Transcript

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. So the next item of business is terms of reference of the Standards Advisory Committee, inviting them to update -- sorry, inviting them to review and note their terms of reference, their membership, quorum and similar sort of housekeeping matters. So the report in front of members asks them to note the current -- those documents, the current terms of reference, membership and dates and times of meetings. There's also a recommendation for the Advisory Committee to establish its standing subcommittees. There are two, the Investigation and Disciplinary Subcommittee and the Hearings Subcommittee. Members will also recall that in previous -- maybe 18 months ago there was a discussion regarding those two bodies, actually, and how there seemed to be a misalignment or an inconsistency between the procedure rules for the Standards Advisory Committee and the Code of Conduct for members. So officers have been working on that and have proposed a minor change to the Standard Advisory Committee procedure rules which hopefully will resolve that apparent inconsistency. The current procedure rules for the Advisory Committee are set out in Appendix 4 and in paragraph 3.16 of the main report the proposed amendment to the wording can be found. So one of the recommendations is whether the Advisory Committee are happy to amend or recommend that those procedure rules be changed. One other final point to note, Chair, is that appendix -- I think it's Appendix 2 to the main report -- sets out the current membership. That is the membership agreed at the AGM by the Council. And since that time, we have had a request from the Aspire Group to nominate a further substitute and that is Councillor Bodrill-Chowdhury who is here tonight and is deputising for Councilor Iqbal Hussain, as I think we mentioned. So just with that point to note I'm happy to take any questions. Chair. Any comments about terms of reference? Thanks, Alan. Just a quick question around Recommendation 2. So you know the two subcommittees, are they -- the representation politically proportionate? Because I think there's a mention of three members. I'm just checking that I'm pretty sure -- I might need to come back -- Matthew, do you know the answer to that? If memory serves, these are the subcommittees that have co-optees on, I think, aren't they, at the moment, in which case they wouldn't be necessarily proportional? Is it two co-optees and one member? So by definition it wouldn't be proportionate? Yeah, this is unchanged. We haven't had one of these for a long, long time. I think I'm the only member here who's attended them, and -- I think it is under -- I think it's one of the things on Linda's very small list of things that she's got to look at over her time, is how we do these. But, yes, that is how it is at the moment. The one I attended was both the person who had raised a complaint, was able to talk, and it was resolved amicably, or satisfactorily, if not amicably, there is a difference. I've got one small comment, not that Elizabeth takes in self, but in the listing of co-optees, Elizabeth's, my bloody efforts, is not there. MBE, sorry. Small battle. But in -- as far as it's looked at by external people, we might as well fly as many flags as we can. Only because he's got one. Um, I'm taking the absence of further comments to mean that we're all happy with the terms of reference as they stand. And, of course, we will review them again. It is important, in my view, because we're talking about complaints against councillors, that there are a majority of non-councillors on the committee, because that's open to challenge. So I think that -- and you don't want more than three people, and you can't have less than three, so it seems to be the right combination. We're going to move now to five to -- We also agree the establishment of the subcommittees and that change that I referred you to there. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. So moving to registered interests. Who's going to introduce this? Tricia. Thank you, chair. This is the regular update to the committee on members' register of interest and gifts and hospitality. We sent a reminder in January and asked members to confirm that all their declarations were up to date, which they all did, and a further reminder will be sent in July asking them again to give us confirmation that all declarations are up to date. We've been receiving the reports from committee services as well to let us know any declarations that have been made at meetings so that we can check them against the declarations that we have. At the same time in January, we sent a reminder about gifts and hospitality, and since November, up to 31st of May, we've had eight declarations of gifts and hospitality. Five were within the deadline and three were after the deadline. At the meeting in December, the committee spoke about the members' sensitive interests in the declaration of interest and the fact that there were more and more requests to withhold addresses from the Web site due to increasing tensions in the borough, and shortly after the meeting, the monitoring officer took the decision to take all addresses off the Web site, and that's the position at the moment, and earlier this year, there was a letter from the Minister for Local Government basically saying that this should be looked at sympathetically as well, requests to have addresses removed off the Web site. I think additional funding was also given by the Government for specific named officers in areas that councillors could go to if they had concerns, and in the bulletin, we circulated the name and contact details of the officer for Tower Hamlets, and the interim monitoring officer has taken the view as well that for now the addresses should stay off the Web site. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Elizabeth. I see Councillor Blake was at a dinner for parliamentary candidates. If she was there as a parliamentary candidate, why is she on this register? She submitted it as something that she wanted to declare to be transparent, so we've added to the register. I see. It doesn't really matter, but I just thought it was rather strange. I was thinking for complete transparency. I'm sure she did. Any other questions or comments? Well, I've got a question. If you refer to 311, which Tricia has, that the monitoring officer has member addresses be removed, I've actually no idea whether co-opted members' addresses appear somewhere in the cancelled database in public view. I'm not myself concerned, but. We ask for them to be included on the declaration, but we don't publish co-opted members' declarations on the Web site. So we do have them, but they're not published. Fiona, do you have any concerns about that? Well, in the absence of other comments ‑‑ Sorry, could I make ‑‑ Indeed. One more comment. The 313 about the nondisclosure for obvious, very sound reasons, what are the arrangements if there was, for example, someone in authority that wanted to access the information which isn't made public? At the moment the hard copy register reflects the public register, so you won't see anything by coming in to look at the actual register that you can't see on the public register. But it is available to ‑‑ yeah, to the authorities if ‑‑ I don't know, for example ‑‑ It's available to officers in the council. I don't know outside of that who else it would be available to. Given it's the monitoring officer who took the view to take them off the Web site, I think it's a call for the monitoring officers to who they get released to. So something obvious, like the police or the legal officers, they would be able to access it through the monitoring officer. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that that's a good point. I think that that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Thank you very much. I think that's a good point. Thank you very much. I think that's a really good point. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a great point. Thank you very much. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. Thank you very much. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. One of the greatest delays at the beginning of the process is that the complainant won't answer more questions or won't answer you when you go back for confirmation or anything like that. Now sometimes the counsellor won't reply to you and I think possibly there might be room for involving group leaders. That did happen occasionally in my experience. I guess people are too busy or think it might go away if they don't do anything. I think there could be a little bit more done there. I also completely agree with you that the independent person part of the process is quite straightforward. If it was a simple complaint, the monitoring office and I would deal with it very quickly. But there might be further steps. I must say I think your idea of mediation as an option is a really good one. If you're able to pursue that I would recommend it because it's too black and white complaint or not complaint. Sometimes there's just the way it was done or somebody spoke badly to somebody else, that kind of thing, which isn't really a source of complaint. I think it would help to keep everything in proportion. Before you respond, adding to what Elizabeth said, there's one complaint that you've dealt with here where the elected member took two months to come up with something. I asked the question to members, is that acceptable? I've run businesses in my commercial life and if I had senior employees taking two months to come back to me about a complaint that had been raised by a member of staff or a different department, I'd have them out the door following proper employment practice, of course. It seems to me that if somebody looks from outside, two months for an elected member to bother to respond is just, I'm saying it, unacceptable rather than asking you to say it's unacceptable, but I can see the nods around the room. The point about involving group leaders or cheap whips or whatever is something I think you should move to as quickly as you can. You'll know the individual members better than we do, so there may be circumstances, but I don't think you should wait. You've got too many other things to do, to be acting as a chaser. Someone else can chase them, and groups are just going to have to say this is the standard we aspire to, but it is what we aspire to, and you've got to cooperate because it's our good name, our collective good name that's at risk. I see the nods around the room. Well, a case which has been closed. It's 005, where there's a complaint about a counsellor assisting, moving a couch, which was fly-tipped, and this says the case is closed. I'm curious, there's a comment I need to find somewhere that says, 26 to 25 PDM of concluded complaint should not be investigated further, as the counsellor was not acting as a member at time of the incident. I don't understand, I thought as counsellors we are 24/7, seven days a week counsellors, and no than principle of objectivity is probably going to fail in this case. I just wanted some clarity on this. Funnily enough, the same sort of occurred to me, because we remember our mandatory training from Hoey Ainscough, and you know, one has to have regard in everything one does as an elected member to how it would be perceived by the ordinary