Professional body needed for monitoring officers, alongside increased training and sanction powers, says new research report

Monitoring officers (MOs) should have a professional body, akin to CIPFA for section 151 officers, and the Government should review the powers of sanctions MOs have at their disposal, the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) Browne Jacobson and Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) have said in an extensive new report on the role.

The report, which was published today (10 November) also included recommendations that councils ensure MOs have a seat at the top table with the chief executive and s151 officers, as well as offer professional training and career trajectories for their MOs.

Based on interviews with 10 MOs from around England, alongside roundtable discussions with MOs and parish and town clerks, the report considered three main areas.

The first area set out what a monitoring officer does, the second detailed the challenges and the third considered what MOs need in order to better carry out their role. The report describes the role as "an essential position for ensuring high-quality legal governance of councils and for ensuring compliance with codes of conduct".

Several "major challenges" for MOs were highlighted in the report, including the risks associated with increased commercial activity at many councils.

It stated that underfunding of local authorities has affected MOs in three ways: by reducing the resources they have for performing their own roles, by reducing the money available for MO salaries (which downgrades the status of the MO), and thirdly by opening up councils to significant new legal and financial threats as they take on greater risks to "make ends meet".

On the third point, the report said the ability for councils to set up their own companies set out by the Localism Act and the reduction in the grants received by local Government has "provided many councils with both the power, and the need, to seek new forms of revenue".

"However, with innovation comes risks, and many of the most recent catastrophes in local government can be traced back to large-scale failed investments," it said.

The increased commercial risk and reduction in council budgets have made monitoring officers more important - but issues arise when their own capacity is being diminished at the same time, the report noted.

On top of this, MOs complained of a weakened standards regime following the 2011 Localism Act, which limited levers available to sanction inappropriate behaviour.

Allowing poor behaviour to proliferate and go unchecked can "seriously" damage organisational culture, which can increase the risk of governance failure, the report said. MOs did, however, note the flaws of the standards regime before 2011, which allowed for vexatious complaints.

However, the report added that MOs were keen to point out that beyond their statutory responsibilities, they are "relationship builders".

"They are reliant on a strong foundation of trust with their council's members and officers to fulfil their statutory duty, and much of their role revolves around building and maintaining these pivotal relationships," the report noted.

One MO interviewed was quoted as saying: "You can have all the legal degrees you want, but if you haven't got those personable skills, then you're not going to be effective."

The report also highlighted complaints from MOs about the personal challenges associated with the "lonely" and the political nature of the role.

It noted that a "deteriorating culture of trust around and within politics has manifested in the interactions many MOs experience, especially from some elected members".

According to the report, the interviews suggested that the "less respect a monitoring officer receives, and the more their status is questioned, the less they are able to fulfil their vital role in ensuring legal governance".

It added that, under the current system, many MOs said their position was not sufficiently protected to allow them to fulfil their vital governance function appropriately.

"Monitoring officers, like anyone else, should feel safe to raise codes of conduct complaints without fear of reprisal," the report said.
It made the following recommendations:

1. Councils should ensure that MOs have a status and position within the top tier of governance, alongside the chief executive and the section 151 officer, while also ensuring that the MO reports to the chief executive. "Where this is not the case we recommend that councils review their structures accordingly."
2. Steps need to be taken to ensure a good supply of MOs in the future. Councils should consider professional training and career trajectories for their MOs given the range and breadth of skills required for the role, not to mention the pressures it entails.
3. Government should review and strengthen the standards regime and powers of sanction so that statutory officers are able to address bad behaviour. "This would also protect MOs, who are often exposed and unsupported in this aspect of their role."
4. Government should also establish a professional body for monitoring officers, taking the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Society of Local Authority Chief Executives as a starting point.
5. Government should address the funding gap for statutory governance. "We need to acknowledge that good legal governance is an important aspect of democracy and public service provision. It is therefore important for communities. Prominent examples of poor governance have recently led to terrible results in local Government. To help avoid these outcomes in future proper funding must be made available across the sector."

Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of the LGIU, said the monitoring officer "should be one of the most important figures in the council yet have seen their seniority diminish while taking on additional responsibilities beyond their essential role of ensuring legal compliance".

He added: "We have seen recently the all too real consequences of bad decision-making and maladministration at all levels of Government. This has an impact on people's lives and livelihoods. But good governance cannot be done on the cheap or left as an afterthought. It needs to be a central component of Government, which is defended, respected and, crucially, given the resources to be carried out effectively.

Rachel McKoy, President of LLG, said: "The role of the Monitoring Officer is pivotal to the effective governance and lawful decision making of each and every local authority. LLG are delighted to have played a part in this important work for our members and for the sector. This is the first step of a journey towards effecting meaningful change. We need the Government to take note, and create the legislative provision required; but we also need the sector to take note, to embrace the cultural change required.

"In a time of great instability in local government, we need to give the role of Monitoring Officer the respect it truly deserves."

Peter Ware, Partner, Browne Jacobson, said: "It's clear that the role of a monitoring officer is essential for ensuring high-quality legal governance of councils and for ensuring that the biggest challenges they face are well navigated. The issues raised within the report must be addressed in order for councils to keep up with the much-needed change."

The full report can be read here: https://lgiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Changing-Role-of-the-Monitoring-Officer.pdf

Adam Carey