This page is currently being updated. If you have any further queries please contact webmaster@havant.gov.uk
PART 5
THIRD ANNEX TO CODE OF CONDUCT
(as approved and adopted by the Council, Council Minute
38/4/2005)
"Bringing his office or authority into
disrepute" - A Matter of Courtesy and Respect to
Others
1. Paragraph 4 of the Members' Code of Conduct
states:
A member must not, in his official
capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner
which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or
authority into disrepute.
2. Members therefore have an obligation not to
act in a way that could bring their office or authority into
disrepute. They have to bear this in mind when they are acting in
their official capacity and in any other circumstances.
3. The Code of Conduct defines a test for
whether or not a member has brought his or her office or authority
into disrepute. The test is whether a reasonable person would think
that the reputation of the member or the authority would be damaged
by the member’s behaviour. This is an objective test and is not
based on any one individual's perception. A member will have failed
to comply with the Code of Conduct if his or her conduct "could
reasonably be regarded" by an objective observer as bringing their
office or authority into disrepute.
4. The test requires a judgement to be made on
the conduct, and inevitably people do not always agree on
judgements of this kind. The public expects members to uphold the
law; treat political opponents, officers of their authority and the
public with respect; and avoid bringing their office or authority
into disrepute.
5. The Code of Conduct aims to promote
positive, vigorous political debate while setting some standards
for what members can and cannot do and say in the course of their
duties. The Standards Board for England believes it is perfectly
acceptable and desirable for members to take a vigorous approach to
disputing arguments, but they should be careful that their language
and approach do not cross the boundary into disrespect. The Board
has advised:
Differences of opinion, and the defence of
those opinions through members’ arguments and public debate, are an
essential part of the cut and thrust of politics. A very clear line
has to be drawn between the Code of Conduct’s requirement of
respect for others (including members of the authority with
opposing views) and the freedom to disagree with the views and
opinions of others...
Whilst The Standards Board for England and
the ethical standards officers are determined to take a firm line
on bullying of officers, this does not mean that members cannot
express disagreement with officers. This disagreement might, in the
appropriate context, manifest itself in the criticism of the way in
which an officer or officers handled particular matters. In the
everyday running of a local authority, it is inevitable that
members may have disagreements with officers from time to time. It
is only where members’ conduct is unfair, unreasonable or demeaning
that paragraph 2(b) will be relevant.
6. During the course of a heated debate,
members can sometimes get carried away and resort to name-calling,
abusive heckling and other disruptive or disrespectful behaviour.
This is inappropriate and unprofessional, and in some cases it will
constitute a breach of paragraph 2(b) of the Code of Conduct, which
requires members to treat others with respect. It could also
potentially bring the member’s office as a councillor, or the
standing of the authority as a whole, into disrepute.
7. The Standards Committee, the Group Leaders,
and senior officers can play an effective role in stopping this
kind of inappropriate behaviour and improving the ethical climate
of the Council where this is felt to be necessary. The Standards
Committee can help prevent such lapses by setting out clear
protocols (such as this document) for members taking part in
debates or generally on the subject of member/officer
relationships, and arranging training for members across the
authority where this is deemed necessary. The political parties can
encourage their members to concentrate on ideas and arguments
rather than attacking individuals. When inappropriate behaviour
does occur, firm chairing of meetings is critical to prevent
low-level misconduct recurring, or even escalating into more
serious incidents. These sorts of situations are good examples of
cases where informal resolution of disputes is highly appropriate.
Mediation, informal discussions between the people involved –
perhaps including the Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the
Standards Committee – and additional training, can all be useful
means of resolving ill feelings and preventing future
misconduct.
8. Members must expect to encounter occasional
ill-considered or rude commentary in the course of their duties. As
fellow politicians, they have a public platform on which to defend
themselves and their ideas, and have the opportunity to respond in
the appropriate forums. Allegations to the Standards Board for
England about disrespectful comments made in the course of
political debate are only likely to be referred for investigation
where there is clear and excessive abuse of people rather than
ideas. Allegations of simple name-calling, political point-scoring
or mild rude and inappropriate language would not be serious enough
to refer for investigation by an ethical standards officer. The
Standards Board for England believes the chairman of a meeting
should control such behaviour.
