Agenda item

Purpose: to provide an update on any local and national issues relating to ethical standards and to bring to the attention of Members a summary of complaints or other problems within West Berkshire.

Sarah Clarke introduced a report (Agenda Item 5), which was due to be presented to Council in October and related to conduct and ethics. It was noted that standards of ethical conduct across the district remained good.

Sarah Clarke reported that in 2022/23 there had been notification of twenty-two complaints which had been a drop of ten from the previous year. It was felt that generally there was no overall pattern to the complaints, but that social media appeared in many, which was not something that was unique to West Berkshire.

It was recognised that there was a need for officers ensure better communication with the parties involved in a complaint once a matter was referred for investigation.  

Councillor Stephanie Steevenson referred to page 22 of the agenda pack and queried why there were still three ‘outcome awaited’ cases for the years 2019/20 and 2020/21. Sarah Clarke clarified that there were currently no outstanding complaint investigations or outcomes awaited and would correct the report prior to referring it to Council.

Councillor Dominic Boeck suggested that there were 62 town and parish councils, rather than the 56 referred to at section 5.15 of the report. Sarah Clarke suggested that it was because parish meetings did not have elected members, and so different rules would apply. Councillor Boeck suggested that there were seven parish meetings and consequently the figures remained incorrect.

Councillor David Marsh queried whether it was acceptable for complaints to be received from anywhere, particularly outside West Berkshire. Sarah Clarke commented that under the Localism Act 2011, the Council was required to have procedures in place to consider allegations and did not provide the facility to exclude complaints from beyond the district boundary. It was however noted that within the framework of the constitution there was the ability to reject any complaints considered vexatious or malicious.

Councillor Marsh referred to instances that an informal resolution required an apology, but the apology was not forthcoming, and queried whether there were any sanctions that could be imposed or an alternative way to pursue the matter. Sarah Clarke commented that there was no power to compel a member to apologise or comply with the suggested resolution.

Councillor Marsh suggested that subject access requests should be actioned within a strict time period and queried the reason that one case that he was aware of had not been actioned even after six months, Sarah Clarke confirmed that the Council was required to respond within a set deadline and commented that there were a combination of factors leading to delays but that she would revert to Councillor Marsh with an update from the officer leading the case.

Councillor Marsh queried whether the code of conduct was fit for purpose, particularly in relation to Members’ communications on social media. Sarah Clarke responded that the Code of Conduct would be fully reviewed when the Constitution Review Task Group progressed to part 13 of the Constitution.

Simon Carey referred to page 18 of the agenda pack and section 5.7 which stated that ‘It was agreed by Council that the Independent Person may be consulted directly either by the person who has made the complaint or the person the complaint has been made about’. Simon Carey queried why the Council had agreed to allow the complainant to consult the Independent Person, when parliament did not make the provision for this. Sarah Clarke agreed to make a note of the query and raise it with the Constitution Review Task Group when the matter was reviewed.

Simon Carey referred to section 5.33, table 1 of the report and noted that of the twenty-two complaints received only four had been upheld, which had been similar to previous years. Simon Carey queried whether those complaints not upheld had been analysed with a view to providing examples to future complainants of those allegations unlikely to be progressed as a valid complaint. It was clarified that the four cases had not been upheld but had been deemed to have passed the complaint threshold. Sarah Clarke confirmed that analysis was undertaken and agreed to take the matter away with a view to producing some examples of allegations that would not pass the threshold.

In response to a query from Councillor Chris Read, Sarah Clarke clarified that membership of the Advisory Panel was determined annually by Council.

Sarah Clarke clarified that complaints were against individuals and that should a complaint be received relating to a parish council it would be rejected as the Council had no authority over parish councils.

RESOLVED that:

·       Members note the content of the report.

·       Note that the report would be circulated to all Parish/Town Councils in the District for information.