The death knell ??

Question

I have just read the Local Government Association Model Councillor Code of Conduct 2020 which we just adopted .

 It contains the following

a) Councillors are not to act independently (including committee Chairmen and the Chairman of the Council). Individuals cannot make a decision on behalf of the Council unless authorised to do so by the full Council or by a committee

b) The Parish Clerk, or the delegated committee Clerk, is solely responsible under statute for preparing the Agendas for all meetings of the Parish Council and its committees and for circulation of them to meet statutory requirements. Additional matters for discussion may be put forward by members to the Parish Clerk who will consider whether the item should be included on the agenda or not. If it reasonably relates to the remit of the Parish Councillor Committee then there is no reason why it should not be. The construction of an Agenda will consider limitations on time, resources and the prioritisation of statutory requirements amongst a variety of other factors. Careful consideration needs to be taken to balance the resources and limitations of the Parish Council

So we now have a situation in which a Councillor cannot make any form of decision without permission as there is no definition of what a decision is  and the Clerk now has total control over the Agenda ( a power that can be and is abused)

To me in all aspects this represents the death knell for the role of a Councillor and completes the NALC/SLCC take over

Why would any one want to become a  Parish Councillor ?

Answer 1

By the same token why would anyone vote to adopt such a standing order if they didn't agree with it?

The S/O may be a model it is NOT a requirement to adopt without debate and agreement of the council concerned.

Answer 2

I too have just read the LGA Code of Conduct 2020 and cannot find the references you have quoted.

I may have missed them.

Please upload the full document so we can see where we are going.

Answer 3

I can only find two references to this, where it is referred to as a "Principle of good practice" as Item 6:

Paulton Parish Council Council: http://www.paultonparishcouncil.org.uk/_UserFiles/Files/MEMBER%20AND%20OFFICER%20PROTOCOL%20November%202019.pdf

Portishead Town Council: https://portishead.gov.uk/c/documents/Town-Council-Meeting-200121--Item-12i.pdf?20210114183158 Which is a copy of the above

I cannot find any (very) similar references, it might be that someone has written it and tried passing it as model code of conduct

What is interesting is the limiting power of this policy on the Chairman, much more so than the legislation limits.

Item 10, I am glad the future development of the Parish Council is the responsibility of the Clerk, there I was thinking Councillors would drive that!

Item 14 introduces collective responsibility!! - This is legally wrong.

Item 18 reminds members of the 6 month rule, but doesn't actually explain it for councillors (we all think we know what it means, but do we? - it needs to be clearer).

It creates an unlawful (a tribunal will rip apart) process for breaches by employees (Item 28).

It created a 'formal action' process for councillors that is unlawful (Item 29).

Comments

My apologies . I extracted the text from  a large file of background papers and it came immediately after the coded of conduct with a heading of PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE and MEMBER ANDOFFICER PROTOCOL. Reading that in full it seems the ultimate sanction is  If this does not improve behaviour, the council may need to consider legal actions e.g an  injunction under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime- and Policing Act 2014 or Protection from
Harrassment Act 1997 and/or reporting to the Monitoring Officer

Answer 4

Perhaps it's time for councillors and their clerks to sit down together and have a mature discussion about priorities and roles and responsibilities. Good things happen when people work together.

Comments

The problem is Dave that its a one way conversation.  Any hint of independent thought and you are seen as the enemy who needs to be controlled .  These issues inevitably flow into the public domain where people form views. This often manifests itself into public apathy and so the circle continues

---

The issue of independent decision making is enshrined in the Local Government Act which specifically refers to decisions of the council which can be delegated (or in some cases not delegated) to a "committee" and that a committee cannot be formed of just one councillor.  Decisions can, in some cases, be delegated to a single officer but not a single councillor.  In a nutshell, you cannot make a decision as a single councillor purportedly on behalf of your council.
There are of course a whole host of other issues relating to decision making, again enshrined in legislation regarding things like decisions being made in a public setting (unless you have resolved to exclude the public for certain specific and specified reasons), the requirement for declarations of interest, etc. etc.  Mostly, these are included in standing orders but if not, legislation tends to apply regardless of what the standing orders actually state.
The Code of Conduct is an entirely different document based upon the Localism Act and is the document that governs things like treating others (including officers) with respect, declaring financial and other interests both on your Declaration of Financial Interests Form and in a meeting at which matters are discussed so that the public and everyone else knows that your vote (if permitted to make one under the Code) is potentially influenced by your connection with the subject matter.

---

The question is to when is a decision not a decision ie to what lengths do you take it . Let me give you two examples.
a) recently we had a public participation in which a lady complained about certain anti social behaviour.  When she finished I spoke thanking her for the feedback  and explained that remedies did exist  via the PSPO process (about which I know a lot) and that internally I would do my best to ensure that the PC was aware of this discipline and hopefully taken action.  After the  meeting I wrote the DC officer responsible and asked if he was prepared to do a presentation to our PC (these regularly happen before meetings but usually at the behest of the Chairman) . Eventually this was all  agreed  and I wrote to the clerk asking that she sent a formal invite.   The  response I received made it clear I had no right to make the arrangements and was instructed to unmake them.   The clerk advised that in such cases a motion had to be agreed  by the relevant committee saying they wanted to receive such training before she alone could apply for it.  So used my imitative got things organised and "put in my place"
b) lady complained to me about slipping and falling in PC owned carpark.  Again I knew the DC officer involved contacted him and got a quote for £10k which I knew was not going to happen. The Chairman was copied in on all correspondence.  So I arranged a site visit with him and at this time checked with Chairman that it was on the next agenda so that I could provide a report of the options to the committee.  At this stage the clerk wrote ordering that I not attend the meeting and that she would take over and I was to butt out
I understand the principles of not acting alone but its literal interpretation will mean that Cllrs are only allowed to  simply attend meetings and  make the decisions and not contribute in any other way

---

I'm not surprised you are in difficulty.  I'm sure your actions are well meaning but may I suggest a slightly different approach.  I think you are missing a step.  I think you need to "offer" to take action and seek the agreement of your fellow councillors to do so.  In that way you will be doing precisely the same thing (eg. talking to DC officers etc etc) but in harmony with the councillors and the clerk.  Just a thought.

