Transcript

Welcome everybody to the meeting of the Standards Advisory Committee. It would be a normal practice to appoint a chair and vice chair, a deputy chair at the beginning of the first meeting of the municipal year. That should have been held in June, but unfortunately due to various circumstances that didn't take place. As this is now officially our first meeting, I'm going to call for nominations for the chair for the municipal year. So can I have nominations, please? I'd like to nominate Rez a chair. Okay. And could I ask -- Whether or not he wants to be here. Thank you. So Rez, would you like to come and take a seat here and then -- That's you, Salty. Thank you very much indeed. And thank you for nominating me. Secondly, my thanks of course to Kathalista and Tasha Kussain. Thank you very much. Now that I'm sorted, there is the matter of deputy chair of the committee. Do I have any nomination in front of one? I'm good to ask. Our previous deputy isn't here today. I hope we can nominate Judy if she's happy to continue. Yes, that's a good idea. And then if Judy says she doesn't want to -- Then we'll have another go, yeah. All right. Thank you very much. So then let me introduce the -- good evening, everyone, particularly to those who are joining us via the live link. I'm sure you're in for another exciting meeting this evening. Not least, of course, because we have a new monitoring order. So I think it would be appropriate to introduce at this moment in time. Richard McCoy, we welcome you to your post and to this committee. Right. So we have a rather impact agenda. I know I always say that every meeting, that's probably a way of finding sure that we make speedy progress so you can all at some point go home. First on the agenda is apologies for any absence or substitutes. Yes, this is apologies from Julie Van Vossel, Gary Moses, and from cancer to Vika Ali. Thank you very much. Agenda item two, declarations of input. Anyone? No? Very good. Three, which is the minutes of the last action -- the last meeting and the action log which we can find from page nine of our pack. And if I could ask you to just cast your eyes on that, starting at page nine. As is my practice, I don't really propose to go through with every line for line except for the -- unless anyone brings anything to my attention. So starting on page nine, over the page, page ten, I'll come to the action log in just a tick. But just going over the content of the minutes, and then over to page seven, page 12, 13, 14, and finally, top of page 15. Any corrections from anyone? Do we then confirm the contents of the minutes to be accurate? If so, please say aye. Aye. >> Thank you very much. Let's turn to the action log, which is at page 17 of our pack. And there are a number of them which are open received from the top column, SAC 008. Unless the monitoring officer wishes to take us through or anybody else wishes to take us through any of these in particular. What I propose to do -- I mean, the closed ones are in page 19 at the bottom of the column, and then at page 20 and 21. But is there anything that catches anybody's eye, particularly on the open ones, that I think bears any discussion this evening, do you think? Chair? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Just to update the committee on the recruitment of the independent person, members will recall that just before the summer break, we shared a draft advert with members, and thank you to those members who provided their comments on that. It was felt appropriate that because it was the summer period that we held off to, you know, most people had returned from holiday and would like school work and college for us then to put out the advert. And also to give us a chance to have a discussion with the new monitoring officer about the potential for an allowance to be paid associated with that post. So it is anticipated that the advert will go out this month. And we just wanted to record our thanks to Christina for being so patient as well, given the difficulties that we've had with recruitment and hopefully we'll be able to update members at the next meeting. Thank you. This has been rumbling on for quite a while, hasn't it? And no disrespect to all of the efforts being put into it. But I think we've been quite frankly, we've been hearing this line that we need to get to it as quickly as possible. Intervening events have come in. But are we any near to this? Because I think initially there were issues with the mode of adverts and the pool of sort of -- or the banks of places that one could go. I think we've ironed those out now, haven't we? Are we now in the position? >> Many of us were now satisfied with the draft to go out and felt that it was more attractive to go out. But obviously the final issue was about the allowance and the discussion that had been had with the previous monitoring officer. So it was right that we, you know, alerted the new monitoring officer to that, to see whether or not that issue could be finalized. So we're hoping that should be sorted and the advert will be out this month. And so we should be able to report back at the meeting now. >> Thank you. I was going to ask, when's the closing date? And roughly how long between the closing date and is it until somebody is actually confirmed in that role? What will be the process? Will you meet with them, Rachel or Reza? >> Well, I mean, certainly if you'd like to. I mean, it's an interview process. It's, you know, it's in the way that most interviews are conducted, but it would just be usually, well, previously when I've done this, it's just been kind of myself and maybe a couple of the principals, not too overly onerous because at the end of the day, it is, it's a very important role, but it's a voluntary role, essentially, just with an allowance, just that's just to cover just basics. And it's almost just an offer in