Ministers must step carefully about councilors’ standards

The high standards are vital, but a new regime should only intervene in democratic mandates as a last resort, writes to the attached editor Martin George.

The role of being a councilor is strange.

His ‘work’ is one of the most publicly exposed in his community, but has few protections for abuse and harassment. You can expect decisions to be made in areas from finance and planning to pension investments, but you do not need any professional qualification. And you can expect you to dedicate an excessive amount of time to your role, however, you are paid a fraction of some of those who advise you.

Any other place, this would point to a serious problem with the position, but in the local government they are a function of its strength: its local community designates it to represent them.

It is this democratic mandate that makes the issue of how to ensure that the councilors are up to the high standards that are expected of them are so complicated. They are not employed and cannot be subject to the usual human resources processes. The bar to put aside the electorate’s trial must be very high.

This is the difficult but necessary that the government entered in December when it launched a consultation, Strengthen standards and behavior framework for local authorities in England.

Part of the government’s plans to “fix the foundations” of the local government, says “the current standards of local authorities and the behavior regime are in certain ineffective key aspects, applied inconsistently and lacking adequate powers to effectively sanction members who are in a serious breach of their codes of conduct.”

In fact, there is currently no disposition for the advice to suspend a member for the most serious infractions.

The proposals include the introduction of a mandatory minimum code of conduct for all councils, a requirement for local authorities to have a formal standards committee and the power to suspend the councilors and their assignments for up to six months for serious infractions. It is important to note that the latter would not activate the usual elimination of a councilor for not attending a council meeting for six consecutive months.

There is also a suggestion that the councilors under investigation could receive a provisional suspension, while receiving their assignment. This would be for three initial months and could extend.

The consultation closed last week, and the government will now consider the presentations.

While preparing his response, the Committee of Standards in Public Life celebrated a seminar of some of the great and good of the local government under the rule of Chatham House. While there was a consensus about some of the great questions, the detailed and nuanced discussion often reflected an understandable apprehension on the intervention when matters of democracy and politics are involved.

The most extreme cases of bad behavior, such as those involved violence, seemed clear: suspension is the right decision. But some expressed concern that “intimidation” will mean different things for different people, and a national code elaborated by “good middle class professionals” in Westminster could be “involuntarily unpleasant and discriminatory” as “different things could be interpreted differently by different groups of people.”

There are different trends that pull the debate in different directions.

Traditionally, the political parties played a key role in the application of good standards, with their internal processes that deal with great behavior, presenting some gaps left by the formal standards regime. This is now less true with the increase of a broader range of independent parties and councilors, which increases the argument to strengthen the formal system.

On the other hand, the last years have witnessed an increase in parties and candidates who have opinions that many people find that inflammatory and discriminatory are elected. A system of standards that prevent them from expressing the opinions that were chosen to express should be treated with extreme caution.

The danger is found in the fine lines and the gray areas where the behavior that would be unacceptable for an employee of the council could be accommodated in the case of an elected member.

There are no cookie cutter for the councilors. There will be rebels and eccentric. There will be those who are deeply challenging for the Council and their officers. There will be those who are, frankly, a pain in the back, express themselves in an unconventional way and represent their residents strongly. Such is diversity in communities councils.

In his introduction to the consultation, the Minister of the Local Government, Jim McMahon, acknowledged that “the solid political debate is part of our democratic system”, while emphasizing that “examples of harassment, harassment or other misconduct, when even a very small minority of the members can have a seriously destabilizing effect, potentially causing an irrepressic and distraction of the critical businesses of the residents.”

The government’s objectives are correct, but it must step on incredibly carefully to ensure that its new standards regime does not end up politics and democracy without an extremely good reason.