person in the street. Presumably is why the complaint was raised. So, Jill, can you mention that specifically? Thank you. What's the guidance or what the code of conduct says is very clearly that you are a counsellor, is acting as a counsellor and therefore subject to the code of conduct, when they're holding themselves out to be a counsellor, when they are acting as a counsellor, when the ordinary member of the public might perceive them to be a member, an elected member. But in this matter, the counsellor, the incident happens just around the corner from the counsellor's house. The counsellor was not wearing, you know, counsellor robes or holding himself out to be a counsellor. The complainant was very, very unhappy about this, and said it looks even worse the fact that he just happened to be passing. I agree, but it's very clear in the legislation that the code of conduct cannot cover actions which an elected member or a co-opted member does, when they are not acting as a member. So while you may think that that's unsatisfactory, it is unsatisfactory in many ways. Because obviously a counsellor is a counsellor and they are a leader in their community. And what they do on a Saturday night, if they do something stupid, reflects badly on the council just as much as if they did it on a Tuesday afternoon in a meeting. But that's what it says, so that's the basis on which that was thrown out. But actually the counsellor, when I spoke to the counsellor, he didn't provide any information which would back up what was said anyway. So I was left with two conflicting accounts and wasn't really able to move it any further forward because there was no corroboration. And on that one it took him a very, very long time to get back, which was very annoying. For that explanation it kind of snags the face of integrity, regardless of whether I wore a counsellor badge or not, I am recognised as a counsellor and as you say, the counsellor didn't have a kind of issue of integrity and seeing somebody helping somebody fly tip. It doesn'tigmatize my case, I may be plain clothed and have an incident outside and there's no disciplinary conduct to follow on this, it seems very, very odd. Where indeed if somebody has evidence that they saw a counsellor or member of public fly tipping, I think the mayor has now raised that fine to something substantial. So maybe this person should be referred to the invite protection team and they should be slapped with the huge fine that the mayor has recently implemented. Well that in fact is what I did and I made it clear to the complainant that the council can prosecute counsellors if they have the right information. So that is irrespective of somebody's intervention of the monitoring officer but I basically provided information so that this complainant could pass the information to the relevant team to investigate in relation to the alleged fly tipping. Linda. Yeah, I was just going to add something on both counts and the first one, Councillor Islam, I think what it is, the reason the guidance has been written in that way is because everybody's entitled to a private life and it's trying to get that balance between your official capacity as a counsellor and your things that you do in your private life, it's trying to get that balance and the guidance is reinforced by case law and there was quite a famous case involving Ken Livingstone where he'd left an event which he had been attending as mayor but he'd left it and there was an incident with a journalist and that was deemed to be in his private capacity, not in his capacity as the mayor. So that is reinforced because you do have a private life, you do have your public life and it is quite a difficult concept and certainly when we're dealing with complainants they find it difficult because they know a person is a counsellor so they think they're a counsellor 24/7 but that isn't the case and the latest guidance that the LGA have provided, there's quite a lot of detail about this very point and it's something I'll be dealing with in the member training because it is quite difficult to get your head round it. Some of the cases that are borderline that we deal with, it can be quite a close call as to whether the person is acting as a counsellor or not and on the other point about the delays because of members not responding, it's something that has been brought to my attention and again that will be reinforced in the training and also with my meetings with the group leaders because the group leaders need to reinforce that message that there is an obligation to comply with an investigation or the provision of information to respond and to cooperate with a code of conduct complaint and there does seem to be in certain cases where members are either taking a long time or in fact not engaging at all so it is on my radar, something that needs to be taken up and reinforced that that isn't acceptable. I implied from what you're saying that there are some updated training programmes coming. I'm not aware of them. We're doing some for the counsellors, yes, we've done the ethics and probity for COPTs recently, we're doing some for counsellors coming up. I'll talk to you about it offline. Fiona? Sorry, can I just build on Councillor Islam's point which is if this person who is fly tipping is then… …because it's an offence and is then prosecuted for the offence, to what extent does that then impact on the code? So that was the first question. And the second question is, I think we specifically put in the code of conduct when we reviewed it under H, as a member I cooperate with any code of conduct investigation and/or determination, so at what point does not complying then become an issue in itself, regardless