Standards Committees “a valuable cog” - research
Standards committees have managed to forge notable ways of working that have made them a “valued and valuable cog” in the wheel of local government, research conducted for Standards for England has found.
The research suggested that the two most common complaints about proactivity in standards committees – that they are either too busy to be able to progress beyond a heavy workload or that they are have nothing to do and little direction – are not valid criticisms.
The researchers from Hull University and the University of Teeside identified nine examples of notable practice from nine different authorities. These ranged from organisational learning (Bristol City Council) to working with town and parish councils (Taunton Deane Borough Council), and from high pressure investigations (Greater London Authority) to embedding standards (Newcastle City Council).
The study found that several committees had engaged with their roles “in an expansive and very productive fashion – even those that are heavily under fire from a barrage of complaints and potential hearings”. This might involve considering creating a joint standards and audit committee, engaging in public awareness campaigns of one form or another, instigating joint training or utilising more accessible forms of recruitment for independent members.
The researchers also said leadership is essential. “Leadership is one of those organisational virtues that is constantly extolled but rarely elaborated upon,” they suggested. “Nowhere is this more apparent than in the realm of local government, a sector which has commonly found itself being encouraged to take up a leadership role while having the forces of centralisation simultaneously act as a restraint.”
Monitoring officers are no longer the lynchpin of standards committees, nor were the committees reliant on MOs for their expertise and guidance, the study concluded. “While Monitoring Officers were (and no doubt always will be) absolutely central to the work of the standards committee non-elected members and independent chairs appear to be acting with confidence and a sense of genuine authority.”
Other key findings included that the composition of committees needs to be balanced – the challenge of recruiting independent members has eased – and that committees need to learn from each other.
Dr Robert Chilton, chair of Standards for England, said: “These authorities clearly demonstrated effective ways of working, which we felt were excellent examples for other authorities. As part of our regulatory role, we’re committed to sharing good practice and helping to improve standards.”