there, but I'd have no objection for school. So in terms of timeline, I'm not sure at NIM how long recruitment takes, but I would have thought we wouldn't want it floating on forever. Well, I'm afraid with this one, it has been. I think we need to see the end of this. Well, I mean, it's very good of you to invite me, but one doesn't want to scare the future candidate, I mean, at least because the allowance isn't all that great, and then confronted with a panel of four or five people. I mean, I'm not sure that that's going to sort of foster any confidence. But anyway, I mean, I'm happy to be part of it if the committee would like me to. >> I just think perhaps it would be good to have it, that person sorted by the next time, which I've just looked at December the 11th. I mean, I would hope that's October, November, three months, I would hope that could be long enough, please. If not, we might have to go out into the highways and byways. >> Yes. When do I drop off? >> Okay. Right. So if that's okay with you, I can probably answer that slightly. Obviously, once an equipment process done and the candidate is chosen, it does actually have to go to full council for approval. So once that's achieved, hopefully, we should have enough council meetings between now and your next meeting. No, there is. >> For that to happen. There's a November meeting. Until the 16th. So it won't be in time for our next meeting. They could come and look, perhaps. We might have a meeting in November, I'm sure, council meeting. So you think it might be done by then? >> Maybe that would be the aim, I guess. That would definitely be the aim. >> Then I'm assuming that what the process would be is that we would write to Christina to advise accordingly and go from there, I guess, and the next meeting. Hopefully, either be able to attend the meeting in December. Fingers crossed. All right. So basically, wait until I get -- I will see the letter from you. But of course, the committee is always very grateful for your attendance and for all the work that you have put in in the course of your term. So that goes without saying, I think. But yes, I think we need to put the skates on this and nip it in the bud. Because I don't particularly want to say -- I'm sure you all feel the same -- I don't want to see this in the open action log, continuing forever. >> Sorry, council reach out to this committee. Welcome. >> Thank you. Forgive me if I'm asking some silly questions. >> At all. I notice on SAC 17, the names -- >> Page 18, yeah. -- is there an opportunity to update those actions? That's quite right. I think -- well, the name, I would have thought, would have been looked at. I imagine this has been left out purely as a matter of administrative error rather than anything else. >> But I'm also going to say that the participants in Tennyson occupied, it was no longer a post -- Quite, quite. >> That's more of a concern as it goes to parliament. I also note that on that one, it's -- Yeah. >> It has been established. Chair, I can respond to that. Yes, apologies. It was an oversight. Obviously the people's names have now left. So that -- you know, and you may already know this, anyway, that we have appointed somebody who's coming in to look at member induction and training. And there will be -- I'm hoping it's okay for me to say this. There will be a workshop on training at the end of September. And then after that, the working group will be -- will take place. I believe a list of names have been put forward for the Councillors to be on that working group. But I don't know whether they've been approached. And I'm guessing as you haven't been, then -- that you haven't been. I think your name is actually on the list. So they will be approached and obviously will be given some dates. We're trying at the moment. Unfortunately, as you know, the Council Diaries are very congested and trying to find the time when -- and hopefully the aim is to have them twice a month. So hopefully you will all be written and advised and so we can probably update this. >> I think it's just a question. It's something that I've noticed creeping into the Council quite a bit at the moment that reports say things have happened when they haven't quite finished the intentions there, that the actions haven't been followed up. So I think it would be helpful, especially for this committee when the timelines are so important, that actually we're clear on what has happened, what's intended, and it goes back to the recruitment point as well. Yes, I think while you were having that dialogue, I was visiting all of the entries in the open action log and it seems to me that they all need to be revised, don't they? Not just in relation to what the actions are, whether they're pending, and who is responsible for those actions. But I'm just looking at the induction and training update. This is the third column of papers. And on the last box, I mean, those descriptions are somewhat out of date now, aren't they? We spent 27th of April meeting committee, I mean, 27th of April of which year, it's not very clear, SAC 12th of July, and then it says the committee on progress made since July 2022. We're in September 2024. Now, just remind us on this, would you, anybody, particularly I'm looking at the supporting staff as to where we are on the induction and training program, because I believe this is a rolling issue. And we've had difficulties with this historically of both people attending or failure to attend, etc. So what's the update on this? Does anyone know? I can take that as an action to check and send an email round to members. Yes, particularly by reference to previous minutes on where we left this issue. I'm afraid I myself quite recall where we left it on the last occasion. I might have said, and correct me if I'm wrong by any members, those of you who have been in the committee for a while, I might have