofgetting the matter resolved, helping theauthority to work more effectively, and ofavoiding similar complaints in the future.

The assessment sub-committee canchoose this option in response to anindividual complaint or a series ofcomplaints. The action decided upon doesnot have to be limited to the subjectmember or members. In some cases, itmay be less costly to choose to deal with amatter in this way rather than through aninvestigation, and it may produce a moreeffective result.

It is not possible to set out all thecircumstances where other action may beappropriate, but an example is where theauthority to which the subject memberbelongs appears to have a poorunderstanding of the Code and authorityprocedures. Evidence for this may include:

� a number of members failing to complywith the same paragraph of the Code

� officers giving incorrect advice� failure to adopt the Code� inadequate or incomplete protocols for

use of authority resources

Other action may also be appropriatewhere a breakdown in relationships withinthe authority is apparent, evidence ofwhich may include:

a) a pattern of allegations ofdisrespect, bullying or harassment

b) factionalised groupings within theauthority

c) a series of ‘tit-for-tat’ allegationsd) ongoing employment issues, which

may include resolved or ongoingemployment tribunals, or grievanceprocedures

The assessment sub-committee isencouraged to consider other action on apractical basis, taking into account theneeds of their own authority and of theparish and town councils which they serve.Everyone involved in the process will needto understand that the purpose of otheraction is not to find out whether themember breached the Code – the decisionis made as an alternative to investigation. If the monitoring officer embarks on acourse of other action, they shouldemphasise to the parties concerned thatno conclusion has been reached onwhether the subject member failed tocomply with the Code.

Complaints that have been referred to themonitoring officer for other action shouldnot then be referred back to the standardscommittee if the other action is perceivedto have failed. This is unfair to the subjectmember, and a case may be jeopardised ifit has been discussed as part of amediation process. There is also adifficulty with defining ‘failure’ in terms of


decisionthe other action undertaken. The decisionto take other action closes the opportunityto investigate and the assessmentsub-committee should communicate thisclearly to all parties.

Standards committees may find it helpfulto introduce a requirement for the partiesinvolved to confirm in writing that they willco-operate with the process of other actionproposed. An example of this would bewriting to the relevant parties outlining:

� what is being proposed � why it is being proposed� why they should co-operate� what the standards committee hopes

to achieve

However authorities choose to take thisforward, the important thing is that allparties are clear about what is, and what isnot, going to happen in response to thecomplaint.

The following are some examples ofalternatives to investigation:

� arranging for the subject member toattend a training course

� arranging for that member and thecomplainant to engage in a process ofconciliation

� instituting changes to the proceduresof the authority if they have given riseto the complaint

Standards committees may find thatresolving a matter in this way is relatively

quick and straightforward compared to afull investigation.

Decision to take no action

The assessment sub-committee candecide that no action is required in respectof a complaint. For example, this could bebecause the assessment sub-committeedoes not consider the complaint to besufficiently serious to warrant any action.Alternatively, it could be due to the lengthof time that has elapsed since the allegedconduct took place and the complaint wasmade. The decision reached by theassessment sub-committee and thereasons for it should adhere to theassessment criteria that the standardscommittee or assessment sub-committeehave agreed.

It is important to underline that where nopotential breach of the Code of Conduct isdisclosed by the complaint, no matter whatits source or whoever the subject member,no action can be taken by the standardscommittee in respect of it. The matter ofreferral for investigation or other actiontherefore does not arise.

The complainant should be advised oftheir right to ask for a review of a decisionto take no action. They should be told thatthey can exercise this right by writing tothe standards committee with theirreasons for requesting a review. Thecomplainant should be advised of the dateby which their review request should bereceived by the standards committee.


decisionThat date is 30 working days after theinitial assessment decision is received.

Notification requirements – localassessment decisions

If the assessment sub-committee decidesto take no action over a complaint, then assoon as possible after making the decisionit must give notice in writing of the decisionand set out clearly the reasons for thatdecision. Where no potential breach of theCode is disclosed, the assessmentsub-committee must explain in the decisionnotice what the allegation was and whythey believe this to be the case. This noticemust be given to the relevant parties.

The relevant parties will be thecomplainant and the subject member. Wealso recommend that the standardscommittee gives a copy of the decisionnotice to the parish or town clerk if thesubject member is a parish or towncouncillor. We also suggest that thestandards committee sends out its decisionnotice within five working days of thedecision being made.