of the substance of the original complaint? I have on occasion sent emails to counsellors saying not complying with my enquiries is in itself a breach of the code of conduct and I have reminded them. I'm not sure that it's terribly effective. What I have found is more effective is finding the right person to talk to to encourage the counsellor to talk to me. And Matthew in particular has been very helpful in identifying the right person on occasion. So I'm very grateful to him for that. In relation to somebody being convicted of something in relation to their private life, I refer to Linda because basically if you're convicted of an offence in your private life, it does not fall within the remit of the monitoring officer if it does not relate to the counsellor's role as a counsellor. There might be pressure put on by that counsellor, by their group to withdraw from the group or to resign, but it's not really a matter for the monitoring officer at that point, in my view. Thank you. Because one of the things that builds on Councillor Islam's point around bringing the counsellor in to disrepute, and that does talk about things like deceit and dishonesty. So that deceit and dishonesty is only within acting as a counsellor, not acting as a counsellor. So there's no circumstances under which bringing the counsellor in to disrepute can take into account any actions that a counsellor undertakes not being a counsellor? I think you've agreed to that but I just wanted to double check. That's my understanding, yes. And obviously if something really serious like that happened I would discuss it with the monitoring officer and probably the other deputy monitoring officer and we would consider what we needed to do. We could even seek counsel's opinion if it got that serious. But it would be a case-by-case decision about what the appropriate thing was. Because we do take it very seriously but there is a limit on what we can do. And actually it can be that the limit is quite, the area you can cover is quite small at times. There's a case 013, someone contacted the counsellor, the counsellor's speeding, but again, it's probably somebody speeding with no counsel ID on late at night. I don't know why you would even accept these complaints to come forward to us. We shouldn't be just dismissing them, saying the counsellor's out of duty at the time when they're speeding. The complaint wasn't about the counsellor speeding, it was actually a complaint about antisocial behaviour I think. I think it's just been written in a slightly unhelpful way. So it wasn't an allegation that the counsellor had been speeding, it was an allegation that the counsellor had failed to respond to a complaint to them. It was an allegation, it was a complaint about other people and about the counsellor's alleged lack of response. Thank you, Chair. My question's regarding the long complaint, 002 from 2000 last year. So it's really about what element of safeguarding do people raise complaints to get and a reason why I ask is this is quite a long complaint and it seems to be the person who raised the complaint doesn't even work at a counsellor anymore. So what element of safeguarding and support do people get when they raise complaints and also what then happens, because here it's even saying the person should be contacted and their personal email address and they don't even work anymore. So I guess, yeah, simply my question is about when complaints are raised, how people supported in such long processes that should have been cleared out the year before and then what lessons do we then learn? Is there sort of a case study where you look at case that took so long and say what were the failings, what we're going to learn from it, so on and so forth? I've discussed that case a lot with both the previous monitoring officer and with Linda and it was a really difficult case. I think my reflection on that one is that's one where it would have been better to have an off ramp involving mediation at an earlier stage rather than going down the full investigation route, which I don't think was terribly satisfactory to either party really. So I think we need to think more as creatively as possible about the best way of achieving an outcome which is acceptable to both people and just going down the punitive route isn't always the right way. Because ultimately you're expecting these people to continue to work together and to have to be in the same room again. And that's a particular problem where you have a complaint made by an officer against a member, which is quite unusual. Most of the complaints are actually not made by officers, they're made by members of the public. Moving on to my questions and comments, the first one is a complaint from me, and I don't particularly want an officer response and it's referring to the first one on page 49, the bribery case. I think some of us know more of the background, but this is now a matter of record, it's there. I would have thought that perhaps by means of a confidential pink note you would have told us more about this because those of us who read the newspapers or get asked about things know that this thing finished up with a six figure compensation. If I'm on the right one. And I would have preferred to have got some council explanation so that if I were asked, and I had been previously asked, but I haven't seen that person since, why did the council pay out all that money, I would be better informed. But it's as if, you know, we're not joining the dots, it's finished, but in a sense it's not finished because I know about it, but I don't really understand, others and I have had one explanation from the chief exec, but they don't have anything in writing. And it