Team effort It was also noted that ensuring the good governance of a local authority is more of a team effort these days - involving the chief executive, s151 officer, the head of audit, the head of procurement and the head of democratic services – than the sole preserve of the monitoring officer. “What I've seen work really well is having regular meetings of the 'Golden Triangle' of the s151 officer, head of paid service and MO,” said one delegate. “You can iron out any issues early on as well as sharing intelligence with what's going on in the political parties in that area as well. In some councils, the head of audit may attend as well. As we're moving more into a challenging time of managing different types of risk I think some of the committee reports need to be analysed for potential risks.” The already wide range of governance risks to be managed by the monitoring officer is being joined by issues such anti- bribery, data protection and anti-money laundering. Meanwhile the resources elsewhere in the council to spot and deal with governance risks are diminishing as more senior officers have retired or taken redundancy. “There aren't the same people in departments that have the same governance antennae. It does therefore tend to come back to the MO,” said one delegate. “Good governance should be everybody's issue, not just the MO's.” The other major change is in the nature of local authority governance itself. “The remit of governance has changed,” said Suki Binjal, Director of Law and Governance at the London Borough of Hackney and chair of Lawyers in Local Government. “It’s not just about processes, it’s also about behaviours. Riding a toothless tiger By common consent, the standards regime introduced by the Localism Act 2011 lacks any meaningful sanctions against member misbehaviour. So what strategies are monitoring officers deploying to ensure ethical behaviour? The most popular strategies are to involve the party leadership – who unlike the MO can suspend an aberrant member from the party – or through publicising details of a councillor’s behaviour where possible – “reprimands aren’t very effective, but they often hate bad publicity,” one delegate said. Another made a distinction between complaints made by the public – which he felt duty bound to investigate – and those made by other members which he referred to the party leadership to sort out. The role of the Independent Person was seen as useful by some, but pointless by others while the involvement of co-opted members on standards committees can be very effective where the individuals are of sufficient calibre. Parish councils present a particular difficulty for those with responsibility for them. In the austerity era, third tier councils have taken on greater responsibility, but member behaviour is often less “professional” than at larger authorities, while the resources available to parish and town clerks to deal with member issues are limited. Working with NALC (the National Association of Local Councils) on issues was reported to be effective where the local association was strong and the council concerned was a member, but less so elsewhere. Participants did report that the lack of real sanctions in the current regime actually made resolving more trivial issues easier, but the main problem with the current regime is dealing with independent members with few party or reputational constraints. “The real problem of the standards regime is that maverick member who is not subject to party discipline and has a “no publicity is bad publicity” attitude and keeps getting voted back in because they are the “voice of the people”. That's a real issue because you can't really do very much about them,” said Simon Goacher, head of Local Government at Weightmans. In these cases, the signs of an apparent rethink on member standards by the government currently under way cannot come a moment too soon. “I wouldn't necessarily advocate a return to the old system – it was bureaucratic and slow,” Goacher added. “But if we could get a balance between a quicker process and having some real teeth in it as well, that's where we need to get to. “Even if you just have powers of suspension, you are going to need to have some form of tribunal to appeal to, so there will be some additional bureaucracy, but it will be worth it if it means that some sanctions can be reintroduced and behaviour can be shifted in some of the intractable cases - but I think it should be reserved for those cases.” Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 LocalGovernmentLawyer 16 “The remit of governance has changed. It’s not just about processes, it’s also about behaviours. Acting in the public interest with integrity, openness and transparency has suffered in recent times and that needs to be built up again.”