said that this needs to be added as a standing item in our work program because of the concerning issues involved. I mean, we were quite concerned as to the type of training and the level of attendance or the lack thereof. So I think this needs to come in. I know we have a web program to deal with in due course, but I think that needs to come in as a standing item. And I'm sure it's an item that's going to be improved upon through the passage of time. Do you all agree with that or do you have a different view? We ought to get it sorted, yes. We do because in my mind it's unfinished business as far as training is concerned. May I also say, I mean it refers quite frequently to induction training in places as well. Yes, it does, you're quite right. I think I'm well over the space for induction now and this whole issue is impacting, as we know in other items on this agenda and the LGAP review and on the governance and scrutiny report, there is an argument to be said that actually this council has badly let us down in terms of training, very badly. Yes, and I think there was a debate in the past, wasn't there, as to whether or not ownership of that item ought to be transferred from the other committee to us by way of an oversight. There was, if my memory serves me right. As I understand it, this is with the overview and scrutiny committee, is that right? With audit. But anyway, it's with another committee. It's with another committee. But we were in the middle of having that debate or that discussion, particularly with fine-tuning our terms of reference as to whether we need to bring that particular item into this committee. And I think we were all having the discussion that it makes sense to do that, since we are having a discussion on this, quite frankly, pretty much every committee meeting, for the best part of, I think, the last two or three years. By the time we've finished, it'll be time for a new intake. Yeah, I mean, I think, well, it was induction because, of course, it was just prior to the last election, one of the last election anyway. But of course, it no longer is. So I think the title needs to be amended. Yes, it was member development in general. However, the officers currently present haven't been privy to who is leading on that. There are, as far as we were aware, discussions that were ongoing, there was a member development programme that they are currently looking at. So I will take that as an action point to find out exactly what is proposed and see what information can be shared with the committee. And it won't need to wait until the next meeting. We can share that via email, so at least members are aware. Yes, quite right. And if it is with another committee, as I said, I can't quite remember which committee it is with, then I think that we need to bring that to us. And if that means that one needs to amend our terms of reference, then serve it, because it's an important work and work that certainly this committee has put in. We have a number of, not just discussions, but also I recall, making amendments and good suggestions for the type of training that needs to go in. I recall the very long list of the training items being presented to this committee and we were giving our views on it. Would officers take an action to refresh the action log? Yes. Multiple entries for the same item as well? Yes. So we can refresh that. Yeah, absolutely. So absolutely, we will come back on the members development, where that is my understanding, but just get into groups where everything is, is that's with Democratic Services and that working with the LGA on a whole program. But what's interesting and what you've said there is that if you've been involved in this whole process, there's been no loop back or a leap through. I'm just wondering how it all works cohesively. So I will do that. And I just wanted to just ask these closed items on this one, is that something members just want to keep seeing? I mean, I'm just wondering why they're just not. We like to think we've done something. I mean, does it have just been bigger and bigger? In my day job, I'm all for brevity and economy of expression. So if it's closed, well, why are we looking at it? You might as well get rid of it, isn't it? Do you agree? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Okay, we will get that done. Yes. All right. So it's a task of refreshing all of the open action log together with personnel and the details and so on. Particular emphasis on the training update, remit and progress and where we take it from here. All right. Is there anything else that we need to deal with or anyone needs to speak about or any of the other items in the action log? No, very well. All right. Thank you very much. So that takes care of item three. Item four, code of conduct complaints procedure update. It's a verbal update. Who wants to lead on this? Just to upvote members that are following the committee's recommendation that the draft should be put forward to political groups for comments and then attended to council. We did engage and had in-depth engagement with the constitution review working group chaired by the mayor of England who reviewed the draft procedure. We've received feedback from all of the political groups and that's been incorporated in the draft that is now being proposed to council at next week's meeting. So we will then be in a position to confirm whether council's adopted by the next meeting. So the headline point from all of that is that we are now at the last stage for approval by the council. Well, it's been a long time coming. I think you will all recall, some of you will recall that there was extensive work done on this and we are almost seeing the end of the tunnel for this. So hopefully it will be adopted. Yes, absolutely. It has been absolutely phenomenal. I can't say that word. Amazing. Thank you very much. I don't really think