Agenda item

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

5.13

5.14

5.15

5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

5.20

5.21

The Internal Audit and Risk Manager, Stephen Bower, submitted a report to highlight the findings of the work undertaken by internal audit in relation to a review of the Standards Complaints Process.

There were 22 complaints received in 2019, 31 in 2020 and 10 complaints received so far in 2021, these had all been accurately recorded against the complaints register and were up to date.

The complaints register was found to be accurate and succinct in following the process.

Occasionally complex complaints would require investigation and the Monitoring Officer, Gillian Duckworth, would outsource these to contracted legal practices.

The Internal Audit and Risk Manager added that in most cases, the process is dealt with in a timely manner.

The consideration of complaints received between March to October 2020 was put on hold, due to the need to prioritise essential and critical services throughout the covid 19 pandemic All complainants were informed of the reasoning for this. It was noted that the backlog of complaints had now been cleared.

The Internal Audit and Risk Manager commended the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services Team Manager for the work and effort put in to clear the complaints as soon as possible.

The Internal Audit and Risk Manager advised that going forward, with the transition to a committee system, the complaints process would be looked at to ensure it was relevant and up to date but added that the only recommendation going forward was to carry out a review at the end of each complex case to identify any lessons learned.

Members of the Committee asked questions and the key points to note were-

Councillor Mohammed Mahroof asked whether the number of complaints over the last 3 years included parish councillors as well as city councillors? The Internal Audit and Risk Manager responded by confirming that these figures did include parish councillors.

Councillor Mohammed Mahroof believed that the process was still cumbersome, therefore could anything be done to make the process more time effective?

The Internal Audit and Risk Manager informed Councillor Mahroof that he had looked at each complaint, and the time took on each case was reasonable.

Councillor Mohammed Mahroof also asked, when employing external lawyers, how independent were they? The Internal Audit and Risk Manager advised that Legal firms were only approached in the more difficult cases. The Monitoring Officer, Gillian Duckworth explained that the input from external lawyers was to produce an investigation report, and not to determine the outcome. 

Councillor Angela Argenzio referred to section 2.11 of the report and asked if there would be a timescale on business continuity arrangements, should a current individual not be available? The Monitoring Officer responded by explaining that more than one Democratic Services Officer was trained to carry out the process, and in the case of her absence, there were Deputy Monitoring Officers available to pick up the work.

Councillor Angela Argenzio also asked how often the Independent Person was alternated? The Monitoring Officer explained that every 4 years an interview process was carried out, although there was a low level of interest for this. The Monitoring Officer mentioned that an independent person could serve for longer than 4 years if they wished to interview for the position again and having the experience was favourable. The Independent Person, David Waxman, was in attendance at the meeting and informed the committee that he still retained a high level of independency and hoped to keep on providing honest, independent opinions.

Councillor Angela Argenzio asked if figures on how many times external lawyers have been used over the last 3 years could be made available? The Monitoring Officer advised that she would find this information out and report back to the Committee.

Councillor Ben Curran raised concerns around the process when dealing with more difficult cases and believed that the report submitted to the committee gave no indication that the complaints were being dealt with effectively. Councillor Ben Curran asked what factors would determine the cause for a suspension during an investigation? The Monitoring Officer responded by saying how difficult it was to name reasons for suspensions, although she expressed that she aimed to get these perused as diligently as possible.

Councillor Ben Curran also asked if the Monitoring Officer thought the complex process was fit for purpose? It was advised that she believed there’s nothing else that could be done to make the process more fit for purpose, although was happy if it was felt the process needed to be reviewed. The Monitoring Officer also mentioned the importance on giving investigators time to investigate complaints properly.

Councillor Josie Paszek asked whether it could be noted that the councillor in question was given regular updates on potential delays, as well as the person who brought forward the complaint.

Councillor Mohammed Mahroof commented on the importance for the public that these matters were not prolonged, and asked if there was any health and wellbeing support in complex cases for either an individual who had submitted a complaint or the member in question whilst undergoing the process?

The Chair suggested that a private session be carried out to explore issues around complex cases. Councillor Ben Curran suggested that it would be beneficial to include previous complainants, and subject members to come along and explain their experiences of the Standards Complaint process.

RESOLVED: - that (1) the Committee notes the report and (2) a private session be arranged to discuss issues around complex complaint cases.