Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Executive held on 04/10/2004
Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees
Review of Politically Restricted Posts
ANNEXE 3
Mr W Tandoh
Democracy and Local Governance Division
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Zone 5/A1
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Dear Mr Tandoh
Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees
Review of Politically Restricted Posts
I refer to the ODPM’s letter dated 19th August with its invitation to comment upon the draft Code of Conduct for local government employees and the review of restrictions on the political activities of Local Authority Employees and the Pay of Political Assistants.
Further text to be added based upon the views of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Executive and Staff Side.
This Council's responses to the specific questions that you have raised are attached.
Yours sincerely
CONSULTATION ON DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT – DRAFT RESPONSES
Q.1 - Is the Government right to exclude Teachers, Firefighters and Community Support Officers?
Whilst these exclusions are not matters of direct concern to a district council, broadly, it is the view of this Council that it is important that there should be a consistent form of Code of Conduct for all staff employed in local government. If these staff are to be excluded from the new Code, a revisit of the existing Codes for the exclusions above may be required.
Q.2 - Are there other categories of staff who should not be subject to the employees’ code, for example school support staff? If so, which categories, and why should they be excluded?
No
Q.3 - Do you agree that Council Managers should be subject to the same Code as
other employees?
Although not a directly relevant matter for this authority, the view that there should be a consistent Code for all local government employees remains relevant. A Council Manager is an employee of the Council and should, therefore, be subject to the proposed Code.
Q.4. - Should different rules, or a separate Code, apply to political assistants?
See the response to Q.3
Q.5 - Are the provisions relating to the use of public funds and property adequate to ensure effective stewardship of resources?
These provisions provide broad headlines only that are not contentious.
The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee wished to emphasise that employees must not make personal use of property or facilities of the authority unless properly
and specifically
authorised to do so, for the protection of the individuals.
This authority (and, doubtless, most others) has policies and procedures that address Waverley’s specific approach to a number of the ‘headlines’. By that we mean our policies in respect of equality of opportunity, procurement, dignity and respect at work (anti-bullying and harassment), public interest disclosure (Whistleblowing) etc. as well as the officer/member protocol and the standing orders of the Council and scheme of delegation. All of these already form part of the conditions of service of employees.
Within that context, we would regard the provisions as being inadequate unless they are supported by local policies, practices, procedures etc.
Q.6 - Is it appropriate for the Code to impact upon an employee’s private life or should it only apply to an employee at work?
The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the Council and its members and officers. Employees of local government have always had to accept certain restrictions on their personal activities to avoid bringing the Council, in any way into disrepute.
It is important for there to be rules to ensure that there is not a conflict of interests between the private activities of staff, at all levels, and their public duties.
Q.7 - As with the Members’ Code, should there be a standard list of interests and or hospitality/benefits/gifts that must always be registered?
The problem with providing lists is that anything that is not contained on the list may be considered acceptable. To provide staff with broad guidelines and to expect them to make reasonable judgements is the adult way of dealing with this.
The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee proposed that a monetary value should be placed on hospitality/gifts registered, in line with the member code of conduct (which specifies items with a value in excess of £25)
Q.8 – If so, what should the list contain? Should it mirror part 3 of the Councillors Code or be restricted to financial interests?
See the response to Q.7
Q.9 - Should such a list be available to the public?
This should not be required.
The O & S Committee proposed that the list should be available to the public.
Q.10 - Alternatively, could the need for a list be restricted to Officers above a certain salary, as applies, for example, to the current political restriction regime?
No. All the Council’s staff should be dealt with in the same way.
Q.11 - Should this provision be explicitly limited to interests, gifts, etc., that may have a bearing on the way in which the functions of the authority are discharged by the employee?
No. If a list were considered necessary, it is difficult to see how the receipt of a gift by one employee of the corporate body that is the Council could be separated out as having no bearing upon the work of the Council.
Q.12 - Does the proposal on the reporting of misconduct provide suitable protection for employees?
Insofar as it can protect any employee, the proposal is adequate.
Q.13 - Should the Code impose a duty on employees to report misconduct?
No. The local authority should encourage staff to do so. It can be a difficult and stressful decision for an employee to make and to make it a contractual requirement would not help that position. What would the sanctions be for non-compliance?
Q.14 - Is “friend” the appropriate term to use in the draft Code? If so, should it be defined, and what should the definition be?
Friend is, on balance, the right word. This is something that has always been understood in local authority circles and any doubts can be discussed and agreed at local management level. Beyond the dictionary definition, nothing further is required. The addition of a definition will not remove the grey areas. This can be left to common sense.
Q.15 - Does the phrase “relative or friend” as defined above adequately cover all the relationships with which this part of the Code should be concerned?
It is conceivable that employees may form some kind of business partnership which, although not inappropriate to the Council’s activities, may fall within the definition of ‘personal interests’ when the persons concerned may not regard themselves as friends. Restrictions should continue to apply in such cases.
Q.16 - Do you have any comments on what arrangements might be appropriate for ensuring employees are informed about the code?
No. Each authority will know what is best in its particular circumstances.
CONSULTATION ON REVIEW OF POLITICAL RESTRICTIONS – DRAFT RESPONSES
Q.1 Would reducing the number of officers covered by the restrictions be compatible with maintaining the apolitical nature of local government employees?
The framework was set in the Local Government and Housing Act 1999 and it is felt that this has stood the test of time. It is not, therefore, felt appropriate to reduce the number of officers covered by the restrictions.
A case could be made for exempting all local government staff but the human rights implications of such an approach are recognised and it is considered appropriate to apply restrictions to occupiers of certain posts that carry significant influence in a local authority.
Q.2 If a reduction in the number is considered desirable, how could this best be achieved?
See the response to Q.1
Q.3 Would broad exemptions from the restrictions based on job descriptions be appropriate and workable? If so, what categories of work should be considered exempt and why? Conversely, are there areas of work not currently covered by restrictions that should be? If so, which?
The link to the national spinal column point 44 does create challenges for local authorities that have separated from the national pay scales in that more (or possibly less) employees than intended may be affected.
A generic definition that applied to all staff operating at (say) third tier and above may be a better approach. Such officers work closely with the political decision makers and are likely to have influence over several more junior staff as well as controlling budgets.
No additional areas of work are necessary to be included that are not already included.
Q.4 Should the nature of the restrictions on political activities be redefined? If so, how?
The present restrictions are considered appropriate.
Q.5 to Q.8 Role of the Independent Adjudicator
This Council has had no experience of any officer making an application to the Independent Adjudicator for Exemption.
However, it is felt that such a facility should remain available to staff. We consider that such a facility should remain independent from the Council but hold no strong views on whether the present arrangement should be retained or be replaced by some other appropriate body.
Q.9 to Q.12 Political Assistants
This Council has not employed political assistants and considers it unlikely that any such appointments will be made in the future.
It holds no strong views on the questions raised.
Q. 13 Is it desirable to increase or decrease the number of paid hours given to an employee to function as a councillor in another authority? If so, what should the new limit be?
Given the pressures on local authorities to deliver services with less resources, there is no case for increasing the number of hours.
Q.14 Should the current rules prohibiting councillors from being officers of the same authority be revised or deleted, or are the necessary to ensure that members are not allowed to make decisions which impact on their own employment.
There should be no change to the existing rules.
comms/exec/2004-05/200