we needed it without your input at the last stage. Hear, hear. That's quite right. I think, as I say, quite a lot of work has gone into this. It's the nitty-gritty, it's the heavy lifting of amending and changing words and having discussion, going back and forth and so on. And not just with personnel, but also, of course, little groups, as well. So, all right. Thank you very much. Can we then have an update on that at the next meeting as well, please? Just to say, and I think it might be useful to add the final version of the procedure to the agenda. Do you agree? Yes. I think just for, not just our record of austerity and all the rest, but just so that we see that that is the end product. Yeah, definitely. Anything else anyone wants to say about that before we move on? Okay. Item five. So, this is our proposed work programme, which we can see at page 23 onwards. It's a short programme. Well, it's not surprising because we are coming to the end of the year. And what we are being asked to do is just to consider and agree with the proposed work programme. Today's one is at the top of page 25. I don't think we can say much about that. The next committee meeting, just to incorporate the training programme, update on that. Please see if we can do that. I think it would also be helpful to do the same for the March meeting. I say that because in case further work needs to be done, I think it would be helpful to have it as a standing item. Something that I've been banging on, I think for the previous, I can't recall how many meetings, that it needs to go in as a standing item. So, let's do that until we have a clear roadmap as to where we are going. Yeah, do you agree? Yes. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your time. As part of these meetings, would it be useful to have papers come, just a bit about best practice, what's out there in the sector. There's been lots of work, LGA wise, on assurance and how we assure ourselves that we're getting it right. That is part of the work that you do. There's just lots of interesting things, but I don't know how far you want to be involved in some of that stuff. For example, like Grant Thornton, they've done reports on failure, then councils where they failed, their conduct issues are prevalent. It's just interesting material. If it's something you might say, no, we don't want to see that. Even sometimes, some landmark cases that are quite important in this space, it's just, I don't know if that's something that would be useful. It would circulate information, spontaneous learning for us. I'm sure chair needs stuff to read on something. To aid my weekend recovery. Could I suggest perhaps that, this is a bit cheeky really, but if you were to give us sort of one sentence or two sentences on what it was about and then a link. I was going to suggest, rather than having, I'm quite sure you weren't suggesting it either, but rather than having the reams of material being appended, I think what might be useful is just to have a table of updates. If it's a case authority, there's the case authority and that's the one sentence pithy judgment that the court held this. Anything else, any other information, it would be helpful just to condense it and into a table format like so. I think would help, wouldn't it? If there's any link that we need to go and see at our Sunday leisure, then submit. Is that right? I think that's far better approach rather than having all the other materials with it. I was suggesting via email. Well, yes, you could have it by email, but I think what I was thinking, you could also have it as part of the standard agenda item as well. Yeah, and sometimes it would be not so much and sometimes it might be more, but I don't mean to drown members with dysentery, but it's just interesting things that are relevant to your work. Just speak it, have your purview on it. We can have it by email, or alternatively, we can have it as an item. Yeah, both. Yeah, which do you prefer, one or both? We'll get this soft copy, right? We do get this soft copy, yes. I'm a bit of a dinosaur, I'm afraid. I prefer to still turn a page rather than turn the PDF. Would you prefer a hyperlink? No, no, no. Whatever works for the group, I'm happy with either. For the sake of convenience, a hyperlink, you can just go to the document, you can read it at your leisure. That's the sort of thing I mentioned, really. Do you have a hybrid option? Because I've got a disability where I did half of it, but we do it hybrid. Is that going to be pushing the resources button too much, do you think? Well, we need to make reasonable adjustments. Unless you want to do reasonable adjustments. As I say, it's not going to be drowned. I think that's reasonable. Yes, please. All right. That's a very good idea. Chair, I'm sorry to raise the distance. I'm like the newbie at the school. I'm going to wait to see the soil in that same capacity. Can I just ask a question on ethical framework updates? I see it's repeated on the agenda at several points, and it's on today's agenda. Is this confined only to the subject matter of register of interest and declarations of interest? I'll continue by saying the reason I raise this, because I do think, Rachel, maybe to advise on this, but there is a piece of work to be done about the use of AI in the council by councillors. I wonder if there's any best practice or guidance that could be offered around the ethical use of AI. Yes. That is, you make an excellent point. I'm not sure where we are. I'm literally not sensing and finding out where we are, but this is a massive area. Something I'm quite interested in anyway, personally, and I'm involved in space, i.e., what's the governance within that going forward. I'm happy to bring some of that. Then probably it's something wider, more corporately, that we'll need to, if it's not there at the moment. But I'm sorry, that's just an