may well be that other members of this committee know about it and have joined the dots, but don't really understand why it cost us that much money. Don't say anything, just think about it and then perhaps produce that confidential item so we are better informed about where that one ended up. Next point on page 59 is the very small… Can I just say that that case is not finished yet? Oh, even though money has been paid out? I can't tell you more, but the legal case is not resolved. Oh, right. So, the legal case and the investigation are two completely separate bits. I understand that and perhaps the complaint is still valid that perhaps somebody should have told us that, by the way, there is a separate legal case and we can't tell you any more, but when we can we'll tell you. But, I'll leave it for the moment. Next one, very, very small matter, page 59. What is an SMSO? I didn't understand the abbreviation. Chaser email sent, 5th of September 23. I don't know what an SMSO is. Anyway, we think that the SM is subject member. All right. I'm not sure, but it wasn't me that wrote it. And then, my penultimate one is if you look at page 66, 00823, something's gone wrong with the dates there. It says, target date 24/11, complaint received 8/11, requested to log online 19/10, 25/10, you know, that's before the complaint was even received. So, I'm not asking for an explanation now, but just take it away and correct whatever it should be for the record. The same thing. I think it should say 8/10. Oh, I draw it to your attention. Same thing occurs on page 69, 01023. The dates seem a bit odd. And then, finally, from me, so many pages. Okay. I was going to ask more about 02/24, the Mayor's complaint. Any news on that, given that you sent an email to the Councillor over a month ago? He's responded, yes. Right. Good. Well, I'm not asking for the end point of that, but something's happening. Something's happening, yes. And I suppose, finally, through me, and I'm looking at Matthew, I've told Matthew before, as a junior management consultant, one of my first jobs was forms design. I just hate going through this format when you've got a long complaint, and I've previously suggested how we can reformat it, so that these long ones all appear on one piece of paper or on one screen, because it just makes it easier for us to cope with. I don't want to become a forms design expert again. I'm sure the Council has people who can do that. Are there any other questions or comments on this item? No. Thank you. Let's move on then to 5.5, best practice guidance, LGA. Thank you, Chair. So this is an item that came to us from outside. So some of you will remember how Hoegh & Skuff Associates, they did our ethics and property training after the elections in 2022, and they have been asked by the LGA to create some sort of best practice guidance for the operation of standards committees. And because they've worked with us relatively recently, they asked if we could consider some sort of standard questions around the sorts of things they might want to include in the guide for the LGA. I've put the questions in here, just note these are the standard questions, so that doesn't necessarily mean the committee needs to answer all of them. So, for example, we asked about the terms of reference. Well, he's got our terms of reference, so that's okay. You don't have to worry about that. But you might well have comments on some of the other areas there. And then too late to add to the report, but I sort of carried on conversation with Paul, and he's agreed with the LGA that if any members of the committee here would be interested in reading the draft guidance as they've got it at the moment, so not as a paper in the committee, because it's LGA paper, they're not happy for it to be circulated at that level, but if anyone would like to take a copy away tonight to read and then come back with comments. It is early draft, so there's sort of comments and little notes on themselves to think about things and that kind of stuff, so don't take it as final, but if you're interested and would like to come back with comments to us, then we will forward them on to Paul. George? Yeah, I'm good. Two, three, we'll cover for you. I had a further thought that it may come after the survey comes out and the results. I know he's a very capable man and extremely experienced, but there may be some point in him drawing some officers and some members into some kind of brainstorming to help him sort of crystallize -- well, not crystallize, but explore what comes from the survey, or if the survey's disappointing, actually put some more in, because my guess is you'll be answering our response. You'll be providing our response. We've come up with some ideas, but it will happen in every authority in the same way, so there may be people out there with thoughts that may be helpful to him. Anyway, you can throw that at him. Any other comments, questions on this item? No? Thank you. Let's move on then to LGA peer review. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I was just supposed to complete that last item, so if anyone's got any comments, send them to me and I'll collate and circulate to the group. So, yes, this one -- so this comes from a request from the Chair. I think it was at the last meeting that we'd had the LGA -- the last meeting, or at some point, anyway -- we'd had the LGA peer review last summer, and there was an action plan published in December, which I think was after the last, or roundabout, last committee meeting, and the Chair asked if there were any actions that came out of that that were relevant to this committee, the committee would like to have a little note about that, and so they could comment or question or challenge, or whatever you want to -- if that was appropriate. So, we put this little note together, and I put in the two sort of closest to our work. Obviously, most of the technical stuff is the Code of Condo, which the peer review didn't specifically cover, but there are things around, so member training and that kind of stuff which this committee takes an interest. So, there's a quick update for you, and if there's anything you would like to follow-up or take on further, we can look at it now. Comments anyone? Yeah. There was an additional recommendation about the handling of complaints, wasn't there? Sorry, Ahzine, you mean, not one of the ones in this report, or -- So, I may have this wrong, and forgive me if I misread, but Recommendation 17 around responsiveness was around reviewing the Council-wide approach to handling member inquiries, complaints, and freedom of information, and I recognise we don't deal with member inquiries and freedom of information. But, is complaints the ones about councillors, or are they different sorts of complaints? I took that as being complaints about services rather than complaints about members. That's helpful, thank you. Anyone? I spotted an auto-correction that had gone wrong. If you look at page 93, the right-hand column in the gap, it says, an initial coaching pilot is now underway, and the tension is being, presumably, that tension is to begin similar roles in being. But I understood what you meant. Well, I think the answer is, my response is good. Let's see what comes from this. Fiona, you're running short of power. While you're doing that, let's move on to 5.7, effectiveness of the committee. Linda? This report has been written following the meeting that you and Fiona had with myself and the chief executive, and we thought that it would be useful for the committee to have a summary of, in effect, what we'd discussed. So, we're highlighting some of the issues that you'd raised with us, and, you know, we'd said that we would take forward, and we've done it under this heading, because it is all to assist in the effectiveness of the advisory committee. We were talking about a number of things, and I think one of the key things, and you've alluded to that earlier on, is keeping the committee up to date with things that are happening between committee meetings, and then in the coming of significance, which that hasn't happened in the past. We also talked about having regular meetings with yourself, so again, we can update you in between meetings, and we have had one of those such meetings. I think it's probably important to get them in the diary, because it did take some doing to try and get the availability of the four of us. It's not very, very difficult. But we got there in the end. We then talked about some council-wide issues, and one of them was the appointment of the permanent replacement to my role, and that was underway, and we said that it should be concluded in early July. The interviews are on the 9th of July. They had to be postponed from a previous date in May, because one of the candidates was ill and unable to attend, so they decided to postpone it, and the reason for a long postponement was just with the elections, because everybody's tied up with the elections. We've talked about the best value inspection. That was due to conclude on the 31st of May, but then shortly before that date, it was extended until the 31st of July, and we were notified it was to look at the council's arrangements for the general election, and to conclude some of the outstanding issues. Then the final bullet point is the review of the Constitution. Again, when it came to Tower Hamlets, it was clear that there had been some work that had taken place, but it had lost a little bit of momentum, so it was important to get a meeting of the working group put in place, which we did have that meeting on the 19th of June, and I think it was very effective, because although everyone had ties on their time, it did actually focus everybody's mind, so that it wasn't just a talking shop, which sometimes these things can be. People were quite focused, and basically, when we'd raised a number of things, I think we basically got the go ahead to continue with that work. We have agreed that there's some quick wins that we can actually do. There's already been some changes to the Constitution, but there's further changes that can quite easily be made, and they're done in accordance with the ADSO recommendations. We agreed that as the first phase, and then we'll start looking at other things for the second phase, but at least by not trying to be too ambitious, and take things in small bite-sized chunks, we're more likely to be able to achieve it. But obviously, in the longer term, everything will be addressed. So, they were the main things that we discussed, and have actually all been taken forward in accordance with that discussion, but as I say, we did feel it was important that the full committee, this information we shared with them, and again, these matters will be updated at the next meeting, because these things, well, certainly the first two will have been concluded, and then there will be further work on the Constitution to report back on. So, I hope that was helpful to you. Yes, thank you. Fiona? Well, I've got a couple of things. I'd certainly welcome the opportunity to meet the chief exec, and I think the idea that we continue to meet regularly is important. I'll again request, when we fix the dates, another, maybe the vice-chairman, but maybe one of the other members comes along, because I think it's important that the way relationships develop over time can be shared, and not just hung on the chair, who