Monitoring Officer Report Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 8 Two heads better than one? In contrast to the issue of relative seniority to the s.151 officer, there was far less of a consensus over whether the monitoring officer role should be separate from the position of head of legal services. A few respondents (4%) said there should always be such a separation, while a quarter (25%) felt it was preferable. "The monitoring officer must sometimes make a judgement call that a lawyer would not be prepared to do," said one respondent. "My new role has separated delivery of transactional advice from corporate/strategic advice and the MO role," reported another. "This separation is very helpful for both the 'client' and council and creates discussion, oversight and scrutiny." For complicated and/or difficult issues, it could be beneficial to have two heads, it would appear. Where the roles are separated, though, a number of respondents stressed the importance of the arrangements operating as a partnership and any conflicts of interest being actively managed. The majority of respondents (64%) though, believed it was preferable that there was no such separation, and 8% considered that there should never be a split of the roles. "The head of legal services has an overview of the whole authority and is best placed to perform the role of monitoring officer and to appoint deputies, if necessary," wrote one respondent. Another suggested that the organisational culture and risk attitude were heavily dependent on the monitoring officer and the delivery of legal services, arguing that "to ensure consistency of approach, the MO must set the tone for legal and lead from the front." Similarly, one monitoring officer argued that legal services “are the 'eyes and ears' of the MO". A separation of the two roles can lead to confusion over their respective responsibilities and lead to differing legal opinions, while there can be pressure from politicians for the head of legal services "to take a stance contrary to the view of the MO", commented another respondent. Then there are the practicalities - is it really feasible in an era of diminishing resources for district and smaller borough councils in particular to separate the roles? "Most district councils are too small to achieve a separation and this is a luxury that most cannot afford," pointed out one monitoring officer. Another added that they "[could] see the purist argument for separation but who could afford to have an MO hanging around waiting for business? It may be more sensible to have a call down arrangement with an external firm." In or out Respondents were asked whether the monitoring officer should, in principle, always be an employee of the council or could (or should) the role be outsourced to a third party. A sizeable majority of those surveyed (64%) felt that the role should always be filled by an employee. "You need to be present - and accessible to all staff - in order to use the eyes and ears of others and understand the culture, the issues and how both officers and members operate in the local authority," argued one respondent. "All local authorities are different - I am not sure how you can really be immersed in and therefore have access to all you need to know if not in- house." Being close to the decision-making process is seen as vital. "It is difficult to see how a non-employee can be at the The majority of respondents (64%) though believed it was preferable that there was no such separation, and 8% considered that there should never be a split of the roles. "The head of legal services has an overview of the whole authority and is best placed to perform the role of monitoring officer and to appoint deputies, if necessary," wrote one respondent.