Focus on fire, police and park authorities Speakers: Jim Cessford Policy Adviser, the Standards Board for England Jonathan Goolden Principal, Jonathan Goolden Solicitors

Session contents  Introduction from James Cessford  Talk from Jonathan Goolden about single purpose authorities –operating context –Code issues –local review criteria –size and role of standards committees –recruitment and retention of independent members –joint arrangements  Workshop –joint arrangement models –role of standards committees –feedback from workshop  Round-up

Single purpose authorities (SPA’s) and the Code Jonathan Goolden Principal, Jonathan Goolden Solicitors

Operating context  size and composition of SPAs  elected and appointed members  number  roles  types of complaints and issues  numbers of complaints

Code issues  specific issues – scrutiny, whose code applies, confidentiality  a new specific code for SPAs, or one for each sector?

Local review criteria  higher or lower criteria than councils?  different factors?  relevance of other action (within the Code or in addition – removal, deselection or invitation to resign)

Size and role of standards committee  relationship to rest of SPA  size  extent of involvement in core SPA business  extended roles – member appraisal, remuneration, governance oversight, audit

Recruitment and retention of standards committee members  advertising and promoting vacancies  links to other roles in the SPA – consultation groups, custody visitors etc  a career path?  joint recruitment and appointment

Joint arrangements  options that will be available  partnerships by sector or by geography?

Joint arrangement models: Single standards committee Potential advantages Most efficient use of resources High public confidence in impartiality Fully collaborative, best use of shared good practice No prospect of different standards committees disagreeing Solves problems with recruitment and retention of independent members Potential disadvantages Risk of losing sense of local filtering Potential problems with differing terms of reference Potential problems with getting out of joint arrangements if things don’t work out How will the committee be administered / funded? Potential accessibility problems for members and subjects If cross-sector working, how do you agree a consistent response to potential Code breaches?

Joint arrangement models: Individual standards committees but with joint sub-committees (for assessments, reviews, hearings etc) Potential advantages Some efficiencies on resources made Public confidence in impartiality Some collaboration and sharing of good practice Strong sense of local filtering Committees can maintain differing terms of reference Helps solve some of the problems with recruitment and retention of independent members Potential disadvantages Prospect of standards committees disagreeing Potential problems with getting out of joint arrangements if things don’t work out How will joint sub-committees be administered / funded? Potential accessibility problems for members and subjects If cross-sector working, how do you agree a consistent response to potential Code breaches? Differing levels of member’s allowances

Joint arrangement models: Individual standards committees but enabling some functions (e.g. review requests) to be handled by a partner authority Potential advantages High public confidence in impartiality of review request Strong sense of local filtering Committees can maintain differing terms of reference Might be simpler to get out of joint- working arrangements if things don’t work out Potential disadvantages No resource efficiencies made Not much collaboration / sharing of good practice Prospect of standards committees disagreeing If cross-sector working, how do you agree a consistent response to potential Code breaches? Would this need to be formalised?

Joint arrangement models: Individual standards committees but shared use of a pool of independent members Potential advantages Some efficiencies on resources made Solves problems with recruitment and retention of independent members Some collaboration and sharing of good practice Strong sense of local filtering Committees can maintain differing terms of reference Might be simpler to get out of joint-working arrangements if things don’t work out Potential disadvantages Potential accessibility problems for members Potential problems with current independent members on fixed terms

Standards committees: Other responsibilities  Auditing role, combine the standards committee with the auditing committee.  Training on Code issues, complaints procedure, register of interests etc.  Should standards committees have a role in promoting ethics among officers, not just authority members?  Raising awareness – promoting the remit of the standards committee amongst members, officers and the public.  Working with an authority’s strategy-makers to ensure that the issue of ethics and standards is embedded within the key policies of the authority’s constitution and targets.  Working with authority officers (e.g. Equalities & Diversity Officer).

Standards committees: Other responsibilities  Overseeing a whistleblowing policy.  Respond to reports from Ombudsman, auditors.  Looking at staff grievances and implementing tribunal decisions relating to suspensions.  Supporting general, non-Code complaints monitoring.  Overseeing employee and user satisfaction surveys.  Considering other protocols (e.g. expenses, use of authority equipment etc).

Focus on fire, police and park authorities Speakers: Jim Cessford Policy Adviser, the Standards Board for England Jonathan Goolden Principal, Jonathan Goolden Solicitors