Issue - meetings

The Council noted that, following a councillor misconduct complaint which had been referred for investigation, the investigator had identified an issue that needed to be addressed by the Council. The issue was the apparent confusion around the email signatures used by some councillors who tended to list various non-Council roles in their signature, resulting in confusion in respect of the capacity in which a councillor was communicating with a correspondent. The matter had been referred to the Corporate Governance Task Group for consideration.

The Task Group considered the matter initially on 12 April and, more recently, on 16 August 2021 and had drafted the guidance for councillors.  The Task Group recommended that the guidance be adopted and that all councillors be advised to apply the template, content, and format as set out so as to provide clear communication when conversing with residents and other correspondents. The draft guidance was subsequently considered by the Corporate Management Team (CMT), and then by the Executive at its meeting held on 21 September 2021.  The Executive approved the guidance, incorporating a number of amendments, which were appended to the report submitted to the Council.

The Task Group had also recommended, and the Executive agreed, that it should be a requirement in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that councillors comply with this guidance, in the same way that it was agreed last year that the Code of Conduct should include a requirement for councillors to comply with the adopted Social Media Guidance for Councillors. 

Any amendments to the Code of Conduct can only be approved by full Council.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, and seconded by the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, Councillor Deborah Seabrook, the Council:

RESOLVED: That the following amendment be made to paragraph 9 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct:

‘9.      In addition to compliance with this Code of Conduct, you are also expected to comply with:

(i)         the relevant requirements of the Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations, the Social Media Guidance for Councillors, the Councillor Email Signature Guidance, and the Probity In Planning – Councillors’ Handbook, and

(ii)        any reasonable request by the Council that you complete a related party transaction disclosure.’

Reason:

To ensure clarity for the recipients of emails sent by ward councillors in which capacity they are writing.

Decision:

That, subject to the amendments set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet, the Councillor Email Signature Guidance, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

The Executive recommended to Council (5 October 2021):

That the Council be requested to agree the following amendment to paragraph 9 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct:

“9.     In addition to compliance with this Code of Conduct, you are also expected to comply with:

(i)             the relevant requirements of the Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations, the Social Media Guidance for Councillors, the Councillor Email Signature Guidance, and the Probity In Planning – Councillors’ Handbook, and

(ii)            any reasonable request by the Council that you complete a related party transaction disclosure.”

Reason(s):

To ensure clarity for the recipients of emails sent by ward councillors in which capacity they are writing.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To modify the Guidance, refer the Guidance back to the Task Group for further consideration, or decline to adopt the Guidance.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Leader of the Council introduced the report.

Following a councillor misconduct complaint which had been referred for investigation, the investigator identified an issue that needed to be addressed by the Council. The issue was the apparent confusion around the email signatures used by some councillors who tended to list various non-Council roles in their signature, resulting in confusion in respect of the capacity in which a councillor was communicating with a correspondent. The matter had been referred to the Corporate Governance Task Group for consideration.

The guidance arising from the Task Group review was set out in Appendix 1 of the report along with an amendment to allow political affiliation as set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet. Included in the guidance was an instruction that councillors should not use a personal email address for council business for reasons of data security and any Freedom of Information requests. Email etiquette conduct was also included in the guidance advising members on the use of capital letters and ‘reply to all’ responses.

The Task Group also recommended that it should be a requirement in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that councillors comply with the guidance.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the amendments set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet, the Councillor Email Signature Guidance, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

The Executive further

RECOMMEND to Council (5 October 2021):

That the Council be requested to agree the following amendment to paragraph 9 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct:

“9.     In addition to compliance with this Code of Conduct, you are also expected to comply with:

(i)             the relevant requirements of the Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations, the Social Media Guidance for Councillors, the Councillor Email Signature Guidance, and the Probity In Planning – Councillors’ Handbook, and

(ii)            any reasonable request by the Council that you complete a related party transaction disclosure.”

Reason:

To ensure clarity for the recipients of emails sent by ward councillors in which capacity they are writing.