If the assessment sub-committee decidesthat the complaint should be referred tothe monitoring officer or to the StandardsBoard for England, it must send asummary of the complaint to the relevantparties. It should state what the allegationwas and what type of referral it made, forexample whether it referred the complaintto the monitoring officer or to theStandards Board for investigation. Thedecision notice must not explain why aparticular referral decision has been made.

After it has made its decision, theassessment sub-committee does not haveto give the subject member a summary ofthe complaint, if it decides that doing sowould be against the public interest orwould prejudice any future investigation.

This could happen where it is consideredlikely that the subject member mayintimidate the complainant or thewitnesses involved. It could also happenwhere early disclosure of the complaintmay lead to evidence being compromisedor destroyed. The assessmentsub-committee needs to take suchpossibilities into account when developingwith its monitoring officer any process thatnotifies a member about a complaint madeagainst them.

The assessment sub-committee shouldtake advice from the monitoring officer indeciding whether it is against the publicinterest to inform the subject member ofthe details of the complaint made againstthem. It should also take advice from themonitoring officer in deciding whetherinforming the subject member of thedetails of the complaint would prejudice aperson’s ability to investigate it.

The monitoring officer will need to carryout an assessment of the potential risks tothe investigation. This is to determinewhether the risk of the case beingprejudiced by the subject member beinginformed of the details of the complaint atthat stage may outweigh the fairness ofnotifying the subject member. An exampleof this is allowing the subject member topreserve any evidence. The monitoring


decisionofficer should then advise the assessmentsub-committee accordingly.

The assessment sub-committee can useits discretion to give limited information tothe subject member if it decides this wouldnot be against the public interest orprejudice any investigation. Any decisionto withhold the summary must be keptunder review as circumstances change.


reviewReviews of ‘no further action’ decisions

If the assessment sub-committee decidesnot to take any action on a complaint, thenthe complainant has a right of review overthat decision.

The review sub-committee must carry outits review within a maximum of threemonths of receiving the request. Werecommend that the review sub-committeeadopts a policy of undertaking the reviewwithin the same timescale as the initialassessment decision is taken, aiming tocomplete the review within an average of20 working days.

The review must be, and must be seen tobe, independent of the original decision.Members of the assessmentsub-committee who made the originaldecision must not take part in the review ofthat decision. A separate reviewsub-committee, made up of members ofthe standards committee, must considerthe review.

The review sub-committee should applythe same criteria used for initialassessment. The review sub-committeehas the same decisions available to it asthe assessment sub-committee.

There may be cases where furtherinformation is made available in support ofa complaint that changes its nature orgives rise to a potential new complaint. Insuch cases, the review sub-committeeshould consider carefully if it is moreappropriate to pass this to the assessmentsub-committee to be handled as a new

complaint. In this instance, the review sub-committee will still need to make a formaldecision that the review request will not begranted.

For example, a review may be moreappropriate if a complainant wishes tochallenge that:

� not enough emphasis has been givento a particular aspect of the complaint

� there has been a failure to follow anypublished criteria

� there has been an error in procedures

However, if more information or newinformation of any significance is available,and this information is not merely a repeatcomplaint, then a new complaint ratherthan a request for review may be moresuitable.

Notification requirements – reviews oflocal assessment decisions

If the standards committee receives areview request from the complainant, itmust notify the subject member that it hasreceived the request. We recommend thatall relevant parties are notified when areview request is received.

When the review sub-committee reviewsthe assessment sub-committee’s decisionit has the same decisions available to itthat the assessment sub-committee had. Itcould be decided that no action should betaken on the complaint. In this case, thereview sub-committee must, as soon as


reviewpossible after making the decision, givethe complainant and the subject membernotice in writing of both the decision andthe reasons for the decision.

If it is decided that the complaint should bereferred to the monitoring officer or to theStandards Board for England, thestandards committee should write to therelevant parties telling them this and lettingthem have a summary of the complaint.The decision notice should not explain whythat particular referral decision has beenmade as it might prejudice theinvestigation or other action.

We recommend that the reviewsub-committee sends out its decisionnotice within five working days of thedecision being made.


other issues to consider

Access to meetings and decisionmaking

Initial assessment decisions, and anysubsequent review of decisions to take nofurther action on a complaint, must beconducted in closed meetings. These arenot subject to the notice and publicityrequirements under Part 5 of the LocalGovernment Act 1972.

Such meetings may have to considerunfounded and potentially damagingcomplaints about members, which it wouldnot be appropriate to make public. As such,a standards committee undertaking its rolein the assessment or review of a complaintis not subject to the following rules:

� rules regarding notices of meetings� rules on the circulation of agendas and

documents� rules over public access to meetings� rules on the validity of proceedings

Instead, Regulation 8 of the regulationssets out what must be done after theassessment or review sub-committee hasconsidered a complaint. The new rulesrequire a written summary to be producedwhich must include:

� the main points considered� the conclusions on the complaint� the reasons for the conclusion

The summary must be written havingregard to this guidance and may give thename of the subject member unless doingso is not in the public interest or wouldprejudice any subsequent investigation.

The written summary must be madeavailable for the public to inspect at theauthority’s offices for six years and givento any parish or town council concerned.The summary does not have to beavailable for inspection or sent to theparish or town council until the subjectmember has been sent the summary.

In limited situations, a standardscommittee can decide not to give thewritten summary to the subject memberwhen a referral decision has been madeand, if this is the case, authorities shouldput in place arrangements which deal withwhen public inspection and parish or towncouncil notifications will occur. This willusually be when the written summary iseventually given to the subject memberduring the investigation process. Pleasesee the section on Notificationrequirements on page 18 for furtherinformation.

Review of a decision to take no furtheraction on a complaint is not subject toaccess to information rules in respect oflocal government committees.

In addition, authorities must have regard totheir requirements under Freedom ofInformation and Data Protection legislation.

Withdrawing complaints

There may be occasions when thecomplainant asks to withdraw theircomplaint prior to the assessmentsub-committee having made a decision on it.



In these circumstances, the assessmentsub -committee will need to decide whetherto grant the request. It would be helpful ifthe assessment sub -committee had aframework by which to consider suchrequests. The following considerationsmay apply:

� Does the public interest in taking someaction on the complaint outweigh thecomplainant’s desire to withdraw it?

� Is the complaint such that action canbe taken on it, for example aninvestigation, without the complainant’sparticipation?

� Is there an identifiable underlyingreason for the request to withdraw thecomplaint? For example, is thereinformation to suggest that thecomplainant may have been pressuredby the subject member, or anassociate of theirs, to withdraw thecomplaint?

Multiple and vexatious complaints

An authority may receive a number ofcomplaints from different complainantsabout the same matter. Authorities shouldhave procedures in place to ensure thatthey are dealt with in a manner that is apractical use of time and resources.

A number of complaints about the samematter may be considered by theassessment sub-committee at the samemeeting. If so, an officer should be askedto present one report and recommendationthat draws together all the relevant

information and highlights anysubstantively different or contradictoryinformation. However, the assessmentsub-committee must still reach a decisionon each individual complaint and follow thenotification procedure for each complaint.

Unfortunately, a small number of peopleabuse the complaints process. Authoritiesmay want to consider developing a policyto deal with this. For example, they couldbring it within the scope of any existingauthority policies on vexatious or persistentcomplainants, or take action to limit anindividual’s contact with the authority.

However, standards committees mustconsider every new complaint that theyreceive in relation to the Code of Conduct.If the standards committee has alreadydealt with the same complaint by the sameperson and the monitoring officer does notbelieve that there is any new evidence,then a complaint does not need to beconsidered.

A person may make frequent allegationsabout members, most of which may nothave any substance. Despite this, newallegations must still be considered as theymay contain a complaint that requiressome action to be taken.

Even where restrictions are placed on anindividual’s contact with the authority, theycannot be prevented from submitting acomplaint.

Vexatious or persistent complaints orcomplainants can usually be identifiedthrough the following patterns of



behaviour, which may become apparent inthe complaints process:

� repeated complaints making the same,or broadly similar, complaints againstthe same member or members aboutthe same alleged incident

� use of aggressive or repetitivelanguage of an obsessive nature

� repeated complaints that disclose nopotential breach of the Code

� where it seems clear that there is anulterior motive for a complaint orcomplaints

� where a complainant refuses to let thematter rest once the complaintsprocess (including the review stage)has been exhausted

There are ways that authorities can reducethe resources expended. For example,they can allow a vexatious complainant todeal with only one named officer or refuseemail communication. Authorities can alsoinclude a statement in their referralscriteria that malicious or tit-for-tatcomplaints are unlikely to be investigatedunless they also raise serious matters.This will allow authorities to decide not toinvestigate or take other action on suchcomplaints if appropriate.

