19 November 2009
Source: The MJ (Local government is rapidly changing - to be effective in this environment it is essential that you have access to the most up-to-date and detailed information. <strong>The MJ</strong> is the magazine that will help you to come up with practical solutions to everyday issues in this changing landscape. Every week <strong>The MJ</strong> publishes the latest news, features, editorial and industry comment on the following key issues: Management * Legislation * The White Paper * The Lyon’s Report * Regional government * CPAs * Business * Finance * Education * Adult and Children’s Services * E Government * And much more…)

Has the new standards framework really made a difference?


Richard Cowell, James Downe and Karen Morgan

The conduct of national politicians has been much in the news, but can anything be learned from how conduct in local government has been addressed? Richard Cowell, James Downe and Karen Morgan from Cardiff University report on ongoing research for Standards for England, investigating the impacts and effectiveness of the ethical framework for local government in England.

While self-regulation of conduct at national level runs aground, local government has been subjected to detailed and – relatively – independent regulation, through the combined forces of the Code of Conduct, monitoring officers, local standards committees, Standards for England and the Adjudication Panel for England which, together, make up the ethical framework.

Key questions, however, are whether this ethical framework has had any effect on local government processes, culture and values; the conduct of councillors; or public attitudes to local government? It is to address these questions that Standards for England commissioned the Centre for Local and Regional Government Research at Cardiff University to undertake an evaluation.

The study currently under way is an ambitious, five-year analysis, collecting data in 2008, 2010 and 2012, across nine very different local authority case studies. It uses a multi-method approach involving interviews (with monitoring officers, council leaders, chief executives, party group leaders, partner bodies and local journalists), documents, media analysis and public surveys.

The results are informing the evolution of the ethical framework, as Standards for England develops its new role as a strategic regulator, but may also offer insights for ethical regulation at national level. This article presents key findings from the 2008 data. The full report can be obtained from the Standards for England  website.

Across our case study on local authorities, many interviewees felt the conduct of councillors had improved in recent years, and that ethical issues were being treated more seriously than they had been in the past.
Understanding differences between councils is critical to understanding how and why the ethical framework has an impact. It shows that changing rules and structures does not necessarily change behaviour. What generates the different outcomes is how the structures of the ethical framework relate to the wider organisational and political context of local councils.

In those councils that generally displayed good conduct, with few complaints under the code, a number of mutually reinforcing ingredients were in place, which we labelled ‘virtuous circles’. These include a well-respected monitoring officer, with the skills, experience and empowerment to be pro-active in addressing ethical risks. Supporting the MO are council leaders – both managerial and political – who set a high standard of ethics themselves, and are prepared to intervene informally to avert potential conduct problems.

Subtle, but no less important in sustaining these virtuous circles, was a strong sense of identification with the council as an entity with a reputation worth protecting for its own sake.

It was the absence of most or all of these ingredients that created circumstances we labelled spirals of despair.

Such councils suffered persistent poor conduct, with key figures – the MO, chief executive, council leaders – finding it difficult to be anything other than reactive to the constant stream of complaints, which displaces time from taking a broader, more pro-active approach to ethics. Councillors’ identification with wards or parties often outweighed concern for the reputation of the council. Council leaders, too, could be implicated in the making of complaints. Despite claims that the ethical framework ‘caused’ these problems it would be more accurate to say that it has become a lightning rod for pre-existing ethical issues in particular councils.

Those councils with records of better conduct were more likely to see ethics as integral to the whole governance of their organisation, and two connections in particular warrant comment.

The first is between ethics and council performance more generally. We deliberately included among our case studies councils with different CPA scores, and found that those with better scores acknowledged the scope for positive connections to high standards of ethics. Conversely, those most disinclined to see any connection were councillors in councils with arguably the biggest problems, in terms of both conduct and performance.

The second is between ethics and political management structures.

We found increased numbers of personal and politically-motivated complaints – and wider anxieties about conduct – in those councils that had recently seen a tightening of political control.
This was usually one party winning overall control, often coupled with the formation of single party cabinets.

Councillors outside this party justified their actions in terms of becoming voiceless, or losing other levers of power, with complaints becoming ‘an alternative means of debate’ or a way of holding the executive to account. One clear driver for central government interest in conduct in local government has been the desire to raise people’s trust in public institutions. What is less clear is whether the ethical framework, and its effects, has made any difference to public attitudes to local government.

This is what the survey component of the research set out to investigate. Two of our case study councils which displayed good standards of conduct received more positive survey responses for trust, the truthfulness of councillors, and councillor conduct, than those case study councils which had poorer conduct and/or a larger number of complaints. On this basis it is tenable that councils which implement the ethical framework effectively, and maintain good conduct, enjoy higher levels of public trust than those which do not.

As with previous research, we also found that the behaviour of councillors was not a major factor shaping people’s trust in the council – the level of council tax and quality of services are much more important (by 42% and 34% respectively, to 14% for councillor behaviour).

And although most councils publicise the existence of the ethical framework, public awareness is low (fewer than 20% of people claim to have heard of the local standards committee), and such information is dwarfed by the local press coverage of misconduct allegations, and articles reflecting on the competence of local government more generally.

There is a conundrum for cultivating popular support for the ethical framework: our results suggest that the public are least aware of the ethical framework, or least concerned with councillor behaviour, in councils that display generally good conduct. The more effective the ethical framework becomes, the less visible it appears to the wider world.

So what are our conclusions? The first is learning – even in councils caught in spirals of despair, people have not given up, but are looking at ways of reversing the situation.

Often this involves local standards committees being pro-active, working with council leaders, brokering conversations with political parties, and dealing more swiftly with trivial complaints.

The second is the importance of seeing the ethical framework, and good conduct generally, as integral to wider processes of governance.

If this makes achieving progress more complicated than bolting on new regulations, it also highlights new levers for change.

Ensuring political parties locally take full responsibility for the conduct of members, including considering ethical risks when recruiting new members, is one example.

The third is to see the ethical framework for local government not just as a set of standards to be met, once and for all, but part of ongoing processes of improving political conduct.

There are no panaceas here, given the reality of party political competition.

Dr Richard Cowell is a senior lecturer in environmental policy and planning, Dr James Downe is a senior research fellow, and Dr Karen Morgan is a research assistant, all at Cardiff University

 



Your comments

There are currently no comments, be the first!



 Back     Top of page

Advert