Monitoring Officer Report Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 10 warned one respondent. Another respondent feared that monitoring officers faced "becoming increasingly unpopular as the relationship between risk-taking and accountability grows ever wider". A number of respondents said they could see the role being increasingly combined across multiple authorities but many were concerned at this prospect. It might be inevitable but would "not be the best option", wrote one. "Based on my experiences I believe that dealing with code of conduct issues is best dealt with internally and having a remotely based MO [using county council legal staff] would make dealing with conduct issues less effective," added another. It seems that the battle to maintain the status and influence of the post will meanwhile continue. "The critical aspect of the role is to continue to have a voice on the senior management team to add value to the governance of the organisation. The role needs to develop to maintain that 'voice' by building relationships within the organisation," recommended one monitoring officer. This will be against the backdrop of continued pressure on resources and the need to do more with less - one respondent said monitoring officers needed to request and insist on a designated budget separate from legal or other service areas. Succession planning is set to be another challenge. Many long-serving monitoring officers are understood to be coming up to retirement and there are fears that this experience will be difficult to replace. A 'Bank of MOs' is proposed by one respondent as a potential way forward. In the meantime as one respondent said: "Every vacancy seems to require an experienced MO but where are the roles for people to gain that experience?" The search should be on for tomorrow's monitoring officers. Philip Hoult is Editor of Local Government Lawyer. No more lucky DIP The 100+ monitoring officers who took part in the survey were asked whether when investigating allegations of misconduct by senior local government officers in England, the replacement of the designated independent person with the independent panel had affected the monitoring officer’s role. And had it made the position of the statutory officers more risky? These new arrangements were introduced by Eric Pickles in 2015 to deal with what he called the “unnecessary and costly bureaucratic process” that applied to disciplining and dismissing senior staff. It was also part of a bid to crack down on what he claimed were excessive severance payments. A majority of respondents said they had had no experience of the replacement regime and so it was difficult to say for certain how it had affected the monitoring officer’s role. It is “too early to tell – we will need some real cases to prove [this] one way or another”, said one monitoring officer, while another felt the new system “remains a totally unknown quantity”. One sceptic was not sure it had changed much “other than the point at which a negotiated settlement has to be reached”. A significant number of respondents were of the view, however, that the changes had made the position of statutory officers more risky. “It seems to run entirely contrary to requirements on MO and concepts of whistleblowing,” wrote one respondent. There is “definitely significantly less statutory protection right now”, added another, while a third monitoring officer said the statutory officers were undoubtedly “more vulnerable to malicious challenge”. Mind you, suggested one monitoring officer, “if things are that bad, it doesn’t matter what protection is in place”. One respondent said he had “fortunately” not had to experience this process, but added that he thought that “replacing the DIP with the IP, who has been appointed for a different purpose, is another example of central government not understanding or valuing local government”. The drafting of the regulations meant that there was “considerable uncertainty about how they would work in practice”, claimed another. A more complex and difficult procedure to apply – the legislation is “clumsy” and “clunky in use” – will serve no one, it was also suggested. See also: A difficult job made harder?, p22 About the survey The survey was conducted amongst subscribers to the Local Government Lawyer newsletter and members of Lawyers in Local Government from October 2017 to November 2017. Monitoring officers from 111 local authorities in England and Wales took part.