Councillor makes a misconduct complaint against the clerk

Question

A councillor makes a misconduct complaint against the clerk if the councillors does agree with the action the disciplinary and grievance committee decided on has the councillor got any right to an appeal
We no the clerkcan but we can not find any where it states that the complaintan can

Answer 1

No. Once the matter has been investigated, that's the end of it. The Committee's decision is final. Otherwise, you could have an endless procession of appeals by both parties.

Answer 2

A very similar answer to that of davetheclerk.

The Disciplinary Panel will either dismiss or uphold the case.  The clerk has a right of appeal against the decision; the councillor does not.

Answer 3

Agreed - on first consideration - the 2 emphatic “no” answers already submitted.
But then I got to wondering.....

What about the local government and social care ombudsman?  Whilst I know certain local authority functions can be examined by the ombudsman - not the decision arrived at but rather that the correct PROCESS was followed  in arriving at that decision - but what about parish councils?

Can the ombudsman examine PROCESS at PC level?

I don’t know.
Interestingly, in the example of the poster’s question, it would be necessary for the person that was dissatisfied with a PC decision (and let’s face it - it’s quite likely that correct process may not have been followed)  to first inform the PC that they were dissatisfied, and why, in order to provide the opportunity for it to be re-visited should the PC so desire (or be required by existing orders ) to do so.
If, maybe a big if, it was still felt that process was incorrect, and that the perceived deficiency had been highlighted and opportunity to remedy requested....

Only then might it be possible to engage the ombudsman - but I’m still not sure they even dip down so far as PC.
On a side note, just recently had a MO (seemingly illogically) refuse to investigate a matter which had been referred to them.
Pointed out the reasons provided for rejection were nonsensical and asked that the matter be progressed.
Got a reply with a different (but equally nonsensical) justification for rejection.
Replied again, again pointing out that both sets of reasons for rejection were utter claptrap and again asking that the matter be progressed appropriately - but this time with mention of engaging the ombudsman if necessary
MO response, for the 3rd time, again rejected the issue and provided a link to ombudsman website in that email  - you’d think they would have (ought to have) known that internal complaints process needs to be exhausted before a matter will be examined by ombudsman
The day after the complaint about the MO was submitted the apology arrived with an affirmation that the business, as originally submitted, would be progressed
Bloody waste of time and effort, and another straw on the camels back of lack of confidence in the LA.

Only in the public sector is this level, consistency and persistence of incompetence tolerated

Comments

The Ombudsman Scheme does not cover parish councils; regrettably.

---

Did you find a webpage or a reference which confirms that or do you have a source that clarifies it?

---

Here is a direct quote from the website of the Local Government Ombudsman Parish and town councils are the first level of local government. They are not principal local authorities and are not in our jurisdiction. They do not have legal duties to deliver services although some now deliver some services (e.g. street scene) on behalf of a local authority.A complaint against a be investigated. But if a parish or town council is acting on behalf of a principal local authority in respect of one of the principal authority’s functions then the complaint is within jurisdiction and should be registered as a complaint against the principal local authority".

---

Did you actually READ what you have quoted?

It is patently contradictory (and appears to have corrupted in the (presumed) cut and paste.)

Bear in mind we don’t know what the complaint against the clerk actually is - but let’s assume, for the sake of discussion - it relates to administration of a local partnership arrangement whereby PC undertakes PRoW clearance on behalf of Highways department of LA.
In that scenario, PC would be delivering a statutory service on behalf of LA so ombudsman could - in theory - take an investigation.
Under those circumstances it ‘could’ be possible, so it would seem, for a complaint to have a follow on procedure after initial investigation / finding by PC.
If all of that were aligned then - the emphatic no answers may be a little premature?

Granted - there are a lot of parts that would need to align but it could, technically, be possible. Unless someone can definitively demonstrate to the contrary...

---

I can confirm that is a direct quote from the website of the Local Government Ombudsman.

---

Can you see that it is contradictory then?

What about this bit:

“....A complaint against a be investigated...”

I’m not saying it’s not a cut and paste from an ombudsman webpage, what I’m asking is have you actually read it and, if yes, can you see that it appears contradictory and includes typos?

I do appreciate the input but it does not, yet, provide unequivocal answer to the question. Maybe the only way to get that level of certainty is to ask the ombudsman (but I’m just not that invested)

---

"... I'm not that invested)".  Did you actually READ what you have written?

---

Play the ball John....

Yes I did mean I’m not that invested - it means I’m just not that bought in to the subject.
What actually interests me more is people expressing / presenting heart felt OPINIONS as facts when they clearly fall short of being, or being proven to be, actual fact.
I’m guessing you don’t actually pay that much attention to what is being read / written or you would have spotted (and doubtless highlighted) the genuine typo in my previous post.
(You’ve got the time it takes me to amend it or it’ll be gone );0)