The Chairman of the Ethical Standards Committee, Mark Southwell will present his annual report to other committee members on 4th April.
Having just read through said document, it makes for very interesting reading.
Barely a month has gone by over the last year, when one or more articles about the outcome of investigations of councillors – who had been reported to Standards For England – have appeared in the County Press.
Some of the investigations have seemed perfectly reasonable, others baffling. The rest, well they could be viewed by some as simply malicious.
In fact, the report itself states, “the figures suggest to the committee that a number of complaints have been submitted as a way for people to express their frustrations with changes that often arise with new members and clerks”.
Unduly lengthy investigations
Mr Southwell starts his introduction by commenting on the unduly length of the investigation process, continuing “Clearly the limited resources available to this Council in a difficult financial climate and the need to prioritise have seen one investigation take longer than anyone would like”.
Making the point that the chair and vice chair are independent parties, Mr Southwell acknowledges that the elected representatives “contribute a huge amount and are respected for that”.
The statistics
The report shows that 34 complaints were submitted against elected members between 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, with 15 of those referring to IWC members and 19 to Parish/Town Councillors.
The outcome of investigations revealed that
- 21 no action (of these 4 were reviewed with 1 being overturned to a local investigation)
- 4 referred to Monitoring Officer for other action
- 6 referred for local investigation
- 1 withdrawn by the applicant
- 1 pending
- 1 was a split decision with part referred for investigation and part no action
Lessons Learned
What jumped out at us the most was the section ‘lessons learned’. We were surprised at the number of investigations into conduct by Town/Parish councillors, but the language used below is quite telling.
2.8. Of the 15 completed investigations 14 related to four town or parish councils – with two such councils accounting for 13 investigations.
2.9. In terms of the two Parish/town councils attracting the most complaints it is apparent to the committee that the real issue was how those particular town/parish councils were conducting themselves during the year as not only had new members been elected during 2009 on both these councils but also there had been a number of changes of clerks. So while not condoning any bad or inappropriate behaviour, these figures do seem to suggest to the committee that a number of complaints have been submitted as a way for people to express their frustrations with changes that often arise with new members and clerks. Whilst understandably these are not usually, as has been demonstrated, breaches of the code of conduct. Where breaches do occur they are more out of naivety and keenness to see change than wilful misconduct.
Chairman’s introduction
The full report is embedded at the bottom of the article, but here’s Mr Southwell’s introduction.
This year has seen the Ethical Standards process produce 28 investigations, many of which have now gone to a hearing. The investigation process seems at times to be unduly lengthy. We acknowledge that and the committee regularly calls for updates from the Monitoring Officer and her team to ensure that investigations do not ‘run on’ unreasonably. Clearly the limited resources available to this Council in a difficult financial climate and the need to prioritise have seen one investigation take longer than anyone would like.
In this process it has been re-assuring to know that the decisions on what level of response is required by the Ethical Standards Committee to a complaint about a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct is made in each case by a randomly-selected panel of three committee members (one, and the chair, is always an independent) and not by Officers or politicians. The real strength of the process we have on the Island is the full involvement of IW Council members, Parish members and perhaps, most importantly, when inferences are made about ‘influence’ in the process, the independent members themselves. We independents are truly that, we were appointed on that basis and take our duties, alongside the elected members seriously.
That we now elect our own chair and vice chair from the independents I believe gives the public a re-assurance that we will indeed look in towards the workings of local government and do our best to assess the situation and deal with issues on their merits and will not be influenced improperly. At all the assessment and consideration levels we sit as an independent, sometimes 2 of us, along with an Isle of Wight Councillor, and if a parish matter a parish councillor. These panels of three work well with each other and although I make much of the independents, I also acknowledge very firmly and clearly that your elected representatives contribute a huge amount and are respected for that. I should also point out that these three people make the decision, not the monitoring officer or her deputies, who, in our experience, act professionally in ‘advising’ not ‘influencing’ us.
Sadly some complaints, which give the appearance of being ‘point scoring’ and tit-for-tat and, I am sorry to say, the overzealous imposition of penalties by some Standards Committees around the country have all contributed to the new Government’s decision to announce the abolition of the Standards Board for England and with it the existing Members’ Code of Conduct. What is heartening is to hear that, in principle, the IW Council would like to retain a local version and we would be happy to work with the authority to ensure its success. High standards of ethical behaviour are important and I hope we will all approach the creation of a local code in an open and positive frame of mind, in fact the same way, I believe, we approach everything we do – being pragmatic. We await developments on a new way of working with interest and would hope that the Parishes, who are so close to local views, join us all in the process of deciding what will replace the present Code.
Mark Southwell
Independent Chairman
The Ethical Standards Committee Annual Report April 2010- March 2011