evolution of this, isn't it, where we find ourselves? Again, you might be able to assist, but as I recall, there is a general ethical framework policy within the council, and that encompasses a variety of sectors. I don't know whether it includes AI or not, but the ethical framework specifically in relation to this committee, that relates to declarations of interest and gives an almost fit. But there is also an ethical framework for the policy, sorry, for the council, that we've looked at and we've worked on previously. Now, I can't recall how long ago now, but there is one, so it might be useful, your benefit, just to flag that up and to see whether or not there is any reference to it, both in relation to technology generally, but more specifically AI. But, chair, also in view of the LGAP review, in view of the CFGS report as well, I think it is worth looking at ethics in this council. If those reports don't have any action function, then surely they must be embedded back in our ethical framework. Yes, I think that's right, generally speaking, and we will come to the scrutiny report in just a take. I think what is also important is to have a look at what's the existing policy there is, and if need be, in light of the scrutiny report, whether or not that overall policy needs to be reviewed, or further work that needs to be done, rather than starting with helping afresh. Because we have done quite a bit of work in the past, and I can see members, I mean, I can see Ashok shaking his eye, recall from memory that there was quite a bit of work done. But I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely saying that I think we need to have a look at what the existing policy is, and then see whether we need to improve that. I'm quite sure that there is a good kind of movement. I mean, ethics is something that's always in a state of flux, so it does need to be improved. Does that help? Yes, I'll take your answers. I'm not saying no to any of that. I agree with your question, and I agree with your concern. What I'm saying is that if we step back a bit, and we have a look at to see what the current policy is, and then see whether more work needs to be done. Sure, and I would just say, for the record, I wasn't aware that the council had a negative policy framework. Well, that says quite a bit about the training. What I've mentioned around the induction program at all. Right, well, there you are. So all the more reason why that training, that whole program, really needs to be not just scrutinized, but really looked at and pulled apart. Right, is there anything else? Does anybody have any other suggestions as to whether any other items ought to go in? I mean, you may not have any at the moment, but if you do, then of course, simply email it in to the offices, and I'm sure it can be added. Okay, if there isn't anything else on this item, I'll then move on to the next item, item six, which is, of course, the much-referenced and the OGAP challenge review, which starts at page 27 of our pack, and it is a fairly detailed report, all sorts of charts and graphs and pie charts and all the rest of it, which is all very helpful. The question I've got, what are we being asked to do on this? I mean, there doesn't appear to be any usual cover intro on this. Yeah, you may recall that members simply wish to actually see the report and to be able to look at the recommendations that were made and to see what sort of recommendations the peer challenge group had made to the council and then to then see what the council's response was going to be. So that's set out for members to review and consider, and it really was an open discussion whether members wanted to note any particular points or to comment on any of the recommendations that have been made or the action plan that's since been developed. It should also say to members that officers corporately have been monitoring the action programme that the council has in part and that a second report has just gone to cabinet for review as well, but to note the action that's been taken. So the chief exec is responsible and accountable for the delivery of this cabinet? Well, the chief exec has ultimate responsibility for the actions that are taken for each of their heads. Yes, and each lead member, a lead corporate leadership board member has got an action on the action plan which is in the pack and they will report back. So as the chief executive office provides interim updates against the plan, I think that would be a kind of thing that should be shared with the standards just for information. Yes, they're going to report quarterly, right? Presumably or monthly. Yes, so the quarterly report is attached after the peer review report that's in your pack and if members of the committee want to receive those updates when they're published, we can certainly include them on this committee's agenda. So has there been a response to this then from the council? That's the first question. Yes, that's the action plan that follows, chair. Yeah, well I've got the key recommendations which is at page 35 and the action plan should start. And what page is that? It's the blue one, it looks like this. Oh yes, I've seen that. It starts at page 69, chef. Thank you. Thank you. It hasn't got a number on it, actually. Yes. And pages seem to be cut in half. Is there anything personally that anyone wants to comment on before we get to the action plan on the recommendations between page 35 and 39 or rather 38? I mean a few will stick out for me but anybody who wants to comment. I mean recommendation two, the relationship reset. That's quite important, isn't it? Detail recommendation three, six, seven, eight and certainly, sorry, nine and ten. And it seems to me that these are all matters that we as a committee can debate, make our own recommendation on and on the progress going forward. Any thoughts on any of that from