9. However, in some cases, disrespectful
behaviour will be serious enough to warrant investigation. In
particular, this may happen if the abuse is malicious, persistent,
disruptive, accompanied by threats of violence, or if a member
abuses officers or members of the public who do not have the same
platform to defend themselves as councillors do. The public should
not be expected to put up with such behaviour from their
representatives. A complaint may also warrant investigation if it
is about a clear pattern of misconduct that is damaging the
authority, where there is no other avenue left to deal with
it.
10. If there is a difficulty in the process of
giving advice on what standards to set, it occurs when trying to
define just what might be considered inappropriate behaviour. As is
made clear above, allowance has to be made for what is recognised
as the accepted norms in the political arena. Beyond that, there
lies a danger in trying to list the sorts of circumstances and
situations where a member’s behaviour might reasonably be frowned
on, if not found reprehensible. After all, within reason, behaviour
whether in public or private, can be regarded as very much being
"in the eye of the beholder".
11. Nevertheless, the existence of documents
such as the Members' Code of Conduct, and the Protocol for
Member/Officer Relations is recognition of the fact that things can
and do go wrong, that there are and have been examples of
inconsiderate and unacceptable behaviour, that have to be guarded
against in the future and minimised wherever possible. The
remainder of this note is concerned with discussing and laying down
some guidance as to what is considered acceptable behaviour (and
so, consequently, unacceptable behaviour).
12. A general rule of thumb can be found in
paragraph 1.5 of the "Protocol for Member/Officer Relations" set
out in the Council's Constitution. Arguably, the advice there ought
to apply whatever the relationship, be it member/officer,
member/member (including and especially with other local
authorities, and organisations), or member/public. It says:-
It is most important that any dealings between
members and officers should observe reasonable standards of
courtesy and that neither party should seek to take unfair
advantage of their position.
13. What then might be classed together as the
"standards of courtesy" that could usefully be established without
attracting discredit or ridicule? A list representing standards the
Council as a whole considered right and proper, and to which it
expected all members to have regard to at all times? No such list
can ever be considered exhaustive. As far as actions in public are
concerned, a start might be to list the following as good and bad
practice; the venue and kind of "event" is immaterial:
Good Practice
- Arriving on time
- Being properly briefed
- Keeping to the subject under discussion
Bad Practice
- arriving late
- talking across speakers
- cliques whether at meetings, presentations or the like
- repetition
- leaving during a debate and then returning, leading to
misunderstanding and repetition
- ridiculing speakers or ideas
- rude or threatening behaviour
14. There is a possibility, of course, that there may be a bad
practice case that involves the chairman of a meeting. Different
chairmen have different styles of approach to the job, and there
can be no objection to that. Nonetheless, if a member or members
feel a chairman is exceeding his/her powers during a meeting (where
this isn't for some reason picked up on and dealt with by the
appropriate officers), or behaving in an irregular, improper or
offensive way, they need to be able to deal with the matter at the
time.
15. It isn't possible or necessary to attempt to lay down a
procedure appropriate to all circumstances, but in general terms it
would be in order for the members to make the chairman aware of
their views and the reasons for them. If it is not, and provided
the behaviour is not of the kind to require instant action, then
the sorts of "behind the scenes" actions mentioned in paragraph 7
above should be considered. Where this is not applicable to the
situation, in extreme situations, then the members must judge where
it might be possible to pass a resolution about the chairman’s
conduct, i.e. in terms of whether a majority of the members present
are likely to support it. The outcome of such a vote on a motion of
"no confidence" would normally secure the resignation of the
chairman.
16. The ultimate sanction where this in turn doesn't achieve
the outcome desired by the majority is to vote to rescind the
chairman's appointment and place someone else in their stead.
17. Moving away from the "public" aspects of conduct, there is
also the equally important and already touched upon relationship
between members and officers out of the public gaze. It is just as
possible for the question to arise here as to whether or not
conduct amounts to "bringing his office or authority into
disrepute".
