PURPOSE

1. To propose a number of actions in relation to ethical and probity issue in Town & Parish Councils.

BACKGROUND

2. The Isle of Wight Council and Monitoring Officer both have statutory responsibilities to under the Local Government Act 2000 to promote and maintain high standards of conduct in Town and Parish Councils on the Island.

3. A previous report to the Standards Committee noted that there was anecdotal evidence (in the form of newspaper reports) and harder evidence (in a pattern of complaints to the Standards Board) of some issues of ethics and probity in Town and Parish Councils on the Island.

4. Three complaints (one likely to be subject to appeal) against Town/Parish Councillors have now been upheld – two by the Adjudication Panel, and one by this Committee.

5. Prevention is always better than cure. Successful complaints against Town/Parish Councillors damage the reputation and standing of individuals in their communities, the reputation of the local council’s upon which they serve and (as has been noted by the Chairman of the Standards Board, Sir Anthony Holland) are disproportionately difficult and expensive to investigate.

Questionnaire

6. In order to ascertain the perception of serving Town/Parish Councillors and their Clerk, a questionnaire was distributed to all members and officers of Island Town and Parish Councils. A copy of the questionnaire appears as Appendix 1 to this report.

7. 85 completed questionnaires, and a small number of more extensive responses were received, from 24 different Town and Parish Councils. This is an excellent response rate.

Personal Misconduct

8. Had been observed by 32 respondents, including one instance of sexism, two of racisms - and by far the largest group, personal abuse, swearing or bullying, amounting to 12 instances. Almost all were incidents involving two or more councillors.

Conflicts of Interest

9. Were reported by 13 respondents. Little information was given on the nature of the problem.

Accountability

10. A massive 77 respondents thought Parish & Town Councils are accountable to their communities (with only two in disagreement).

11. Holding others to account was less clear cut with 9 respondents reporting an inability to hold other public bodies to account. Almost without exception, the weakness reported was an inability to hold the Isle of Wight Council to account, with planning issues being the most frequently cited.

Awareness of Ethical Framework

12. 76 respondents believed that they were sufficiently aware of the ethical framework, with 4 reporting that they were not aware.

Advice

13. Awareness of sources of advice, whilst still high (57 having access to advice), saw 9 respondents not having access to advice – and a substantial number of responses leaving the question unanswered.

14. Asked to identify barriers to good standards, or ideas improve standards, there was a mixed response including the positive:

· More support & training needed

· Better access to Isle of Wight Council resources

And the less positive:

· Parish/Town Councils are treated as third class

· The whole system is too bureaucratic/invasive (or by contrast, not firm enough

15. Of the 30 or so suggested improvements almost two thirds were, at least to a degree, sceptical about the ethical framework, the role of the Isle of Wight Council and/or the Standards Board.

16. This suggests that whilst awareness of ethical and probity issues may be high, there is some work to be done to persuade Parish and Town Councillors that the system adds value to their particular tier of local democracy.

17. One final trend was discernable. Several respondents commented on the demands that are being placed on Chairs and Clerks of Town and Parish Councils. These are demanding roles with an increasing degree of complexity.

An Ethical Hotspot?

18. The most significant aspect of the questionnaire responses was that 4 respondents from the same Town Council took the opportunity to respond in some detail and at length about their concerns in relation to standards of personal conduct in that council.

Proposals

19. It is proposed that the following actions are developed:

Training

20. IWC staff have provided training to new and returning Town and Parish Councillors. A repeat of this commitment was made after the May 2005 elections. The proposed programme has been delayed in order to meet the expected publishing of a toolkit for Town and Parish Councils and Councillors (jointly produced by the Association of Town and Parish Councils, and the Association of County Solicitors and Secretaries).

21. Publication of the toolkit, due in September at the annual Standards Board Conference has been delayed until later in the autumn.

22. It is therefore suggested that the commitment to providing training is affirmed by the Standards Committee, but that a future report, drafted in collaboration with the Island Association of Town and Parish Councils, sets out the arrangements for, and details of, the training to be offered. That process should fully utilise the toolkit, as soon as it is published, and will also reflect on any lessons from the recent Standards Committee hearing.

Further Research

23. The report to this committee which proposed the issuing of a questionnaire considered the value of “drilling down” into, say one large town council and one small rural parish council, to investigate further any issues of ethics or probity identified by the responses to the questionnaire.

24. The responses show limited appetite among the councils for such specific activity, but an alternative does appear to be being suggested.

25. As with a parallel piece of research into stakeholder perceptions of the Isle of Wight Council, there appears to be no distinction drawn by respondents between the ethics of personal conduct, good practice in terms of decision making (including declaration of interests), accountability for performance and the stewardship of public resources, and competence in public life.

