Wealden District Council to review complaints procedure following concerns

The matter was discussed at a meeting of the council’s standards committee on Monday (September 27), following a request from a parish councillor, who had been the subject of two code of conduct complaints last year.

After review, both cases returned a finding of ‘no further action’ as the complainants were unable to provide any evidence to substantiate the complaints. However, the councillor in question suggested changes to the current procedures in light of their experiences. 

Their first concern was that the finding of ‘no further action’ implied some degree of fault. As a result, they suggested the procedure include potential findings of ‘no action’ or ‘no case to answer’ as well. 

Secondly, they asked for separate proceedings in cases where a complaint names two or more councillors.

Currently if a person complains about two or more councillors as part of the same complaint, the council deals with them as a joint complaint, where all parties are notified of the details and all names are included in the decision notice along with the name of the complainant.

The parish councillor argued this could be considered a breach of confidentiality.

Finally, they suggested that in the case of a ‘no further action’ finding, only the subject of the complaint should be informed. The committee heard the parish councillor’s concerns were around the parish council’s clerk being informed due to the potential for reputational damage.

During discussion, head of legal and governance services Kristina Shaw-Hamilton told the committee that the council had last formally reviewed its complaints procedure six years ago, but had compared its procedures to other neighbouring authorities in light of the parish councillor’s concerns. 

Through this, the council had found the ‘no further action’ finding was used consistently across other local authorities. The committee had also expressed reservations about moving away from this term, as it was felt it had a clear meaning both in legal and standards proceedings. 

Ms Shaw-Hamilton also said it was considered important for parish clerks to be notified of both code of conduct complaints and the findings. 

However, it was noted that Wealden was unusual in its use of joint complaints, as most neighbouring authorities already hold separate proceedings in such cases. 

She also highlighted how other elements of the council’s complaints procedure could benefit from review in light of the comparisons with other councils.

This included the potential involvement of independent persons in all code of conduct complaints. Currently Wealden does not involve its independent persons in all complaints, which was not the case in other councils. 

Ms Shaw-Hamilton said she would recommend bringing in this change even if a full review was not undertaken.

Following discussion, the committee opted to form a working party (which would include an independent person and a parish council representative) to review the council’s current procedures and report back.

……………

During the same meeting, the committee also confirmed that the council will not adopt a new model councillors’ code of conduct put forward by the Local Government Association (LGA).

Published last December, the new model code is the LGA’s attempt to update the standards to which councillors must uphold and comes partly in response to a review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

That review (published in 2019) made several recommendations, including making available stronger sanctions for those found to be in breach of the code of conduct.

With the possibility of further changes ahead, officers had advised against adopting the new code, as it was not considered to “contain significant amendments” to the council’s current code.

Even so, officers had advised the committee to hold off on making its decision until East Sussex County Council made its decision, as the county has traditionally maintained the same code of conduct across all local authorities.

Since then East Sussex County Council confirmed it would not adopt the LGA’s model code.

Committee chairman Brian Redman said: “I think we continue with where we were last time, six months ago effectively, on this issue, in that we do not believe that the new model being proposed had any advantages on what we currently have. 

“We do have a consistent code of conduct all the way across East Sussex and the districts and clearly what we were waiting for was some sort of strengthening of the whole issue, in view of problems which have arisen under the code of conduct over the months.

“The recommendation in front of us is to continue as we are.”

There are not many significant differences between the LGA’s model code and the current code of conduct in use in East Sussex.

Perhaps the greatest difference is a subtle change to when the code of conduct would apply. 

Currently the East Sussex code applies when councillors act, claim to act or give the impression that they are acting in their official capacity.

The LGA’s new code would also include times when “reasonable members of the public” might think a councillor was acting in their official capacity as well.

The model code also explicitly states that this could include posts on social media platforms or other electronic forms of communication.

Huw Oxburgh , Local Democracy Reporting Service