Monitoring Officer Report Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 7 Another respondent said the changing nature of local government had made the need for a legal qualification more pressing. "Historically, I would have said no," they said. "[But] the current challenges require a careful balancing of major legal risks. It requires the MO to form a legal view on those risks and to provide personal advice. That isn't possible if you are not a MO." [Respondent's emphasis] Without a legal qualification, the status of the role is likely to become more vulnerable within the hierarchy of local authorities, "and standards of corporate governance are bound to decline", warned one monitoring officer. A significant number (15%) were of the view that it was not essential, however. "So long as the individual is politically astute, understands governance and has direct access to legal advice," suggested one respondent, there should not be a problem. Another argued that it was certainly not essential for many aspects of the role - particularly councillor complaints and interests - provided that the monitoring officer had access to fast and sound legal advice. "Also the skill sets to be a good lawyer and a good monitoring officer do not always overlap," they felt. Monitoring officers who are not lawyers suggested, unsurprisingly, that it was not necessary, but one admitted that they relied heavily on legal advice and another could see how a legal qualification could be beneficial. Being challenged on legal advice in a formal meeting can present difficulties, one acknowledged. A question of status Whether the monitoring officer is legally qualified or not, their status within the organisation is an important consideration for many of those who occupy the role. As we have seen earlier, a quarter of respondents identified this as a key challenge. Local Government Lawyer has reported in the past on concerns that councils are pushing the monitoring officer further down the organisation as part of the response to austerity measures; a trend also picked up in previous research such as the Legal Department of the Future supplement published in February 2016. Asked whether the monitoring officer should be at the same level as the s.151 officer, some 89% of those surveyed agreed. Both roles are custodians of corporate governance in a local authority, pointed out one respondent. Another argued that "the MO's responsibilities are on a par with the s.151", saying that if they are not at the same level of seniority, "arrangements should be in place for appropriate reporting lines and accessibility to the chief executive". One suggested that if there are three statutory officers, this should not be hierarchical: "The chief executive/head of paid services is already at a higher status, so the s.151 officer and the MO should be equal." Just one in ten respondents (11%) said the monitoring officer need not be at the same level as the s.151 officer. "I say not because I am not - and it doesn't present difficulties," said one respondent. "I am still able to have my say and I am not treated as subordinate to [the s.151 officer], or have my advice ignored - quite the opposite. However, had the answer been preferably yes, I would have selected that because unless the individuals and organisation culture enable it to work as it does for me, it could place the MO at a disadvantage." Another respondent who argued that it was not essential for there to be parity, wondered whether in any event it was "unrealistic" in many organisations. A common theme - whether respondents thought that there should be parity or not - was the importance of relationships and for the monitoring officer to have the respect of fellow senior officers as well as councillors. Without a legal qualification, the status of the role is likely to become more vulnerable within the hierarchy of local authorities, "and standards of corporate governance are bound to decline", warned one monitoring officer.