anyone? What I'm not proposing to do is to go into the nitty-gritty of it but I just thought I'd plaque it up for your consideration. It may well be the case that this is an ongoing work we bring back at the next meeting to see what, if any, progress has been made in this. Hence, I suggested that the quarterly updates are shared with us and we can provide the feedback. Yes, I think that's right. Do you all agree with that? Yeah, thank you. So, in that case, that's another item then to be added to our work programme. Yeah, I think as somebody who's been quite involved with parts one way and another, I want to say that, bearing in mind that we haven't had a peer challenge for 10 years, I felt that there were no surprises here. I think, in a sense, it would be the sort of thing that most of us would have identified, do you agree? Yes, and seen. And it was good to have it pointed out and I feel that already there is a noticeable shift in the way that things are being done and in the efforts that are being made. You know, things can drift without, I wouldn't want this minute of joy, but you know, life is like that. Things can drift a little away from where you want them to be. And somebody says oh yeah, there's a piece of work as it is, it needs to be read in the context. Because as Anne said, none of this comes as a surprise to any councilor in this local authority. The real issue, and part of the relationship reset, is why did we not have the confidence and the relationships and the skills to actually communicate this amongst ourselves? Why did it take an experience to make this explicit to us? And I think that's where I think standards could be really helpful in not just looking at the quantity and how we're progressing on the performance, but also on the depth of those relationships. It's a difficult thing to measure, isn't it, the depth and the quality of a relationship, but there is no other way. You could, in theory, the team that came in to do it, and we remember Rachel was a part of that team, could come back in and year, and people will bluff and we could all say yeah, we will get on fantastically. How are we really going to test if relationships are reset? What do you mean depth and quality of the relationship? How would you apply for that? And that's up to my question. How do you make in a public body good relationships? Is there a mechanism for doing this? So in the NHS, and unfortunately Julia's not here today, they have a duty of handle as one of their measuring metrics by the Care Commission. My suggestion would be we implement something of that nature and we do peer-to-peer accountability. So, you know, counsellors hold each other to account, but having those open honest critical friend conversations, challenge, how do you measure that? But in theory, that's the role of scrutiny, isn't it, to do that. And what the reports are clearly saying is that scrutiny and the relationship reset is at the challenge with scrutiny and the executive in many cases. Now, if we all know that, how can we be sure? We've got activities, we've got tasks, we've got outcomes targeted, but how are we going to test it and how are we going to embed it in the council that actually it's a sea change of a culture and not just a template based on the personality? My essence of reading this is the relationship is adversarial rather than constructive challenge. And that's a cultural thing and that's personalities as well. We can't shy away from that. Leadership comes from the top. So how do we move away from the adversarial relationship to the constructive challenge? Because we're all here to make new and the best place possible. That's what we're all here for. And yeah, that's hard, but...

• Chair, if I may, I just want to say that you're absolutely right. And I do think from the right time in this report and the governor's scrutiny, things have changed a lot. But the problem for us as members is there were two governance scrutiny reports that were published. Both said ex-dynamically opposite comments about the state of relationships. The final report that is in the public domain, and I saw the first report because I was a member, I am a member of the orbit committee, the final report that came into the public domain is what has been taken, actions have been taken upon. And that is a programme of work. And I think personally speaking things have got better, but what we didn't know in the first report was that, or in the second report, that it was just described as bad behaviours. Now nobody's taken any single councilor aside in this local authority and said that's bad behaviour. - But who does that? Is that the with? Is that the mayor? Is that the chief exec? - I think that's the question. Where does the buck stop? We're quite clear, I think, as political parties when it is a political party issue. But the challenge is here. If you're in the committee and the committee are offset and somebody behaves badly, that's not necessarily a political issue. That could be a personality. - It could be a status problem. And one of them did come to the status committee without going into too much detail.
• Well, the appropriate word is conduct. And all of those issues, I mean, there are already existing framework for that. It seems to me that if there's anything that flows from this work, that you specifically identified further acts of conduct, then that can certainly be added to the existing examples of the conduct. - Nolan principles, how you should conduct. We have a higher standard. If you're in a public position, you hold to a higher standard. - I know. But what I'm saying is that if there's a specific example, and by the way, there's also got to be consensus between people or between members, elected members as to whether or not they're willing to submit themselves to the kind of things that you're talking about. - They give us the authority.