have no intention of falling under a bus, but who knows. So there's that. The thought that we might be sent relevant media items doesn't quite hit where I was heading, which was wanting for us to be able to access all media mentions of time, so for us to be able to decide whether something was relevant, rather than somebody filter it, and only get it to us. So Steve did recognise, I think, and I accepted what he said. It's a question of how that can be done. I think we'd rather do the test of relevance, rather than somebody else do it for us. So that's a point not to be debated now, but to be taken forward. And certainly it's a point you made about, let's get some dates in the diary. It would be easier for you to chase Steve than me, based on previous experience. But I hope members of the committee think that's a good initiative, and that we should build on. Oh, there was one other thing, Linda. I was putting you on the spot. Based on your experience in other authorities, are there any other thoughts that have occurred to you as to how we might become more effective? I should have given you notice of that. I think no matter which authority it is, there's always an opportunity to learn, isn't there? I think one of the things that you may do is look at other authorities and how they operate. I must say the way standards operates in Tower Hamlets is quite different to the way I've seen it operating elsewhere. And there may be some learning from that. But I think it is a process, and I suppose it's the appetite for how much change you would want for the committee. I think the important thing that I felt for today, and this is why I wanted to make sure it was a meeting that I could actually personally attend, was I think we need to just get a bit more momentum going. Because obviously there'd be a gap between the last committee and this committee meeting. And I think we just need to give some thought about the things that you would want to hear about, that you would want to be involved in. So that we have a much better dialogue than I think had been the case in the past. But I do think it's a process and I think we will put more thoughts together maybe by doing some comparisons and bringing that back to you for a more detailed discussion on this topic as a whole. Good. We would welcome that. I'm still just about using the Japanese term 'Kaizen' for continuous improvement as we know. And we've always had that approach, so good. We look forward to that. Moving on then, unless there's anything else? No. Annual report. Jill, don't embarrass me by saying you haven't come back to me, John. Perish the thought. Thank you, chair. So the annual report is here as a draft. Obviously if people want to add anything to it or make any corrections or changes, please let me know. I was reading it through before the meeting and I realised that there were a couple of minor errors which need to be corrected. So obviously I will go through it before it goes to council and make sure that it does refer to the right number of meetings, for example, and all that kind of thing. So it gives a picture of the kind of things that we've done, covers complaints, covers dispensations. It's up to date about attendance and hospitality and the other work which the committee has done during the year. I'm very happy to take any questions or comments. Anybody? Send me the word file and I'll come back to you with that. Okay. Someone ought to update the local government on 1972 which doesn't allow hybrid meetings. Were such things even heard of in 1972? Matthew. Thank you, chair. Just to say that obviously once the report is finalised, we take it for council. And if you can let us know, we've got 17th July, 2nd October, the next two, so let us know which one works best for you to come and present and then we'll fit it on the calendar, the work plan for council. I'll talk to you before I leave. Member attendance update 59. So, chair, we actually covered part of this earlier on, but I realised belatedly that it was just part of the report, so the exempt appendix related to coopty attendance. In fact the main part of the report and the part that the advisory committee are used to receiving is for elected member attendance. I don't know if you wanted to… I do, yes. Okay, well the report really just sets out elected member attendance over the previous municipal year, which I think is May 23 to May 24, just before the AGM. Each member is represented and their overall attendance shown. And the advisory committee are asked to note it and make any comments they wish. So, let's have some comments, surely. Well, my own view is that any member who achieves 100% deserves some kind of recognition. Sure she has a life, but no. It's very good. There's only one member, Councillor, I asked Meir, who is at 53%. My own view is, and I think below 60%, one needs to ask the question. But he's an independent now, so it's more difficult to ask his leader or whip to do anything. The cooptees, though, are rather less good for a couple, aren't they? So, are they being followed up? Yes, Chair. So, you recall we discussed right at the start of this meeting, and you recall it was a recommendation from the standards committee that any cooptee member failing to attend at least half of the ordinary scheduled meetings will be flagged to the relevant appointing committee. There's really only two appointing committees that have received this report this year. We're in one and the other one was the overview and scrutiny committee. They received the report, and I believe they reached a similar conclusion. They agreed to keep it under review, but haven't taken any sort of punitive action, I guess, against the cooptee members who may