Case history

Authorities should consider developing acomplaints management system. Recordsof all complaints and their outcomes

should be retained in line with theauthority’s records management policy.This policy may need to be amended toreflect the authority’s new responsibilitiesin the local assessment of complaints.

Documents that relate to complaints thatthe assessment sub-committee decidednot to investigate should be kept for aminimum of 12 months after the outcomeof any review that has been concluded.This is in case of legal challenges, andalso in order to meet the Standards Boardfor England’s monitoring requirements.

Authorities should set a time limit forrecords retention after the outcome of anyhearing or result of further action inrespect of a complaint is known. Thisshould be set in accordance with theauthority’s own file retention policy and inaccordance with the principles of dataprotection.

Authorities should keep details of cases ina format that is easy to search bycomplainant name, by member name, andby authority where an authority isresponsible for parish and town councils.Authorities may also want to search byparagraph of the authority’s Code ofConduct.

Old cases may be relevant to futurecomplaints if they show a pattern ofbehaviour. Authorities will also be able toidentify complaints about the same matterthat have already been considered by thestandards committee.



Authorities will need to consider recordsmanagement alongside the law on keepingrecords of committees.

Confidentiality

As a matter of fairness and natural justice,a member should usually be told who hascomplained about them. However, theremay be instances where the complainantasks for their identity to be withheld. Suchrequests should only be granted inexceptional circumstances and at thediscretion of the assessmentsub-committee. The assessmentsub-committee should consider therequest for confidentiality alongside thesubstance of the complaint itself.

Authorities should develop criteria bywhich the assessment sub-committee willconsider requests for confidentiality. Thesemay include the following:

� The complainant has reasonablegrounds for believing that they will beat risk of physical harm if their identityis disclosed.

� The complainant is an officer whoworks closely with the subject memberand they are afraid of theconsequences to their employment orof losing their job if their identity isdisclosed (this should be covered bythe authority’s whistle-blowing policy).

� The complainant suffers from a serioushealth condition and there are medicalrisks associated with their identitybeing disclosed. In such

circumstances, standards committeesmay wish to request medical evidenceof the complainant’s condition.

In certain cases, such as allegations ofbullying, revealing the identity of thecomplainant may be necessary forinvestigation of the complaint. In suchcases the complainant may also be giventhe option of requesting a withdrawal oftheir complaint.

When considering requests forconfidentiality, the assessmentsub-committee should also considerwhether it is possible to investigate thecomplaint without making thecomplainant’s identity known.

If the assessment sub-committee decidesto refuse a request by a complainant forconfidentiality, it may wish to offer thecomplainant the option to withdraw, ratherthan proceed with their identity beingdisclosed. In certain circumstances, thepublic interest in proceeding with aninvestigation may outweigh thecomplainant’s wish to have their identitywithheld from the subject member. Theassessment sub-committee will need todecide where the balance lies in theparticular circumstances of each complaint.

Anonymous complaints

Authorities should publish a statementsetting out how complaints receivedanonymously will be dealt with. Theassessment sub-committee may decidethat an anonymous complaint should onlybe referred for investigation or some otheraction if it includes documentary or



photographic evidence indicating anexceptionally serious or significant matter.If so, this needs to be included in thestandards committee’s assessmentcriteria.

Members with conflicts of interest

Note: this section does not deal with anyinterests which may arise under the Codeof Conduct, which members must alsokeep in mind and deal with as appropriate.

A member of the standards committeewho was involved in any of the followingdecisions can be a member of thecommittee that hears and determines thecomplaint at the conclusion of aninvestigation:

� the initial assessment decision

� a referral back for another assessmentdecision

� a review of an assessment decision

The assessment decision relates only towhether the complaint disclosessomething that needs to be investigated orreferred for other action. It does notdetermine whether the conduct took placeor whether it was a breach of the Code.The standards committee hearing the casewill decide on the evidence before it as towhether the Code has been breached and,if so, if any sanction should apply.

The assessment process must beconducted with impartiality and fairness.There may be cases where it would not be

appropriate for a member to be involved inthe process, even if not disqualified fromdoing so by law. Any member who is acomplainant or one of the following shouldnot participate in the assessment process:

� anyone closely associated withsomeone who is a complainant

� a potential witness or victim relating toa complaint

In certain situations, a standardscommittee member might initially beinvolved with the initial assessment of acase that is then referred to the StandardsBoard for England or to the authority’smonitoring officer. The case might then bereferred back to the standards committeeto consider again. In such circumstances,the member may continue theirparticipation in the assessment process.