• Quite right. Exactly. - It's a challenge. - Absolutely. So these are two counter-balancing issues, it seems to me, that is not always going to be easily reconciled. First thing that needs to happen is if we all have a consensus, say, right, there is a fundamental issue, there's a fundamental problem, and we would recognize that. And then you say, in that case, we need to therefore broaden the list or the act of our conduct. And therefore, let's add that to the conduct and let's add that to the terms of reference to the standards committee. - But you have to go one step further. And now that we've got this updated list, we now empower the standards committee, the independent members, to help members to demonstrate the best conduct and behavior possible. If we're not empowered... - I agree. We're sitting duck. I mean, what's the point of having a committee that doesn't have any powers? - As a council, they need to recognize and empower us to have those conversations. - I agree. - All we do is look at the station. I mean, you've never had a conversation with someone saying, what about this? How can you... I think that goes back to the fundamental. I asked Joy today how long I've been doing that for a long time. It's embarrassing how long, but we've never had that. Maybe initially, I don't really fall. Maybe when I was chair, I had a conversation with maybe one member, but that wasn't because the council empowered the standards committee with the authority to help. It's because after a personal and professional relationship, I could have that conversation. I don't think we're empowered. I'm going back to your point. We're not empowered to have those difficult, constructive conversations as a critical friend.
• That's very interesting. - Most of it is that we rather talk about fools, but it was the judicial bodies where their whips has no jurisdiction. So when there's that sort of matter, it would normally be referred to the standards committee. Now, I'm not well versed with the law, but I would have thought that there would have been some kind of statutory protection or some sort of statutory autonomy for the standards committee, which maybe has it be exercised. - So a lot of key things. So members' conduct and where that lives. Well, we don't own it. It's a cultural thing, isn't it, that's about behaviours. But in terms of statute, where that lives, and the laterism act and the way it's all prescribed, it's the Montrain officer in what hurt me in this instance. That's where the authority to have those conversations and its investigations and all this stuff, that's where it's all, that's the home for it. Then politically, then you have the whips and you all know how that works and put your dynamic. But legally, it's because that way you're saying, not empowered and so forth. But when it comes to the actual hearing, that's when the committee comes in and there's a broader kind of remit within all this, but the actual doing of it immediately, it's so much an officer function. I'm not just saying it because it's me in this instance, that's kind of where it is. So it is about that. But it is also about culture, isn't it, and everyone just respecting each other and trying to do the right thing and being mindful of just those obligations to the public and the cost of all these things. When there's dispute and disharmony, it costs, doesn't it, in terms of investigation. But back to your, that's why, because that's where it lives. So it is about the strength of that function, but also support for that function and kind of giving it the gravitasic needs and respect. I think, for record, there is existing statutory structure that gives rise to committees like this. But I have to say, I'm sure you'll have all picked up, that not every local authority now retains a standards committee, not in the format that Newham does. So for all the inadequacies that you may identify, at least that's a positive. I think going back to your earlier concerns, which is what gave rise to this fascinating discussion, I'm afraid it does mean, and then tying with what you were saying, it's about identifying what those specific or further acts of conduct might be. I mean, when one looks at the Code of Conduct, it's been revised, it's been truncated through the work of this committee, and it's much better than the rather rambling prolix it was going back in the past. But it's not an exhaustive list. We all exhibit different kinds of behavior. And because we are different, human beings are, by our nature, very different. And our behaviors over time can change as well, through generation, through decades, and all the rest of it, there was also such a change. So it strikes me that just to respond definitively on that point, that we go back to basics on this particular work, and then we tie that in with what you consider to be those deficiencies or these acts of conduct. And by all means, if we need to revise the Code of Conduct to add those, and if there's consensus between the members of all the colors of politics, and if you then empower this committee, then that's where the work will get done. Otherwise, as you say, this is going to be a committee of reviewing this document and that document, although important though that task is. But if you want to do the heavy lifting, then that's where the heavy lifting comes in.
• It's not a straightforward answer. - Can I make a helpful suggestion? Because there's nothing in here to actually measure what we're asking. Is there a way that we could go back to the performance team at the council and actually ask them what indicators could they put forward as a suggestion to measure positive behavior?
• Any views on that? - I don't think anything like that exists, but I think we should ask the question.
• Can we go back to them to ask further questions? We can, can we?
