Agenda item

The Chair commented that the results of the questionnaire were disappointing as only 13 responses were received and questioned whether this was a representational response.  

It was noted that the answers to the questions were fairly positive and comments from individuals who had filled in the questionnaire had also been included for information. 

Main points

·         8 responses were received from Members

·         The best response received was Q1 where 100% of respondents replied in a positive manner (strongly agree or agree) that the work of the Standards Committee had a positive effect.

·         Q2 responses showed that 92% of respondents replied in a positive manner and thought that the Council operates in an ethical manner

·         Q3 showed an equal mix of agree and strongly agree responses in relation to whether the Council had clear policies and guidance in place.

·         100% of respondents agreed that it was easy for them to declare an interest.

·         53% of respondents felt that they did not need further training.

It was commented that Community Councils did request further training but that elected Members did not show the same interest.

The Chair commented on the respondent comments at the end particularly the comment regarding the profile of the Standards Committee being low and that maybe they needed to be referred to the annual report in terms of reporting back. It was also suggested that the information on the web pages should be updated to raise the profile of the committee and the members.

A Member stated that they thought that it was positive how a respondent thought that the Standards Committee was low profile and not very busy as if it was busy then there would be a cause for concern.

Another Member commented that they found it difficult to speak to certain officers and that they understood that it was not always possible to do this but that they found it invaluable but that everything had to be done by email.            

The Head of Law and Regulation confirmed that there were no restrictions on Members speaking to officers, provided that this was agreed with senior management. The issue was where Members in the past saw officers face to face and some junior officers felt under pressure to carry out actions.

It was also commented by the Head of Law and Regulation that there was nothing to stop Members speaking to officers face to face prearranged by appointment but going to staff to get advice needed to be channelled through senior management.

The Chair suggested whether an on-line survey would produce better results than a manual questionnaire. The Head of Law & Regulation advised that this could be considered, but responses were limited even with electronic surveys.

All 50 members were canvassed as well as 10 senior managers, who were also asked to cascade the survey among their managers and other officers who advised elected members on a regular basis, such as those offers attending Planning and Licensing committees.

It was noted that the staff survey response was also low and it could be assumed that those individuals who didn’t fill it in were satisfied and there were no issues. 

It was discussed that if there was a good relationship built up with an officer and Members then it shouldn’t be a problem.

It was noted that getting hold of officers was an issue and the Head of Law and Regulation reiterated that the current system was there for a reason.  It was not there to frustrate Councillors but to ensure that Members are not perceived to be exercising improper influence over junior staff.

Elected members should raise issues with the Head of Service or senior managers.

The Chair questioned whether this agenda item should be rolled on to the next meeting in January 2020. One of the points made was that a 10% return was a good response.

It was discussed how establishing a good relationship with officers was very beneficial and by doing it in a transparent way was the most important to avoid a Councillor getting in trouble for trying to influence.

Resolved:

§  That the Standards Questionnaire be considered at the next meeting and for the questionnaire to be sent to third and fourth tier staff.

§  That Standards Committees of other authorities be contacted to see how well their surveys were received.