Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer submits a report that asks the Standards Committee to review its current assessment criteria including the weight to be given to hearsay evidence and how to deal with vexatious complaints about members.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report that asked the Standards Committee to review its current assessment criteria including the weight to be given to hearsay evidence and how to deal with vexatious complaints about Councillors. An additional document was circulated at the meeting, outlining the Information Commissioner’s stance on vexatious complaints, and Members were recommended to adopt this as their policy for dealing with such complaints.

With regard to vexatious complaints, Members considered that the first two criteria, relating to malicious, politically motivated or tit-for-tat complaints, or where there was an ulterior motive, should be kept separate within the assessment criteria, to clarify what constituted a vexatious complaint. In response to Members’ questions, the Monitoring Officer stated that complaints could not be filtered out on this basis prior to initial assessment, and that, even in these cases, vexatious or politically motivated complaints could contain genuine evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Members considered the issue of hearsay evidence. The Monitoring Officer stated that the Sub-Committee could note hearsay, but were not to consider its weight, as this was to be done at a hearing. Members stated that hearsay should be considered in addition to factual evidence, and not in its own right, although care should be taken to avoid dismissing breaches of the Code of Conduct due to complainants being unfamiliar with the Sub-Committee’s ways of working. It was suggested that hearsay evidence that was checkable may be considered. Members were informed that such checks would take place following a decision to investigate. Members expressed the need to ensure that it be worded appropriately in the guidance, in order to be clear to future members of the Standards Committee. Members asked the Monitoring Officer to include in the assessment criteria that at each stage, the Sub-Committee would look for tangible or checkable facts that, if proven, could be a breach of the Code. It was noted that officers did already ask complainants to provide such evidence at the review stage.

Members considered what constituted a meeting. They felt that this was particularly important in regard to individual Cabinet Member decisions, when a Member may meet with one officer. It was reported that a robust system had been introduced to ensure transparency. Members were informed that at least two Councillors together would constitute a meeting, whereas a Councillor and an officer would not. It was suggested that the system of individual Cabinet Member decisions could be looked at as part of the Committee’s work programme, as this would not appear to be classed as a meeting.

RESOLVED;

that the Standards Committee agrees the following:

1)      VEXATIOUS COMPLAINTS: that the Monitoring Officer be asked to include the following Information Commissioner criteria in the assessment crtieria:

“While giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the general approach is that a request (which may be the latest in a series of requests) can be treated as vexatious where:

-         it would impose a significant burden on the public authority in terms of expense or distraction, and meets at least one of the following criteria:

                                                                                                  i.      the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation;

                                                                                                ii.      it can be fairly seen as obsessive;

                                                                                              iii.      the request is harassing the authority or its staff;

                                                                                               iv.      the request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;

                                                                                                 v.      the request lacks serious purpose or value.

It is relevant to consider the context and history of the request, including the application’s motive. However, care should be taken not to reject a complaint which is of valid concern itself.”

2)      HEARSAY EVIDENCE: that the Monitoring Officer be asked to include in the assessment criteria an explanation that the Sub-Committees would require a level of tangible or checkable facts that, if proven, could be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

3)      MEETINGS: that references in the current Code of Practice regarding meetings be noted, and, as part of the Committee’s work programme, consideration be given to the individual Cabinet Member Decision process.