not have attended as many. You've groveled anyway, you said. Any other comments? Thanks, Ron. Matthew, you know, with the table we've got a list of members and the data on there. I think it might be useful just to add an aggregate percentage score. So, you know, you've got it broken down between in person and virtual, but then if I expected, you've got one overall number. If you were to add the two percentages as a percentage, it might just be useful as an aggregate. Obviously, I have the breakdown, but then also I have the total because that's what John referred to in his example. Additionally, I think it might be useful just to, I think it's 3.5 of the report where you talk about the different indicators. For example, when someone's expected, when someone substitutes, all of that stuff is considered. But within the table, I just wanted to clarify where it says, for example, expected 17 and present 12, does that number 12 represent the meetings they were expected to be in, but also the ones that they had substituted? I can answer that. I'm pretty sure it refers to, it's a score against how many times they were expected. So, it should, so the number should add up from however many they were expected, attended and did not attend, basically. And there was it. Or would it? Would it be included in that number? Because a substitute by default isn't expected to be at the meeting, right? Yeah, I understand your point, absolutely. I'm pretty sure in these statistics it isn't represented, but it is available on the website. For any individual counsellor, there are sort of additional attendances will be logged. But yeah, I understand what you're saying. Yeah, that's a very good point, because if a member for whatever reason can't attend, but organises a substitute, that's what we want. We just don't turn up. We also want to know that. So, quite how you incorporated, reported. We've created people round here. We know how to do these things. You'll find a way. Yeah, it's a good point. I think it comes back to the point you made about the other report, John. There's lots of ways we can present this data and lots of ways we can break it down and more information we can provide. I suppose it's just about making something that's readable, accessible and useful. But I certainly have a think about different ways we can present the attenders' data. Thank you. I think that takes us on to the work plan. Is that you, Joel? Yes, yes, Chair. Thank you. So, this is a new work plan. So, we have a new municipal year for the Committee. The work plan is largely built from regular reports that the Advisory Committee receives, many of which we've considered tonight, many of which are quarterly or six monthly. There's also an actions list at the top of the report, and whilst it's a new work plan, some of those actions are not brand new. But there are some. So, these are generally things that the Committee has asked for. Some of which have been asked for, I think, since the last meeting. So, you see in the column, the fourth column along, it says originating meeting, many of which you'll notice are sort of March, April 2024. We didn't have any meetings at that time, but I think these have arisen from discussions between yourself, John, or sort of email conversations. And most of those actions on the list are actually on the agenda tonight. There are two that aren't, which is the public web page on standards in public life, the number one on the action list. And the annual review of the code of conduct, number four on the action list, both of those are scheduled for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee, which is in September. And just to remind the Advisory Committee, last time we looked at this work plan, members were really keen that we assign due dates or actions, sort of action dates for each of those. So, at the moment, they all do, but just to put it on everyone's radar. Happy to take any comments. Elizabeth? I'm very interested in the public web page. Sounds good, I do. Just to say, what we've done previously with the review of the code of conduct and the member officer protocol is kind of have conversations, whether that's electronically or sort of within working groups. And I've certainly really valued that opportunity to kind of work more collaboratively with different councillors to try and understand the issues and make sure that the code's up to date and so forth. For me, that's a really important document in terms of, you know, driving the expected, how we hold ourselves to account. And so I just wondered whether it was worth kind of setting up those working groups before the September meeting rather than after the September meeting so that we kind of keep it within the municipal year. So it's just a thought, if people felt that that would be useful and helpful. Do we have? We can look at that, certainly. Is there any other business? It's not strictly on the agenda, but I can tell you that the postal vote system is working. My postal vote arrived today. Sorry, John. Just quickly. If we have a change of government expected and there aren't any implications for heavy conduct standards, I think it will be useful to get a briefing at September meeting or January or at the earliest opportunity to see if there aren't any implications or if there aren't any new guidance that comes up. It's certainly a good point. We'll keep an eye out on any announcements from the government and yes, we'll try and report them. And as the chair has suggested, we circulate things in advance of meetings. We'll see if we can get things around if there's anything in particular. Thank you, everyone. We'll see you in September. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.