To submit the
report of the Monitoring Officer
(attached).
Decision:
To submit the following observations in
response to the consultation, and delegate
the right to the Monitoring Officer to collate and convey the response on
behalf of the Council:-
·
That
the committee welcomes the document overall, and is of the view that it is
readable and very useful in terms of explaining the code. We also believe that the use of case studies
and speech bubbles are a good way of highlighting parts of the document and
making it relevant to people.
·
It would be useful if the
examples of Code of Conduct breaches listed in the document also noted what the
outcome had been, in order to give a clearer picture.
·
It would be useful if the document
included examples of how the public interest test has worked in practice i.e.
what types of complaints have passed the threshold, and what types of
complaints have failed.
·
The document should be
gender-neutral.
Minutes:
Submitted – the
Monitoring Officer's report inviting the committee to provide comment and
feedback on the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Consultation on the new
draft guidance on the Code of Conduct for Members of County and Town /
Community Councils.
It was explained that the consultation had no prescribed
questions, attention was drawn to the purpose of the document, and the
following matters were suggested for the committee’s consideration:-
·
Is the guidance provided understandable and of use?
·
Are there any aspects which are not as good and could be improved and
how?
·
Does anything else need to be included?
What?
It
was further noted that the Democratic Services Committee had considered the consultation
at its meeting held on 18 February, and although it was generally supportive of
the guidance in its content and tone, some questions had arisen in relation to
the challenge of political expression, and the line between what was
appropriate and inappropriate, especially in the respect and use of social
media etc.
Reference was made to specific sections of the guidance, namely:-
·
The two stage test used by the Ombudsman in deciding whether to
investigate a complaint, or whether an investigation into a breach of the Code
should continue.
·
The right to political expression, where the Code could intervene, and
where it crossed the line.
·
The relevance of the Code to individuals, and the expectation that
people holding public office should maintain high standards of conduct.
·
The requirement for members who represented the Council on external
bodies to comply with the Code of that body, as breaching that body's code
could also mean that the member was breaching the Council's code.
·
The community leadership role of members, and how
sending inappropriate e-mails, or the careless and irresponsible use of social
media brought the member's office into disrepute.
·
The complex role and status of clerk within a community council.
·
The role of the Monitoring Officer in the context of community councils.
During the
discussion, the following matters were raised:-
It was noted, although the guidance included examples of
breaches of the Code, that there was no reference made to the sanction applied
in those cases.
It was suggested
that the use of case studies and speech bubbles were a good way of highlighting
parts of the document and making them relevant to people.
It was noted that
the point regarding a lack of complaints investigated by the Ombudsman was
raised annually in the full Council, but it was evident than less than 5% of
the Ombudsman's work related to Councils, with the majority of the complaints
arising in the field of health. Attention was also drawn to
the fact that the Ombudsman had stated clearly in the introduction to the
guidance that the number of low-level complaints submitted remained too high,
and although it appeared that a very small number of members submitted these
complaints, in this challenging period it was even more important that his office
was used effectively, and that any investigations undertaken were proportionate
and essential for the wider benefit of the public. It was
also noted that the Ombudsman encouraged members to take advantage of
any local arrangements for dealing with 'member against member' complaints, and
a question was asked about the role of the Standards Committee and the
Monitoring Officer in this respect. In response, reference was
made to the Gwynedd Standard and the Council's internal resolution
process for dealing with conflicts between members. It was
noted that the Monitoring Officer tended to turn to the internal
procedure to resolve matters between members within Gwynedd Council, and that
ultimately, through this process, the matter could be escalated to the Standards
Committee. Naturally, as this was outside the statutory framework, the
Standards Committee's powers were limited. There had been very few occasions in
Gwynedd Council where this had been relevant, and the majority
of complaints were made by the public against members. Such complaints
needed to be referred to the Ombudsman, although
evidently, the Monitoring Officer could advise the public. The situation in
relation to community councils was more challenging as they did not have the
resources or the governance system to resolve problems between members. Again, where real problems arose, the
Monitoring Officer could try to assist community councils to the best of his
ability.
It was suggested
that there was a perception among community council members that the Standards
Committee could resolve conflicts, and that there was scope for the committee
to be more aware of complaints so that they could be discussed, and the local
resolution process could be used to respond to the problem.
It was noted that the examples in the guidance explained why
the Standards Committee could not take a matter further, and it was suggested
that this should be emphasised more explicitly in the committee's annual report
to the full Council. In response, it was explained that the Standards Committee was sometimes
viewed as a forum for the resolution of complaints, but that all external
complaints, including complaints from community councils, must be referred to
the Ombudsman. If there was a desire to offer a different service for community
councils, it should be borne in mind that there were approximately 64 community
and town councils, and approximately 700-750 community council members in
Gwynedd. The resource implications as a result of
offering this type of service could be significant, and care was needed not to
offer a service that could not be delivered.
However, it might be appropriate to disseminate the message. It was further suggested that the challenge could go beyond the
750 members, as there were former members of community councils that continued
to show an interest in the work of those councils, and might possibly refer
complaints to the Ombudsman.
It was emphasised
that the guidance should be gender-neutral.
RESOLVED to submit the following observations
in response to the consultation, and delegate the right to the Monitoring
Officer to collate and convey the response on behalf of the Council:-
·
That the committee welcomes
the document overall, and is of the view that it is readable and very useful in
terms of explaining the code. It is also believed that the use of case studies
and speech bubbles is a good way of highlighting parts of the document and
making it relevant to people.
·
It would be useful if the
examples of Code of Conduct breaches listed in the document also noted what the
outcome had been, in order to give a clearer picture.
·
It would be useful if the document included
examples of how the public interest test has worked in practice i.e. what types
of complaints have passed the threshold, and what types of complaints have
failed.
·
The document should be
gender-neutral.
Supporting documents: