STANDING GUIDANCE FOR
MEMBERS
Members’ Expenses
Members are reminded to include
sufficient details in their expense claims and to submit them in a
timely manner to avoid submitting multiple claims at the same time
where possible.
Members should have regard to the
current Scheme of Approved Duties and the Protocol on
Members’ Attendance at Conferences published in Part 6 of
the Constitution, published on the Council website at
Decision Making at the Council | North Yorkshire
Council
Interests’ Regime
Under the Council’s Code of
Conduct for Members (Councillors'
code of conduct | North Yorkshire Council), the following interests’ regime
applies.
Registration of
Interests
Members must register the following
interests within 28 days of election/appointment:
·
Disclosable pecuniary
interests (DPIs) of the
Member and their partner and
·
Other registrable
interests (ORIs) of the Member
and keep their interests under
review, registering any changes within 28 days.
A pecuniary interest is a
DPI if it is of a
description specified in regulations ie
·
Employment, office, trade,
profession or vocation (for profit or gain)
·
Sponsorship
·
Contracts
·
Land
·
Licenses
·
Corporate
tenancies
·
Securities
(please see the Code for the
detailed descriptions)
And either:
(a) it is the Member’s
interest or
(b) an interest
of—
·
the Member’s spouse or civil
partner
·
a person with whom the Member is
living as husband and wife, or
·
a person with whom the Member is
living as if they were civil
partners
and the Member is aware of the interest.
Members may request to have, for
example, their home address treated as sensitive and not disclosed
in the Register of Interests or in their contact details on the
Council website, if they feel this is necessary for their personal
safety.
Please see the later section in the
Bulletin on Sensitive Interests and contact the Monitoring Officer
to discuss any concerns in this regard.
Should Members have any immediate
concerns around Member safety, please contact the Head of
Democratic Services and Scrutiny to discuss.
Other Registrable interests
(ORIs) are:
1. Unpaid directorships
2. Any body of which you are a
member or are in a position of general control or management
and to which you are nominated or appointed by your
authority
3. Any body:
-
exercising functions of a public
nature
-
directed to charitable purposes
or
-
one of whose principal purposes
includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any
political party or trade union/professional
association)
of which you are a member or in a
position of general control or management.
The Register of Members’
Interests is maintained by the Monitoring Officer and is generally
available for public inspection during office hours at County Hall,
Northallerton. It is published on the Council’s website (as
required by the Localism Act 2011) -
Your Councillors | North Yorkshire Council
Members must, within 28 days of
becoming aware of a new interest or a change to an existing
interest, register the necessary details electronically via the
ModGov committee software system.
Participation re
Interests
Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
(DPIs)
A Member may not participate in the
discussion of, or vote on, Council business directly
relating to a DPI and must declare the existence and nature of
the interest and withdraw from the meeting room at the start of the
item (unless a dispensation is granted).
Other Registrable Interests
(ORIs)
Where a matter arises at a meeting
which directly relates to the financial interest or
wellbeing of one of the Member’s ORIs, then the Member must
declare the existence and nature of the interest, can speak on the
matter if the public can and then must withdraw from the meeting
room (unless a dispensation is granted).
Non-Registrable Interests
(NRIs)
These are interests which are not
required to be registered in the Register of Members’
Interests (ie interests other than DPIs and ORIs):-
(i)
which directly relate to the
Member’s financial interest or well-being, or that of a
relative or close associate (of which the Member could reasonably
be expected to be aware); or
(ii)
which affect the
Member’s financial interest or well-being or that of a
relative or close associate or of a body included under Other
Registrable Interests (of which the Member could reasonably be
expected to be aware).
For NRIs falling under category (i)
above, the Member must declare the existence and nature of the
interest, can speak on the matter if the public can and then must
withdraw from the meeting room (unless a dispensation is
granted).
For NRIs falling under category (ii)
above, the Member must declare the existence and nature of the
interest, and then consider the ‘prejudicial interest’
test to determine if and how they may participate:
-
Where the matter affects the
financial interest or wellbeing more than it affects that of the
majority of inhabitants of the ward affected and a reasonable
member of the public knowing all the facts would believe that it
would affect the Member’s view of the wider public interest,
then the Member can speak if the public can, but must not take part
in any discussion/vote and must leave room (unless a dispensation
is granted);
-
Where the matter does not so
affect the financial interest or wellbeing, then the Member may
speak and vote in usual way.
If a dispensation is granted
to a Member, the Member must still declare the existence and
nature of the interest and the fact they are relying on a
dispensation to the meeting.
What is the difference between
‘relates to’ and ‘affects’?
Something ‘relates to’ a
Member’s interest if it is directly about it, eg the matter
being discussed is an application about a particular property in
which the Member or somebody associated with them or an outside
body they have registered has a financial interest.
‘Affects’ means the
matter is not directly about that interest but nevertheless the
matter has clear implications for the interest – for example,
it is a planning application for a neighbouring property which will
result in it overshadowing the Member’s property. An interest
can of course affect you, your family or close personal associates
positively and negatively. So, if you or they have the
potential to gain or lose from a matter under consideration, an
interest would need to be declared in both situations.
A Member commits a criminal
offence if, without reasonable excuse, they —
Ø fail to:
v register disclosable pecuniary
interests
v disclose an interest to a meeting where
required
v notify the Monitoring Officer of an interest
disclosed to a meeting
Ø participate in any discussion or vote where
prohibited
Ø an individual Member decision taker takes any
steps in relation to a matter where prohibited
A Member also commits a criminal
offence if, in relation to the registration/disclosure of
disclosable pecuniary interests, they provide information that is
false or misleading and —
Ø know that the information is false or
misleading, or
Ø are reckless as to whether the information is
true and not misleading.
A court may also disqualify the
person, for a period not exceeding five years, for being or
becoming (by election or otherwise) a member or co-opted member of
the relevant authority in question or any other relevant
authority.
Please therefore keep your
interests form under reviewto ensure it is up to date.
Interests’
issues are ultimately Members’ responsibility.
NB: Even if something is not a Code
issue, always bear in mind the rules relating to bias,
predetermination and predisposition.
If you are in any doubt as to your
position, please contact the Monitoring Officer or any of his
team.
Sensitive Interests
You do not need to register or
declare the details of an interest which you and the Monitoring
Officer have agreed is sensitive.
A “sensitive interest”
is any interest (whether or not a disclosable pecuniary interest)
where disclosure of the details could lead to you, or a person
connected with you, being subject to violence or
intimidation.
The existence of an interest must
still be registered/declared but not any detail in relation to
it.
Should you feel that any of your
interests are sensitive given any prevailing circumstances, please
contact the Monitoring Officer immediately to discuss.
Bias, Predetermination,
Predisposition
Members involved in making a
decision on particular business must always bear in mind the rules
relating to bias and predetermination and must not
participate in, or seek to influence, Council business where their
interests may prejudice, or appear to prejudice, their
views.
Predetermination
occurs where a fair minded and
well informed observer, looking objectively at all the
circumstances, considers there is a real risk that a decision maker
has refused to consider a relevant argument or would
refuse.
Possible examples of bias or
predetermination are:
-
connection with someone affected by
a decision;
-
improper involvement of someone with
an interest in the outcome;
-
prior involvement in a
matter;
-
commenting before a decision is
made.
However, the Localism Act 2011 makes
it clear that a Member is not to be taken to have had, or to have
appeared to have had, a closed mind when making a decision just
because they had previously done anything that directly or
indirectly indicated what view they took, or would or might take,
in relation to a matter; this would amount to predisposition
to a view and is acceptable. This ensures that Members can freely
discuss issues, including expressing a view and/or campaigning on
an issue, and then later speak or vote on those issues.
Unless there is positive evidence of
a closed mind, prior observations or apparent favouring of a
particular decision is unlikely to suffice as
predetermination.
Members are entitled to have and
express their own views, as long as they are prepared to reconsider
their position in the light of all the evidence and arguments. They
must not give the impression that their mind is closed.
Members’ Gifts and
Hospitality
Members’ gifts and hospitality
are recorded with their Register of Interests, electronically via
the ModGov committee software system.
Under the Council’s Code of
Conduct, you should not accept gifts/hospitality, of any value,
which could create an impression of obligation upon you or the
Council or substantive personal gain or propensity to show favour.
You should inform the Monitoring Officer of any such
offers.
Otherwise, you should register any
gifts/hospitality received or offered worth £25 or
more.
Should you have any queries in
relation to the registration of any gifts or hospitality
received/offered, then please feel free to contact the Monitoring
Officer or any of his team.
Social media and the Members’
Code of Conduct
Social media is an important means
of communication and engagement, however the use of social media
frequently features in many of the standards complaints received by
the Monitoring Officer.
Aspects of the Members’ Code
of Conduct will apply to your online activity, as in other
communications, if you are, or appear to be, acting in your
capacity as a councillor, rather than a private individual. The
same standards of conduct apply online as would be expected
offline.
The key issue is whether you are
acting in your official capacity as a councillor when using your
social media platforms. Be clear as to the capacity in which you
are posting, official or private.
Use of the title
“Councillor” may give rise to an inference that you are
acting in your official capacity, when the Code can be
engaged.
If you publish information you can
only access as a Member, you are likely to be viewed as acting in
your official capacity.
“…These are ordinary
descriptive English words. Their application is inevitably fact
sensitive and so whether or not a person is so acting inevitably
calls for informed judgment by reference to the facts of a given
case. This also means that there is the potential for two decision
makers, both taking the correct approach, to reach different
decisions…”
You may wish to set up different
social media accounts for your private life and councillor role to
maintain professional boundaries.
You are personally responsible for
the content you publish on social media, in the same way that you
are responsible for letters or emails you send. It is less formal
but is still a form of communication and posts can be capable of
being misunderstood - the immediacy of social media can magnify
this problem.
Being misunderstood is likely to
lead to rapid and wide broadcasting (particularly with something
perceived as being more controversial than was intended) almost
instantly.
Be approachable, polite and
respectful in your language and tone. Irony and sarcasm are very
difficult to convey in writing and therefore should be avoided, as
should profanity.
North Yorkshire Council has a Social
Media Policy available on the Council’s Intranet, which
Members may find helpful.
Members should ensure that they are
familiar with the provisions and that they do not put the
Council’s systems and information at risk, or be damaging to
the reputation of the Council or the office of Member.
LATEST NEWS
CSPL
– “Making Sense of the Standards
Landscape”
The
Committee on Standards in Public Life has published an entry on its
Blog regarding evidence given by the Committee to the House of
Commons Standards Committee as part of their current enquiry into
the House of Commons Standards landscape:
Making sense of the standards
landscape – Committee on Standards in Public Life
(blog.gov.uk)
The entry references three common
threads to sanctions:
i.
Codes of conduct
ii.
Independent scrutiny and
iii.
Guidance and education
and states that there is more work
to be done on education “both in terms of making people aware
of the 7 principles and how to live them once in public life and a
more general, wider political literacy about how our system of
government and politics works.”
In the blog, the Chair emphasises
that “Codes require regular review, ensuring they remain
relevant and effective” and that “Maintaining standards
requires vigilance and leadership.
CSPL – “AI and Public
Standards”
The Committee on Standards in Public
Life wrote to Government Departments and public bodies seeking an
update on how they are reviewing their governance arrangements in
relation to artificial intelligence (AI) in line with the
recommendations in the CSPL’s earlier report in 2020
(Artificial
Intelligence and Public Standards Report
(publishing.service.gov.uk).
Responses received by the CSPL have
been published online here:
AI and Public Standards: 2023 public
bodies survey and responses - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Department for Science,
Innovation and Technology and Crown Commercial Service have also
provided an update to the CSPL which is published online
here:
AI and Public Standards: government
update on progress against recommendations - GOV.UK
(www.gov.uk)
The CSPL has subsequently published
a follow up report updating on progress made in relation to their
recommendations which is published online here:
AI and Public Standards: an update
on progress made against our 2020 recommendations - GOV.UK
(www.gov.uk)
CSPL – “Accountability
within Public Bodies”
‘Accountability’ is one
of the seven General Principles of Public Life:
Accountability
Holders of public office are
accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must
submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure
this.
The Committee on Standards in Public
Life has announced that it is to undertake a review of
accountability within public bodies and the importance of acting on
early warning signs -
Committee on Standards in Public
Life launches new review on accountability within public bodies -
GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
The Chair of the CSPL said it aims
to share best practice on "how organisations build and maintain
systems of internal accountability that enable timely decision
making, supporting proper scrutiny of their decision
making".
The review will look at:
-
“How the Nolan Principles can
guide decision-making within public bodies.
-
How public bodies can support
Parliament, regulators and other bodies to hold them to account on
behalf of the public, including but not limited to making available
the information necessary for them to do so
effectively.
-
Best practice in managing risk
within public sector organisations. We will look at how
organisations can use data to analyse patterns, identify early
warning signs and escalate issues of concern in a timely
manner.
-
The role of boards of public bodies,
including how they can maximise their effectiveness at providing
timely challenge to the organisation.
-
How a healthy organisational culture
can help public bodies to learn from their mistakes and take action
swiftly to put things right.”
The full terms of reference for the
review and further details are published online here -
Accountability within Public Bodies:
terms of reference - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk), along with Frequently Asked Questions
regarding the terms of reference (2024-03-21
Accountability within public bodies - terms of reference FAQ final
(publishing.service.gov.uk).
As part of its review, the CSPL is
holding an open consultation as part of its evidence gathering and
has published a call for evidence on its website -
Accountability within Public Bodies
- GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Anyone with an interest may make a submission. The consultation
closes on 14 June 2024.
It is anticipated that a report
detailing best practice for public sector organisations will be
published in Spring 2025.
Members will be kept
informed.
Security
measures for councillors
The Home Office has announced that
all elected representatives and candidates are to have a dedicated
named Police liaison contact regarding security matters as part of
wider work to protect democratic processes from disruption. This
expands the support currently offered under current policing
arrangements.
Further information is available on
the www.gov.uk website here -
£31m committed to protect
democratic process - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Local Government Association has
published an article on its website (LGA
backs new personal security measures for councillors | Local
Government Association)
backing the new personal security measures for councillors in terms
of locally elected representatives having dedicated police support
for security matters.
The Chair of the LGA’s
Civility in Public Life Steering Group commented that “We
want to work with the Government to help take much needed steps to
protect local councillors whilst they fulfil their democratic duty.
This includes ending the legal obligation for a council to publish
a councillor’s home address and providing greater police
protection for local representatives.”
The LGA has previously published its
report “Debate Not Hate: Ending abuse in public life for
councillors” outlining “how councils can better support
councillors to prevent and handle abuse and includes principles for
councils to consider, top tips and good practice case
studies.” -
Debate Not Hate: Ending abuse in
public life for councillors | Local Government
Association.
Government guidance – “New
definition of extremism (2024)”
The Department of Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities has issued guidance (New
definition of extremism (2024) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
setting out a new definition for
extremism alongside new engagement principles for Government (to
ensure they do not inadvertently provide a platform for the
advancement of extremist ideologies) as part of an effort to
counter extremism and religious hatred while promoting social
cohesion and democratic resilience.
The new definition in the guidance
is:
Extremism is the promotion or
advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or
intolerance, that aims to:
1.
negate or destroy the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others; or
2.
undermine, overturn or replace the
UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic
rights; or
3.
intentionally create a permissive
environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or
(2).
The guidance sets out examples of
behaviour which could constitute extremism, including “Using,
threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence
towards public officials including our armed forces, police forces
and members of local, devolved or national legislatures, in order
to dissuade them from conducting their obligations freely and
fearlessly, without external interference.”, which could
cover such action towards members of local government.
NYC STANDARDS COMPLAINT
STATISTICS
The Standards and Governance
Committee monitors complaints raised with the Monitoring Officer
under the standards regime.
As well as considering complaints
that a member of North Yorkshire Council may have breached the
Members’ Code of Conduct, North Yorkshire Council is the
principal authority for parish and town councils in North Yorkshire
for the purposes of the standards provisions in the Localism Act
2011.
It is therefore also responsible for
receiving and handling complaints that a parish/town councillor may
have breached that authority’s code of conduct for
Members.
That is the extent of North
Yorkshire Council’s jurisdiction in respect of parish/town
council governance; parish/town councils are separate legal
entities and North Yorkshire Council has no jurisdiction to
consider other complaints for example about the way in which the
parish council has or has not done something, or about particular
parish council decisions.
Complaints
received
During the period 1 April 2023 to 31
March 2024, the Council received 174 complaints that members may
have breached the relevant authority’s code of conduct for
Members.
During the period 1 April 2024 to 6
June 2024, a further 49 complaints have been received.
Since Vesting Day on 1 April 2023 to
6 June 2024, a total of 223 standards complaints have therefore
been received.
Assessments
In total, 179 assessments have been
completed by the Monitoring Officer and Deputy Monitoring Officer
in consultation with the Independent Persons for
Standards.
A number of complaints’
assessments are currently on hold, pending responses from subject
Members or the outcome of previous assessments and
investigations.
A high
proportion of these complaints were in respect of Members of three
Town/Parish Councils, as follows:
a)
35
connected complaints were received against Members of Town Council
A, and 6 connected complaints made against a North Yorkshire
Councillor were in relation to matters at this Town
Council;
b)
75
connected complaints were received from 2 linked complainants
against Members of Town Council B;
c)
11
connected complaints were made against Members of Parish Council C,
linked to 6 connected complaints made against a North Yorkshire
Councillor in relation to matters at this Parish
Council;
Of the 179 complaints which have so
far been assessed by the Monitoring Officer/Deputy Monitoring
Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person for
Standards:
a)
145 complaints did not merit any
further action;
b)
5 complaints were recommended for
informal resolution;
c)
28 complaints were referred for
investigation, through 9 investigations;
d)
one
complaint was closed as the subject Member was no longer a
Councillor.
Investigations/Determinations
One of the investigations
(covering 11 connected complaints) has been completed and the
complaint determined by the Standards and Governance Committee
Hearings Panel when it determined that the subject Members had
not breached the relevant authority’s Code of Conduct
for Members.
After
the Panel had completed its determination of the complaints, the
Deputy Monitoring Officer consulted the Panel under the Standards
and Governance Committee’s Protocol for dealing with
Unreasonably Persistent/Vexatious Complainants. The Panel agreed
that the allegations by the complainant had been investigated and
determined and that any further complaints by the complainant on
essentially the same issues as have already been assessed by the
Monitoring Officer and/or then investigated and determined by the
Panel do not need to be considered by the Monitoring Officer
through the assessment process in the usual way.
The remaining investigations
are currently live.
The remainder of the complaints
are in preparatory stages or awaiting assessment by the Monitoring
Officer/Deputy Monitoring Officer in consultation with the
Independent Person for Standards.
Members will be kept informed of
statistical information in relation to standards complaints
received.
NATIONAL CASES
The Local Government Lawyer website recently
reported on the following cases:
·
a newly elected councillor has been
disqualified under the Local Government Act 1972 after it was
discovered they were a primary school teacher and an employee of
the authority.
The office was therefore made vacant with
immediate effect as the councillor was disqualified from being a
member of the authority under the Act as they were a paid officer
of the local authority.
·
a former leader of a council (X) was
found to have breached the council’s code of conduct in terms
of its respect, disrepute and bullying provisions regarding
X’s behaviour towards the interim monitoring officer and
section 151 officer. The complaint concerned various extensive
conduct allegations, including X being aggressive in a conference
call, threatening the officers’ jobs. No sanction was imposed
as X was no longer a serving councillor.
·
A large-scale landlord who harassed
local authority staff was found to be in contempt of court after
breaching a court injunction. The injunction had been imposed after
the landlord had harassed a member of the authority’s legal
team by insulting them and accusing them of criminal
offences.
The authority alleged the landlord had breached
the injunction by contacting the council leader, chief executive,
and information team rather than the single point of contact (the
head of legal), and making a series of Freedom of Information Act
requests.
It was found that the landlord had harassed
officers in the following ways:
-
by making hurtful personal comments
and unfounded allegations of criminal conduct;
-
by sending large volumes of
irrelevant material in a continuation of an unreasonable and
oppressive course of conduct.
Other
cases:
·
A constituent (X) sent an email to a
town councillor, copied to others, referencing her disabilities and
challenging her ability to perform her role. He was subsequently
convicted of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988
of “sending an indecent or grossly offensive electronic
communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety” and
was sentenced to a community order.
X appealed, successfully, arguing that his
email was a legitimate expression of his opinion and concerns under
Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The case held that:
-
Whilst some forms of expression are
beyond the right of free speech, eg solely vulgar abuse or ideas
aimed at destroying democracy, courtesy is not legally
required.
-
Whether a message is “grossly
offensive” is an objective question of fact by reference to
the content and context, not its effect, and the sender’s
purpose.
-
It must be considered whether the
message goes beyond what is tolerable in society, reflecting
society’s fundamental values including the weight to be given
to free speech, the need for tolerance for political speech and the
special need for tolerance by those holding public
positions.
-
Context must also be considered
– political speech attracts particular weight and requires a
high threshold for prosecution.
-
‘purposes’ must be
properly determined and not conflated with
‘intention’.
The
Standards and Governance Committee
Mr James Nelson