02 March 2010
The new framework is working
|
|
Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
diggFeatured Jobs
-
GROUP MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES
Dacorum Borough Council
£47,505-£62,136 -
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR HOUSING LANDLORD
Dacorum Borough Council
£63,153-£72,843 -
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FINANCE & RESOURCES
Dacorum Borough Council
£63,153-£77,025 -
GROUP MANAGER DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & PLANNING
Dacorum Borough Council
£47,505-£56,109 -
ELECTORAL SERVICES MANAGER (DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER)
Herefordshire Council
Up to £48,000 per annum
Standards for England chief executive, Glenys Stacey, responds to recent coverage in The MJ criticising aspects of the new local standards framework.
The local standards framework generates strong opinions. It could hardly be otherwise – it is a tool devised by national politicians to regulate local politicians as they go about their political business. Challenging territory for a regulator.
The current arrangements, whereby local standards committees are responsible for promoting high standards and handling complaints in their authority, ‘went live’ in May 2008.
Last autumn, 18 months on, we announced a review. We were aware of some criticisms – and some misconceptions – and plenty of good work at a local level. We had evidence based on our work with authorities, their monitoring returns, learning from cases and from research.
We wanted to pull all that together alongside a structured conversation with all involved.
We wanted to know whether the local standards framework was succeeding as planned, or if there were unintended consequences. Is the framework proportionate across factors such as cost, effort, transparency, timeliness, fairness and sanction or remedy?
The current arrangements, whereby local standards committees are responsible for promoting high standards and handling complaints in their authority, ‘went live’ in May 2008.
Last autumn, 18 months on, we announced a review. We were aware of some criticisms – and some misconceptions – and plenty of good work at a local level. We had evidence based on our work with authorities, their monitoring returns, learning from cases and from research.
We wanted to pull all that together alongside a structured conversation with all involved.
We wanted to know whether the local standards framework was succeeding as planned, or if there were unintended consequences. Is the framework proportionate across factors such as cost, effort, transparency, timeliness, fairness and sanction or remedy?
What is the impact of the local framework on member behaviour, on confidence that poor behaviour will be addressed and on public trust in politicians?
Which aspects of the framework work well and which don’t? What are the alternatives?
In her article, ‘Is the standards framework a force for good or a waste of money’ (The MJ, 4 February), Kirsty Cole honed in on some issues from a monitoring officer viewpoint. Important, certainly, but we needed a wider perspective.
We’ve heard from the public, who make the majority of complaints, and from politicians, who are subjected to them. We’ve talked to standards committee chairs and members, monitoring officers, representative bodies, such as the LGA, SOLACE, ACSeS and NALC, and key stakeholders including CLG, the Committee for Standards in Public Life and the Audit Commission.
Which aspects of the framework work well and which don’t? What are the alternatives?
In her article, ‘Is the standards framework a force for good or a waste of money’ (The MJ, 4 February), Kirsty Cole honed in on some issues from a monitoring officer viewpoint. Important, certainly, but we needed a wider perspective.
We’ve heard from the public, who make the majority of complaints, and from politicians, who are subjected to them. We’ve talked to standards committee chairs and members, monitoring officers, representative bodies, such as the LGA, SOLACE, ACSeS and NALC, and key stakeholders including CLG, the Committee for Standards in Public Life and the Audit Commission.
We’ve now completed our review. And here’s what we concluded...
We found that the local standards framework is working.
It is delivering increased confidence in the accountability of local politicians, has improved member behaviour, and has contributed to better governance. It is strongly supported in local government.
However, there are problems – but we believe they can be fixed. Let’s look at those problems – some perceived, some real – and the solutions we propose:
The system encourages trivial and vexatious complaints.
In some authorities, this has been a burden. We think the framework locks complaints into an inflexible process – we are recommending new filtering roles for monitoring officers and independent standards committee chairs to more quickly weed out complaints which don’t belong, as well as the trivial and the obviously unfounded.