• Yes. It's not just a formal complaint. It's escalated by the time it's got to this committee. It's the low-level stuff that interrupts the integral.
• If we can ask those questions, then that'd be it.
• And if they don't have it, they will say they can ask.
• Is that right? And if we have the answer, we have the answer we can work with. If we don't, then we go back to the issues we've identified a moment ago all of us here. All right. Is there anything else? And sorry, before we move on, I mean, I note there's recommendation 10 member development, which I was referring to earlier, and it is positively talking about council to establish a member working group which identifies development of specific training. Well, that's already in hand, but I suspect that the overtures from this is that it's clearly not, it's not either fit for purpose or not working at all, hence why you have a specific recommendation on member developments. So that's why, I mean, we're going around circles to some extent on this, but it's really forcing that work. And I have no doubt that that work can be done through added emphasis of this recommendation. What are your thoughts? Do you agree? I mean, it even identifies the delivery lead on this. I think it's in the democratic services. Yeah. Okay. So any other comments, any other thoughts on this? But I think the agenda item was mainly to have a look at it to see whether there's any discussion we need to have, anything that flows from it. It strikes me that quite a lot did, and no doubt they will turn into some sort of an action. Yeah. Thank you. All right. In that case, let's move on to the next item, item seven, the ethical framework update page 95 onwards, which is fine right towards the last, the item after the report, page 95. And what we're being asked to do as committee is to note the declarations of interest that made at meetings for the period 9th of April to the 27th of August, and note that there have been no declarations of peace and hospitality declared for the period. So when we look at that, if we turn to page 99, these are the declaration of interest declared at meetings. And that is burning a query. Be non-eventful. Yeah, this is, do you mean the date period? Yeah, 9th of April, 24th to 27th of August. Can I just suggest that the last, the storyline of the Victoria Bridge is because there's a declaration of interest in one way or another, it's not listed here. Over the unscrutiny of the Victoria Bridge. Okay. Yes, we'd have to approach the offices and it could be how they would, I'd ask you. Yeah, I mean the last item on is at page 100, comes to the 4th of June 2024, it says meeting date cabinet. Which date was that, do you recall? On my head, Chair. But the last date on here is the 24th of July, the last day of the inscription from memory was before the 24th of July. I'm not obsessed. Right. Okay. And by the way, just to double check this, who prepares this and is there a sort of feedback bank that people from all committees and the council say, right, these are the declarations or is it rather more onerous than that? Should I explain what should happen? Yes, please do. What happens now, tell me, and then we'll see. Okay, well obviously at each meeting there's an item on declaration of interest and the councillor will raise their hands and say whether it's a declaration of interest. Depending on that declaration of interest, they'll either remain in the meeting or be asked to leave, etc. That is obviously included in the item declaration of interest. Okay. What should happen is for each item, there's a button, if you like, that we're meant to click on to say add the interest and then we add the interest. And that is the interest that then appears on the website. So that's what's happening. 24th of July. Right. Okay. So I will double check that and see what happened. It could be that just the way the officers are recording it I think may be why they're not appearing because we don't know until they've gone properly and then it reflects on how it should work. Is there therefore a possibility that one or two items of declarations may have been missed? I can only say possibly, Chia. I don't know is the answer. Because if it is then that is a cause for concern from us and it seems to me that, I mean, by the way, I'm quite sure we have a we have a policy on this. Yeah. Can we bring that up for the next meeting, please? I just want to see how we are recording this and what the process is, the procedure is. And if that particular issue is being missed administratively, logistically, then I think we need to incorporate that into that policy and everybody needs to have sight of it. Because if certain declarations are missed purely by way of errors and omissions, then that is quite serious, I say. Do you agree? And I think we need to look into that declaration in particular. And could we have that updated for the next meeting, please? And recorded into the declarations of interest, i.e. a similar document, perhaps with an asterisk that was meant to be done at the previous date period and an explanation as to why it wasn't done. So it's all recorded and I think these are public documents, aren't they? So the public can have a look at it. Do you agree? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Anything else arising out of this item? Anyone? All right. Moving on then. Yeah. So this is where we exclude present public. So can we resolve to be in an excluded part of the meeting if they feel they are? Thank you. In which case, we now have to say thank you all very much. For those of you who've been glued to your camera or your laptop or your desktop and we shall see you on the next occasion. Thank you all very much. So I'm going to leave it 20 seconds because there's a delay. I've discovered, well, I know that this is a disgusting case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.