(i) Is the complaint against one or more named Members or co-opted Members of the Authority covered by the Members’ Code of Conduct?

(ii) Was the named Member in office at the time and was the Code of Conduct in force at the time of the events which are alleged to amount to a breach?

(iii) Would the conduct complained of, if proven, be a breach of the Code under which the Member was operating at the time of the alleged misconduct?

NOTE  

If the complaint fails one or more of these initial tests (i) to (iii) above, it cannot be investigated as a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(iv) Is there, on the face of the information before the Sub-committee, evidence of a breach of the Code?

(v)  Is the conduct complained of serious enough to warrant a sanction?

(vi) Is this part of a continuing pattern of less serious misconduct that is unreasonably disrupting the business of the authority and is there no other avenue left to deal with it except investigation?

(vii) In considering the case, the Sub-Committee will take into account the time that has passed since the alleged conduct occurred.

(viii) Would an investigation serve a useful purpose?

(ix) Is the case suitable for local investigation?

(x) Is this a case where alternative action such as training or mediation would be more appropriate?

(xi) Would an apology be appropriate?

(xii)  Is the complaint malicious, relatively minor or tit-for-tat?

(xiii) Has the same or substantially similar complaint already been the subject of an investigation or inquiry so that there is nothing further to be gained by seeking the sanctions available?

(xiv) Does the complaint concern conduct carried out in the Member’s private life, when s/he is not carrying out the work of the authority or has not misused their position as a member?

(xv) Does it appear that the complaint is really about dissatisfaction with a Council decision?

(xvi) Is there enough information currently available to justify a decision to refer the matter for investigation?

(i) complaints where the status of the Member(s) or the number of Members about whom the complaint is made would make it difficult for the Standards Committee to deal with the complaint.  For example, where the Member is a Group Leader or member of the Authority’s Executive or Standards Committee;

(ii) complaints where the status of the complainant(s) make it difficult for the Standards  Committee to deal with the complaint.  For example, is the complainant a Group Leader or a member of the Authority’s Executive or Standards Committee, the Managing Director, the Monitoring Officer or other senior officer?

(iii)  where there is potential conflict of interest of so many members of the Standards  Committee that it could not properly monitor the investigation;

(iv) where there is a potential conflict of interest of the Monitoring Officer or other officers and a suitable alternative arrangement cannot be put in place to address the conflict;

(v) where the case is so serious or complex, or involving so many Members that it cannot be handled locally;

(vi)  where the complaint requires substantial amounts of evidence beyond that available from the Authority’s documents, its Members or officers;

(vii) where there is substantial governance dysfunction in the Authority or its Standards Committee;

(viii) where the complaint relates to long-term or systematic Member / Officer bullying which could more effectively be investigated by somebody from outside the Authority;

(ix) where the complaint raises significant or unresolved legal issues on which a national ruling would be helpful;

(x) where the public might perceive the Authority to have an interest in the outcome of a case.  For example, if the Authority could be liable to judicial review if the complaint was upheld;

(ii) the Sub-Committee will decide whether the original decision of Standards (Assessment) Sub-Committee is either upheld or overturned.