Issue - meetings

The Committee received and noted the Monitoring Officer’s annual report about decisions taken on standards allegations against borough and parish councillors for the 12-month period ending 31 December 2022.

Throughout thisperiod, therehad been a total of four complaints received - two relating to borough councillors, and two relating to parish councillors. There were also three complaints which had started in 2021.

The two complaints against borough councillors referred to above were rejectedat stage1 fornot providingany substantiating information. Two of the three complaints from 2021 had proceeded to stage 6, Hearings Sub-Committee.

As at the end of December 2022, there were three ongoing complaints (two against parish councillors, and one against a borough councillor).

The origin of the complaints(whether from members ofthe public, officers, or elected members of the authority) was set out in Appendix 1 to the report. Thetime takenfor consideration anddetermination of acomplaint was also setout in Appendix 1.

By way of comparison and to put the statistical information on the number of complaints received into context, the Committee noted that the number of misconduct allegations received by the Monitoring Officer over the past three years was as follows: 

The report had also set out details of the consideration by the Corporate Governance Task Group of a review of the extent to which outcomes of misconduct complaints against councillors should be published.

The Council’s current Arrangementsprovide that the identity of all councillors against whom a misconduct complaint has been made remains anonymous, except for those whose complaint is referred to the Hearings Sub-Committee for determination.  A copy of the current Arrangements is attached, for information, at Appendix 2.

Following a request last year by the then Chairman of this Committee, Councillor George Potter, the Corporate Governance Task Group, at its meeting on 20 February 2023, considered a report on the extent to which outcomes of misconduct complaints against councillors should be published.

The Task Group noted the various stages of a misconduct complaint, as set out in the Arrangements, where there could be an “outcome”, which were as follows:

·        The Monitoring Officer (MO) could discontinue a complaint or terminate an investigation in certain circumstances (see paras 5.1 and 5.2 of the Arrangements).

·        The complaint may fail the initial jurisdiction test (Stage 1) – section 6 of the Arrangements.

·        The complaint may, following initial assessment (Stage 2), be subject to an Informal Resolution (Stage 3) – sections 7 and 8 of the Arrangements.

·        The complaint may, following formal investigation, be terminated because the Investigating Officer finds no breach of the Code (Stages 4 and 5) - sections 9 and 10 of the Arrangements.

·        The Investigating Officer may, during formal investigation of the complaint, identify criminal conduct by the subject member (the councillor against whom the complaint was made) (see paras 19 and 20 of Appendix 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67

The Committee received and noted the Monitoring Officer’s annual report about decisions taken on standards allegations against borough and parish councillors for the 12-month period ending 31 December 2021.

The Committee noted that during this period, there had been 14 complaints in total,

all of which involved borough councillors.

Seven of the complaints had failed the initial jurisdiction test, none had proceeded to investigation; two were subject to no further action at initial assessment stage and five were subject to informal resolution. There were six ongoing complaints at the time of writing the Annual Report.

By way of comparison and to put the statistical information on the number of complaints received into context, the Supplementary Information sheet circulated at the meeting noted that the number of misconduct allegations received by the Monitoring Officer over the past three years was as follows:

The Monitoring Officer reported on two common themes relating to the complaints received:

·       the use of social media in relation to the complaints, and

·       the use of inflammatory language being used by Councillors on social media and emails leading to complaints.

The Committee expressed disappointment that the use, or misuse, of social media was a recurrent theme bearing in mind the Social Media Guidance for Councillors that the Corporate Governance Task Group had drafted, that the Committee had endorsed, and that the Executive had adopted in 2020.

The following points were raised by the Committee in the debate:

·     A request that future Annual Reports set out the comparative statistical information in respect of misconduct complaints for the previous three years.

·       A further request that the table setting out details of the decisions taken in relation to allegations of misconduct appended to the report should include an additional column showing the date of file closure; and where the matter was still ongoing, the reason(s) for this.

·       The Chairman requested clarification as to whether the six ongoing complaints were included in the 14 complaints received overall, or whether they related to complaints from previous years.

·       In response to concerns over actions that could in circumstances where councillors were being harassed or intimidated by members of the public, councillors were advised to contact the Monitoring Officer for advice and assistance.  It was noted that Surrey Police had previously advised councillors on personal safety where they had received threats or intimidation.

The Committee therefore

RESOLVED: That the cases referred to the Monitoring Officer under the Council’s arrangements for dealing with allegations of misconduct for the period 1 January to 31 December 2021, be noted subject to the comments referred to above and the following further actions: