Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer’s presented his Annual report on matters relating to ethical governance, including, details of any complaint handling activity carried out in consultation with the Independent Person with regard to allegations of Member misconduct and details of disclosures made by members of staff under the Council’s Whistleblowing Policy during the last 12 months.

The Monitoring Officer gave an overview and explanation of the assessment of complaints process.  It was reported that over the past 12 months, the majority of complaints received had not been taken further, as many simply did not fall within the scope of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  The Monitoring Officer further advised that as Code of Conduct investigations, when undertaken, were time consuming and used valuable resources, the benefit of carrying out such investigations must be balanced against the limited sanctions, which could be imposed upon Councillors, even in cases of poor behaviour. He added that it remained a frustration of himself and of other Monitoring Officers that following changes in the law in 2011, there were insufficient sanctions in place to deal with the more serious behavioural issues.

The Monitoring Officer highlighted that he was Monitoring Officer for both Doncaster MBC and the 41 Parish and Town Councils across the Borough, which comprised approximately 350 Councillors.  In this context, the number of complaints received was relatively low and showed a pattern of good behaviour across Doncaster.

In response to a question from the Chair as to whether a complainant had a right of appeal if they were unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, Members were informed that whilst there was no right of appeal against the decision of the Monitoring Officer, the complainant could write to the Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman generally didn’t deal with Code of Conduct matters.  In relation to cases of serious breaches, it was reported that there had only been one occasion where a complaint been brought to the Committee, since changes to the law and the complaints process in 2011.

Kathryn Smart sought clarity as to whether any feedback was given to whistle-blowers under the whistle-blowers’ rights under the Public Interest Disclosures Act. The Monitoring Officer advised that subject to the complainant providing their contact details, the Council always endeavoured to write to complainants, where possible, to inform them of the outcome of an investigation, which gave them the opportunity to provide feedback.  It was explained that, as a matter of process, the complainant’s identity wasn’t disclosed and any feedback provided by the complainant was taken on board. 

Kathryn spoke of the importance of whistle-blowers being given the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the process, in particular, in terms of how they were treated, how they had been kept informed throughout the process and asked whether Whistle-blowers would be likely to report whistleblowing matters again. The Monitoring Officer advised that whistle-blowers were not asked this question at the end of the process, however, indicated that this was something that could be taken on board in the future and further consideration would be given to including this as part of the feedback.

The Chair asked whether there was any evidence that people were reluctant to make whistle-blowing complaints for fear of retribution.  Members were informed that the Council endeavoured to make the Whistleblowing Policy as visible as possible. There had been some internal communication on the Chief Executives intranet column, which had brought the Policy to staffs attention.  In relation to the success of the Policy, Members were informed that it was difficult to gauge the success of the policy.  A low number of complaints doesn’t suggest a policy that doesn’t work, rather it could suggest an organisation where members of staff were able to raise issues with their line managers rather than use the whistleblowing policy.

Helen Potts, Senior Legal Officer further advised that the Council did try to keep whistle-blowers updated throughout the process, but highlighted that on occasions whistle-blowers had not been happy with the outcome, as it did not give them the result they had wanted.  Members were assured that any feedback was taken on board and when whistle-blowers received the outcome, they had taken the opportunity to provide feedback if they had not been happy with the process.  Members were also informed that members of the public were also allowed to whistleblow for the first time, as part of the procedure, which had resulted in members of the public coming forward.

The Chair commented that there appeared to be a discrepancy regarding the number of complaints detailed within paragraph 6 of the report, to that of the corresponding table of complaints attached at Appendix A, which were contradictory.  The Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services apologised for the numerical error and indicated that the information in the schedule at (Appendix A) was correct and undertook to amend the report.

RESOLVED that

(1)         the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report on compliant handling activity for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017, be noted; subject to the necessary amendments being made, as outlined above; and

(2)         the Whistle-blowing returns for 2016/17, be noted.