18. There can be a variety of ways in which the "ideal"
relationship between members and officers can be described. Some
are obvious, some are quite subtle, some a mix of both. The
starting point, though, is that statement already quoted at
paragraph 12 above in this note which bears repeating here if only
for completeness sake.
It is most important that any dealings between members and
officers should observe reasonable standards of courtesy and that
neither party should seek to take unfair advantage of their
position.
It is not possible to over-emphasise the important of this
statement. It must always be the case that a good working
relationship between members and officers will produce the best
return in terms of output whether it be the implementation of a
policy approved by the Council, or officers helping members to
achieve a position whereby a policy can be produced in the first
place. Such a relationship is multi-layered, involving as it can
members either individually (a portfolio holder, or another member
over a constituency matter) or collectively (say, a Board or a
regulatory Committee) dealing with officers on all sorts of aspects
of the project or problem.
19. It has always been the case that (in managerial terms) the
Elected Members agree the policy to be followed on a particular
matter and the officers implement the policy. Behind that simple
statement are a multiplicity of stages of discussion and exchange
of information between members and officers but the process can be
boiled down to the elected member(s) giving a "lead" or "steer" as
to what it is they want the officers to come forward with as policy
proposals. A potential source of conflict is when that steer has
been followed to the point where proposals are tabled by officers
at public meetings and they are then wholly or partially repudiated
by the members. Often, that repudiation can arise from the
unwillingness of members to make use of officers prior to a meeting
to find out matters of detail, to clarify any uncertainties or
misunderstandings etc. This can lead to the impression being given
to the public that there is a lack of co-operation, or
misunderstandings between the members and officers. More generally,
this same scenario can arise out of a member or members consciously
deciding that they will not seek clarification and the removal of
uncertainties because, for their own reasons, they wish to pursue
matters at a meeting not in accord with the guidance previously
given to officers as to how to proceed. At best this attitude is
unhelpful; at worst it is disruptive and counter-productive,
whatever the actual facts of the situation. Generally speaking,
therefore members should not attend meetings with their own
"agenda", when the objective of that action is (as put in paragraph
18 above) "to take unfair advantage of their position". Group
Leaders and especially the Group Leader of the majority party, have
a particular role in ensuring that the sorts of situations
illustrated by this paragraph are minimised if not entirely
eliminated."
20. However they are arranged or work, such relationships must
have boundaries, and those boundaries are fully reflected in the
protocol on member/officer relations, and elsewhere. For example,
paragraph 17 of the protocol says:
Dealings between members and officers at all levels, at
all times, be open, honest and without subterfuge. Members should
never seek to take advantage of their positions by applying
inappropriate or improper pressure to more junior officers, or by
seeking information from such officers for improper
purposes.
21. The protocol goes on to define the relationship between
members and officers in more overt, less subtle language. In
particular, two separate references need to be mentioned and
quoted. First, at paragraph 3.3, the protocol says:
It is also the duty of the Managing Director and each
Director to arrange matters so that their employees properly
understand the role of Members and employees and the Council's
required approaches to the relations between them. They are also
entitled to expect Members to respect the degree of seniority of
employees with whom they may have dealings and the fact that, while
those employees owe duties to the Council as their employer, such
duties are first expressed to their respective Manager and/or the
Managing Director, and not to any individual Member.
22. Then there is paragraph 7.2 of the protocol which says (in
part) and specifically in respect of portfolio holders (but this
holds true for all members as a generality):
the Constitution makes it clear that the role of Portfolio
Holders is to give strategic direction and monitor the performance
of services, and does not extend to engaging in the day to day
business of the Council, which is a matter for officers.
23. The earlier comments in this note and the above extracts
from other documents, taken together, set out a clear statement of
what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour. It highlights the
proper and actual manner in which a member or members should treat
each other, officers, and the public. At the same time it defines
the boundaries between what the member role is in the running of
the Council, and that of the officers.
24. In placing this document within the constitution, the
Council is saying that certain standards of courtesy and behaviour
are expected of all members and at all times. To help in this,
members are to have regard to this document by way of guidance.
Where those standards are not maintained, it will be for the
Standards Committee in the first instance to consider what action
needs to be taken, generally or specifically.