Agenda item

1)         To support the consideration and provide context, Mr Watts was asked to provide an overview of the Member complaint process.  He explained that this process involved numerous stages of review, assessment of the impact of Member conduct and the involvement of an independent person to support the Monitoring Officer consideration of complaints.  Mr Watts highlighted that a significant number of previous complaints received during lockdown related to alleged Council failures rather than individual Member conduct.

2)         Responding to questions, Mr Watts confirmed that he was committed to investigating and dealing complaints as quickly as possible within the resources available.  He highlighted that many complaints were now more complex and these took more time to investigate.  He noted that complainants were often dissatisfied with the outcome and it was important for the Committee to keep the complainant perspective in mind.  Further information from that angle could be provided in future.  In answering questions relating to specific timeframes or completion deadlines, Mr Watts advised that any mandatory response period would have resource implications but more importantly, the management of complaints within the Code had to involve an element of flexibility and reasonableness to ensure they could all be handled appropriately and effectively.

3)         Mr Godfrey then introduced the substantive report, providing an overview of the issues and background.  The item asked for consideration of the Kent Code of Conduct for Members recommended by the Kent Secretaries Group in response to the publication of the LGA Model Code of Conduct.  He explained that practice varied with some councils effectively adopting the recommended code wholesale while others, including KCC had opted to use the recommended Code as a driver to undertaken their own review.  Mr Godfrey clarified that the Localism Act 2011 underpinned the current regime and therefore the legal framework for Member complaints could potentially be considered as slightly dated.

4)         In outlining the changes within the recommended code, Mr Godfrey advised that some were tidying changes or minor tweaks while others involved making more substantive updates.

5)         The Committee discussed and considered the suggested changes to the Code as set out within the LGA Model Code of Conduct.  Comments were made on various elements and questions of clarification were asked.  Mr Watts and Mr Godfrey advised the Committee at each stage.  Key points on the relevant sections (see report in main agenda pack for details – edits marked A through to I) were as follows:

·       Change A  - rejected as unnecessary.

·       Change B - Committee sought further clarification on the social media.  Agreed to delegate management of any required changes.

·       Change C – Members discussed the challenge of agreeing a single definition of bullying.  It was noted that a clear definition was helpful for the Monitoring Officer in the management and assessment of complaints.  Agreed subject to updated drafting by the Monitoring Officer on the bullying definition.

·       Change D – Agreed following clarification on the change simply making it clear that releasing ‘exempt’ information is a breach of the Code.

·       Change E – Rejected as required further review outside of the this item.

·       Change F – Required further review.  Not agreed pending further information.

·       Change G – Agreed subject to removal of references to website content.

·       Change H – Agreed

·       Change I – Agreed

RESOLVED that, with the caveats noted above, the approved changes be recommended to County Council for approval.