Monitoring Officer Report Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 5 Another identified the need to become knowledgeable in areas traditionally outside the role, such as the law and practice for companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). Also seen as significant issues were the status of the role - or lack of it - within the organisation (25% put this in the top three), a lack of governance experience in the legal team as legal roles become more specialist (24%) and a perception that the role is obstructive (20%). "I think that the standards regime is largely discredited for various reasons," said one respondent, "and the monitoring officer roles is tainted by association with this". At greater risk Respondents were asked whether the role had become more risky in recent years. More than a third (37%) agreed it had done so "in a significant way", while another half (48%) suggested it was moderately riskier than in the past. The remainder (14%) suggested there had been no real change, with only two respondents feeling that things were less risky than before. "The decisions [being taken]and the post-Brexit/social media approach to policy and politics mean that members and others are less consistent and increasing challenges without an effective standards regime are all the more riskier," argued one monitoring officer, who revealed that they had been threatened with removal twice in the previous three months alone by backbenchers. Add in changes to statutory protection, some trenchant criticism from Eric Pickles impacting on how monitoring officers are perceived, increased risk taking generally in the sector and greater complexity in the projects undertaken and there is good reason to see the role as more exposed. Some respondents meanwhile felt that the quality of decision making at councils generally has suffered in an era of cost cutting. This can have an impact on the monitoring officer's own decisions as well, with one respondent reporting that "we all do more with less, so there is less time to spend on issues and there have to be more 'gut feel' decisions". Against this backdrop it is seen as crucial that the monitoring officer is actively engaged where there are risky decisions for the authority to take, and provides appropriate advice. "Where the risky decisions go wrong, there may be a tendency to hold the monitoring officer over other officers accountable," warned one respondent. "This makes it more important that the MO is involved in such projects from the outset." The pressure is on, however, not to be seen as a 'blocker', as overly cautious. Qualities and qualifications The attributes and skills a monitoring officer needs to possess is a key issue - and it has long been a vexed question as to whether they should be legally qualified. Nearly two thirds of the monitoring officers surveyed (59%) believed that they should, and a further one in four (26%) believed it was preferable. "Since councils are a creature of statute it is essential that the MO has advanced knowledge of governance," claimed one respondent. "Without a legal qualification the MO will - possibly unknown to them - be at greater risk of making mistakes." Another wrote that "ultimately it is a legal compliance role and knowledge and application of the law is a fundamental aspect of the role. Local government law is complex and decision making is steeped in law. Relying on others to provide the legal advice which informs the MO advice is less effective and efficient and in overall terms unsatisfactory." As one monitoring officer pointed out, there is a requirement for the chief finance officer to have an accountancy qualification - "the MO should have a legal qualification - I don't understand this anomaly". "I think that the standards regime is largely discredited for various reasons," said one respondent, "and the monitoring officer roles is tainted by association with this."