---

Inclined to agree with John on this one.  In the case of (a), notwithstanding that items raised in public participation cannot be actioned at the meeting at which they were raised (not on the agenda), you could offer to take the action identified and see if your fellow councillors feel it useful before making any arrangements.  Be prepared for your kind offer to be declined, however, as things that take up time in a meeting are sometimes unpopular!  With (b) your actions, although well meaning, could jeopardise any insurance claim if they are seen as an admission of liability.  Again, offer to take action but be prepared for being told that insurers need to be consulted before anything further is done.  Sometimes there's more to a given scenario that we all might imagine

---

Well I guess if a  Councillor is little more than a messenger boy then there is little point in being a Councillor.   To me the clerk is there to be Councillors legal and not to make decisions.  It seems that in order to make collective decisions the only background information that is acceptable is from the clerk.  The importance of the clerk now seems to dominate PC politics while the role of Councillors is diminished and that is why most  Councils cant recruit enough Councillors.  I agree with Dave that most reasonable people should be able to sort these issues out but I can assure this new breed of qualified tick box clerks don't see the need to talk ie its our way or no way .  Meanwhile as some observers ask "what code of conduct does the clerk have to abide to" .  The answer to that is there isn't one.  They are untouchable

---

Am I not correct but I believe I have read it somewhere that a Parish Council cannot take conduct action against an individual Councillor without the authority of the Monitoring Officer?.  I think this was a result of the Ledbury and Honition ?? cases ?

---

I do not consider myself a "messenger boy"!   I consider myself part of a team and show respect for my fellow councillors by suggesting courses of action and offering to research those actions or prepare those plans for final approval by my fellow councillors.  If my offer is not welcomed or wanted by my fellow councillors, I do not take action.  A council is a corporate body.
If I breach the code of conduct I can be reported to the monitoring officer and you are correct that the Ledbury case in effect stopped the council from taking action against me directly.  But lets be honest, the actions a monitoring officer can take are pretty limited unless of course I breach some of the finer points of the code of conduct which can result in criminal sanctions.
I suppose the final sanction (aside from not getting re-elected at the appropriate set of elections) comes via the audit process where, if a member of the public (or indeed anyone else) feels my council has acted inappropriately where expenditure of public money is concerned, the audit process can result in a public interest report being issued.

---

The PC has virtually no powers of censure over an elected member and no powers of "punishment". Any action brought against a councillor via the monitoring officer is nothing to do with the PC and is between the councillor and the MO. The MO can only make "recommendations" as to what remedial actions should be taken and none of these are under the jurisdiction of the PC.
This is where adherence to the Nolan principles is so important in defining councillors moral compasses.

---

Very well said. I was also rattled by the attitude towards clerks (and I am not a clerk) of which a minute number fit with the description but the vast majority of whom put their heart and soul into serving their council and their community.

---

John 1706 Please I do not disagree with you at all but you must accept that sometimes the "power" of the  clerk can be abused and that there are Councils (I can only relate to mine) where alliances are formed with inner sanctums to the exclusion all other Councillors . And those that threaten this cosy relationship are seen very much as the enemy.  The problem is that most Councillors don't realise what is going on but unfortunately I do.   Does that make me the odd one out.    Just as the PC cant really touch me the sad thing is that I cant change the culture.  The one thing I will pursue is the changing of para 9 model SOs as the removal of the "subject to" some 4/5 years ago has been a real game changer and needs to be explained /justified.

---

You are correct and if you want to send me your email address by PM I will send you a link to a complaint against me which I self reported to the MO

---

I would like to share with you a private message I have just received
Hope you don't mind a bit of support via a private message, but I totally relate to many of the issue you raise. I joined our parish council nearly 4 years ago with much enthusiasm and bringing some new ideas. Now, due to a very controlling councillor (ex chairman) and parish clerk, there is extreme bias within our council, lack of respect, flawed procedures, refusal of clerk to add very relevant items to the agenda etc etc. There is an atmosphere in meetings, constant criticism and negativity. No amount of policies or charters will make any difference whatsoever. We are a small rural village with only 5 councillors (should have 9 but are unable to attract new members, and have lost some very good ones due to the above).  Members of the public who have attended recent meeting must be appalled by the goings on. I am also a volunteer member of other groups led by our principal council where meetings are professionally run with respect for one another, and you feel valued. A far cry from what I experience at parish level.

While I appreciate the views of those readers who operate in a ideal world the facts are that there some Councils where the rules as applied completely devalue the role of Councillors.  In my case the wording of para 9 of standing orders allows the clerk to reject any motions which do not align with their agenda.  NALC in the meantime will not respond to any correspondence and devolve complete control of all official correspondence to the clerk .    And now I am being threatened with an  ASBO injunction for harassment as any criticism /comment  is deemed as unacceptable