26. The emerging Aim High corporate plan will include objectives which require an improvement in the levels of understanding and co-operation between the Isle of Wight Council and Town and Parish Councils. Delivery of those objectives commences Friday 7^th October, with a workshop to identify problems in those working relationships and to look for solutions.

27. It is suggested that the Standards Committee strongly recommends that any work programme developed as a result of that workshop takes account of this report – and the research reported in it. Any programme to develop and support Town and Parish Councils should include an ethics and probity strand and the resources of the Isle of Wight Council – for which the Monitoring Officer is accountable - should be made available, as needed to deliver on this recommendation.

28. The Standards Committee should receive a report to a future meeting assessing how successfully this recommendation has been implemented.

Support Networks

29. It is unlikely that new support networks – for say Chairs to Town and Parish Councils – would attract significant support. The need is for existing networks (particularly the Association of Town and Parish Councils and the Isle of Wight Society of Local Council Clerks) to be revitalised.

30. Whilst revitalisation is likely to be best done through support from and collaboration with the Isle of Wight Council, the unitary authority, it’s members and staff should not be afraid to challenge complacency and underperformance in Town and Parish Councils – and to seek ways of incentivising raising of standards.

An Ethical Hotspot?

31. I mentioned in paragraph 18 that one Town Council on the Island appears to be suffering an exceptionally high level of conflict. Work is underway to assist this Town Council in anyway that we can.

32. The experience from this Town Council will be evaluated and consideration be given to making such arrangements available to other Town and Parish Councils where, as sometimes seems to be the case, interpersonal conflict becomes an unwelcome phenomenon.

Parish Protocol with the Isle of Wight Council

33. A protocol between the Isle of Wight Council and the Town and Parish Councils has existed for sometime. This is primarily around how the two tiers will consult with one another but includes a specific schedule on planning matters.

34. Whilst the protocol has been a useful tool to set broad parameters the results from the questionnaires suggest that there is significant scope for a major revision. The aim being to develop a protocol that not only details the procedures but develops and explains a more meaningful level of engagement, understanding and trust between the two tiers.

35. This work will be combined with that mentioned in Para 26 above, with a report back to this Committee in due course.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

36. The costs of any additional activity to support, challenge and encourage improvements in standards of conduct and administration in Town and Paris Councils will be met from existing budgets – particularly those available to the Monitoring Officer.

RECOMMENDATIONS

37. It is recommended that the Standards Committee:

a. That the Monitoring Officer prepare with the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils and the Isle of Wight Society of Local Clerks a training package on Ethics and Probity for all Town and Parish Councillors and Clerks. This to utilise the expected national toolkit. Details of the training package to be reported back to the Committee in due course.

b. That the work programme from the 7^th October event with Town and Parish Councils be reflected back to the Committee.

c. That the support, through the Monitoring Officer, to the Association of Parish and Town Councils and the Isle of Wight Society of Local Clerks be revitalised.

d. That the work to support a specific Town Council be continued and the lessons reported at a latter date.

e. That the Parish Protocol be revised in the light of experience to date and the 7^th October event with a view to it delivering a more meaningful level of engagement, understanding and trust between the two tiers.

John Lawson

Assistant Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer

Contact Point : John Lawson,

Telephone: 823203

Email: [email protected]

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Have you ever observed personal conduct at a Town or Parish Council meeting (or by a Town/Parish Council in an official capacity) which you consider unacceptable?

YES / NO

(if yes, please answer questions 1(a) and 1(b)).

(a) What was the nature of the behaviour and where did it take place?

(b) Was any action taken as a consequence and by whom?

2. Have you ever experienced any approach to dealing with conflicts of interest by Town/Parish Councillors which caused you concern?

YES / NO

(if yes, please answer questions 2(a) and 2(b)).

(a) What was the nature of the conflict?

(b) Was any action taken as a consequence and by whom?

3. Do you believe Town and Parish Councils are accountable to their communities?

YES / NO

(if no, please answer question 3(a)).

(a) If no, what are the barriers to accountability, and how can they be removed?

4. Are Town/Parish Councils able to hold other public bodies to account?

YES / NO

(if no, please answer question 4(a)).

(a) What are the barriers to Town and Parish Councils holding other public bodies to account and how can they be removed?

5. Are you aware of the ethical framework within which Town and Parish Councillors operate?

YES / NO

6. Are you aware of sources of advice and help for Town and Parish Councillors in relation to ethics and probity? If so, have you, or would you access such advice?

7. If you could suggest an improvement to the ethics and probity of Town/Parish Councils what would it be?

8. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group or individual interview (lasting no more than one hour) to follow up your answers?

YES / NO

9. Are you –

A Town or Parish Councillor*

A Town or Parish Clerk*

An interested member of the community?*

(* please delete)