However, a standards committee memberwho is involved at these assessmentstages of the process, either initially orfollowing a referral back from theStandards Board or monitoring officer,should not participate in the review ofthat decision.

Authorities should ensure that theirstandards committee has sufficientindependent members, and parish or townrepresentatives where applicable, for theframework to operate effectively. This should allow for circumstances wheremembers are unable to participate forreasons of conflict of interest.



Officers with conflicts of interest

An officer who has previously advised asubject member or who has advised thecomplainant about the issues giving rise toa complaint should consider whether theycan properly take part in the assessmentprocess. For example, a conflict of interestcould mean that the officer will not be able to:

� draft letters � prepare reports� contact complainants � attend the final hearing of that

complaint

The officer should also consider whetherthey should stand aside due to their priorinvolvement, which has been such thatothers involved may view them as biased.Officers should take legal advice if theyhave any doubts.

If the officer has taken part in supportingthe assessment or hearing process thenthey should not be involved in theinvestigation of that matter. This is so thatthe officer can minimise the risk of conflictsof interest that may arise and ensurefairness for all parties.

The monitoring officer should act as themain adviser to the standards committeeunless the monitoring officer has aninterest in a matter that would preventthem from performing the roleindependently.

If the monitoring officer is unable to takepart in the assessment process, their role

should be delegated to anotherappropriate officer of the authority, such asthe deputy monitoring officer. Similarly, therole of any other officer who is unable totake part in the assessment processshould be taken by another officer.

Smaller authorities may find it useful tomake reciprocal arrangements withneighbouring authorities. This is to ensurethat an experienced officer is available todeputise for the monitoring officer if theyare unable to take part in the assessmentprocess.

Personal conflicts

Members and officers should take care toavoid any personal conflicts of interestarising when participating in theconsideration of a complaint that amember may have breached the Code ofConduct. The provisions of the authority’sCode relating to personal and prejudicialinterests apply to standards committeemembers in meetings and hearings.

Anyone who has a prejudicial interest orwho is involved with a complaint in anyway should not take part in theassessment or review sub-committee.Decisions made in an assessment orreview sub-committee should not beinfluenced by anything outside the papersand advice put before the members in thatcommittee. The members should notdiscuss complaints with others who are notmembers of the committee which dealswith the assessment or review.Discussions between members shouldonly take place at official meetings.



Authorities should have clear guidelines inplace on when a member or officer shouldnot take part in the assessment of acomplaint because of personal interests.These may include consideration of thefollowing:

� The complaint is likely to affect thewell-being or financial position of thatmember or officer or the well-being orfinancial position of a friend, familymember or person with whom theyhave a close association.

� The member or officer is directly orindirectly involved in the case in any way.

� A family member, friend or closeassociate of the member or officer isinvolved in the case.

� The member or officer has an interestin any matter relating to the case. Forexample, it concerns a member’sfailure to declare an interest in aplanning application in which themember or officer has an interest. Thisis despite the fact that the outcome ofany investigation or other action couldnot affect the decision reached on theapplication.

Complaints about members of morethan one authority

The introduction of the local assessment ofcomplaints may raise an issue relating towhat should happen if a complaint is madeagainst an individual who is a member ofmore than one authority – often known asa dual-hatted member.

In such cases, the member may havefailed to comply with more than oneauthority’s Code of Conduct. For example,an individual who is a member of a districtcouncil and a police authority may be thesubject of complaints that they havebreached the Code of both authorities. As such, it would be possible for both theassessment sub-committee of the districtcouncil and the assessmentsub-committee of the police authority toreceive complaints against the member.

Where a complaint is received about adual-hatted member, the monitoring officerof the authority should check if a similarallegation has been made to the otherauthority, or authorities, on which themember serves.

Decisions on which standards committeeshould deal with a particular complaintmust then be taken by the standardscommittees themselves, followingdiscussion with each other. They may takeadvice as necessary from the StandardsBoard for England.

This will allow for a cooperative approach,including sharing knowledge andinformation about local circumstances, andcooperation in carrying out investigationsto ensure resources are used effectively.

Authorities should also consider whetherthey need to establish a data sharingprotocol with other relevant authorities.The government and the InformationCommissioner’s Office have producedguidance on such protocols. Visitwww.ico.gov.uk for further details on thework of the Information Commissioner.