The system requires too many formal meetings, wasting time and money.
We agree. We recommend removing assessment, review and consideration meetings from the arrangements, giving independent chairs and vice chairs of standards committees a greater role in case management.
The complaints system is heavy-handed when some problems could be fixed with a little common sense.
We have always encouraged informal aspects of resolving issues – discussion, mediation, apology, working with political groups, and so on – and we want to give these even more emphasis.
Members aren’t told soon enough when there are complaints about them And we agree. We think members should be told they have been the subject of a complaint as soon as it’s received – unless there are compelling reasons not to.
Once it’s decided to start an investigation, it can’t be stopped, even if the complaint is withdrawn.
This should change. Local standards committees must be able to stop an investigation at any stage, if it is right to do so.
We found that the local standards framework is working.
It is delivering increased confidence in the accountability of local politicians, has improved member behaviour, and has contributed to better governance. It is strongly supported in local government.
However, there are problems – but we believe they can be fixed. Let’s look at those problems – some perceived, some real – and the solutions we propose:
The system encourages trivial and vexatious complaints.
In some authorities, this has been a burden. We think the framework locks complaints into an inflexible process – we are recommending new filtering roles for monitoring officers and independent standards committee chairs to more quickly weed out complaints which don’t belong, as well as the trivial and the obviously unfounded.
The system requires too many formal meetings, wasting time and money.
We agree. We recommend removing assessment, review and consideration meetings from the arrangements, giving independent chairs and vice chairs of standards committees a greater role in case management.
The complaints system is heavy-handed when some problems could be fixed with a little common sense.
We have always encouraged informal aspects of resolving issues – discussion, mediation, apology, working with political groups, and so on – and we want to give these even more emphasis.
Members aren’t told soon enough when there are complaints about them And we agree. We think members should be told they have been the subject of a complaint as soon as it’s received – unless there are compelling reasons not to.
Once it’s decided to start an investigation, it can’t be stopped, even if the complaint is withdrawn.
This should change. Local standards committees must be able to stop an investigation at any stage, if it is right to do so.
Handling complaints about parish councillors swamps authorities.
We don’t believe parish councillors should be cut adrift from the code of conduct. Their standards are important too – and increasingly, so if their role and powers are increased in future. A small number of principal authorities have had difficulties, but we think the changes we’re proposing would help them deal effectively with parish complaints.
The local standards framework is costly.
We need to do more work with local government to understand and control cost drivers – investigation costs, for example. But the recommendations we are making will all reduce costs and allow the framework to focus on serious issues of bad behaviour or low standards.
What happens next? We have submitted our report and recommendations – which will be available soon on our website – to CLG for its consideration. Some of the recommendations would require changes to the law, others can, if agreed, be implemented through clearer guidance.
Through these recommendations we believe the local standards framework can be more proportionate, transparent, timely and effective, and so make an even stronger contribution to healthy – and trusted – local democracy.
We don’t believe parish councillors should be cut adrift from the code of conduct. Their standards are important too – and increasingly, so if their role and powers are increased in future. A small number of principal authorities have had difficulties, but we think the changes we’re proposing would help them deal effectively with parish complaints.
The local standards framework is costly.
We need to do more work with local government to understand and control cost drivers – investigation costs, for example. But the recommendations we are making will all reduce costs and allow the framework to focus on serious issues of bad behaviour or low standards.
What happens next? We have submitted our report and recommendations – which will be available soon on our website – to CLG for its consideration. Some of the recommendations would require changes to the law, others can, if agreed, be implemented through clearer guidance.
Through these recommendations we believe the local standards framework can be more proportionate, transparent, timely and effective, and so make an even stronger contribution to healthy – and trusted – local democracy.
Glenys Stacey is chief executive of Standards for England.
Your comments
There are currently no comments, be the first!
 Back |
 Top of page |
