Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. 2 Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Municipal Board Making Your Case to the Board Presented by: William Barlow, Chair Lori Lavoie, Vice Chair.
Advertisements

The role of the Parish Clerk Local Determination of Complaints.
Sexual Harassment Seminar Mechanisms in Lingnan University to deal with sexual harassment Presented by Li Kam-kee, Director of Administration.
Webinar: How to handle PRP appeals Presented by Heather Mitchell, employment lawyer at Browne Jacobson.
Delivering local determinations and setting sanctions Speakers: Simon Bird Deputy President The Adjudication Panel for England Mark Jones Principal Legal.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Old and New A & P Grievance Procedures.
Faculty Forum: March 5, 2008 Shall the Collected Rules and Regulations be revised to adopt the revised Pilot Faculty Grievance Procedure recommended by.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SECTION 59 GRIEVANCE PROCESSES Terry Lisson Director Promotion Appeals & Grievance Reviews 22 April 2010.
What are my child’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Randy Chapman The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older.
An Introduction to the ABCD For the Casualty Actuarial Society Course on Professionalism Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Actuaries.
“Student Due Process” School Administrators of South Dakota April 7, 2015.
Localism Act 2011 Michael Blamire-Brown Legal Adviser WMPA.
Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement June 6 - 9, 2010 Fredericton, New Brunswick.
THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.  Established in 1952  The judicial authority of the EU  Cooperates with the courts and tribunals of the.
Data Protection Recruitment Process
Peer Review The Profession’s Tool of Self-Regulation.
DEALING WITH HARASSMENT AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS Lt (NL) James Smith VANCOUVER ISLAND DIVISION.
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING
Understanding decision making - Prosecuting complaints Karen Mobbs Director of Proceedings Health Care Complaints Commission Patrick Griffin Barrister.
The Education Act 2002 & School Staffing Regulations 2009 (as amended 2012 and 2013) Responsibilities for Governors in respect of Staff.
DEVOLUTION OF ETHICAL STANDARDS/CODE OF CONDUCT CHANGES JAMES FINDLAY 2-3 GRAY’S INN SQUARE.
Planning appeals Peter Ford Head of Development Management Planning Committee Training – 30 th July 2015.
Code of Conduct Complaints Local Assessment Framework (08 May 2008 – 30 June 2009)
Doc.: IEEE /1129r1 Submission July 2006 Harry Worstell, AT&TSlide 1 Appeal Tutorial Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE
New rights for people complaining about adult social care providers – an introduction.
STATE OF ARIZONA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS Mission Statement The mission of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to protect the health, welfare,
PUBLIC MEETING LAW Clackamas County Counsel Steven Lounsbury.
IFTA DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS AMENDMENT PROPOSALS Present by Rick LaRose, Chair Dispute Resolution Committee Annual IFTA Business Meeting July 18-19,
Towards improvement: Institution of appeal in public procurement – topical procedural and evidentiary issues Kyiv, April , 2012 Oleksandr Voznyuk.
Draft Ethics Bylaws Current draft. The new code describes ethical behaviour Old A Member shall refrain from making false statements, written or oral,
Procedure for the resolution of grievances in the ILO.
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due to.
What is an IPRC? Regulation 181/98 of Education Act
Policy and Procedure for the Handling of Complaints against the AG Consultation with the Standing Committee on the Auditor-General 9 April 2008 Wandile.
West Virginia Department of Education Introducing ……. Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities.
ODAO Information Sharing Day Presentation February/March Office of the Disability Appeals Officer Oifig an Oifigigh Achomhairc um Míchumas National.
The Code of Conduct and standards arrangements Paul Hoey Natalie Ainscough.
Bath and North East Somerset Council Planning Enforcement Training Olwen Dutton Partner, Bevan Brittan.
Page  ASME 2013 Standards and Certification Training Module B – Process B7. The Appeals Process.
An Introduction to the ABCD For the Casualty Actuarial Society Course on Professionalism Copyright © 2015 American of Academy of Actuaries. All Rights.
Welcome Managing concerns and complaints How should schools handle complaints? This session links to guidance from the DfE and local authorities, and looks.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Division of Immigration Health Services FY 2010.
Your Rights! An overview of Special Education Laws Presented by: The Individual Needs Department.
Change Orders, Extras and Claims Presented by Geoffrey Cantello, City of Ottawa.
Procedural Safeguards for Parents What Educators Should Know Michelle Mobley NELA Cohort III.
LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE Managing labour Disputes G Makings Legal Practitioner.
Safeguarding the public: Through ensuring Fitness to Practise.
January 2009: PRS Template Presentation PRS for Music Code of Conduct.
1 Diocesan Canonical Changes Duncan A. Bayne Vice-chancellor Diocese of Olympia Title IV.
Performance Management – Part 3 BCUHB Capability Procedure (WP3A) 69.
Exclusions and Reviews. Key Points Permanent exclusion should only be used as last resort Decision to exclude must be lawful reasonable and fair A permanent.
Undergraduate Honor System Annual Report 2016 Frank Jiang Undergraduate Student Attorney General ’17.
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING.
Code of Ethics and Ethics Panel
Non-contentious disposals
Sexual Harassment Seminar
Agenda 5.11 General Regulations
Quality Workshop The Local Council Award Scheme is a great guide for good practice in our sector and a way for councils to build confidence in their.
Mediation 20/04/2018.
Complaints Investigation Presenter: Ms H Phetoane Senior Investigator :HealthCare Cases Prepared for OHSC Consultative Workshops.
Complaints Investigation Presenter: Ms H Phetoane Senior Investigator :HealthCare Cases Prepared for OHSC Consultative Workshops.
Complaints Investigation Presenter: Ms H Phetoane Senior Investigator :HealthCare Cases Prepared for OHSC Consultative Workshops.
Complaints Investigation Presenter: Ms H Phetoane Senior Investigator :HealthCare Cases Prepared for OHSC Consultative Workshops.
EEO MODULE 3: DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCESSING
Sponsor Ballot Comment Resolution
Appeal Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year
Complaints Investigation Presenter: Ms H Phetoane Senior Investigator :HealthCare Cases Prepared for OHSC Consultative Workshops.
Making Local Government a Participatory Sport
Presentation transcript:

Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints

2 Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due to the introduction of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which amends the Local Government Act  Initial complaints about members ethical conduct no longer go to the Standards Board for England and must be assessed locally.  Code of Conduct complaints are now dealt with by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council’s Standards Committee Assessment Sub-Committee and Review Sub-Committee.

3 Stage One (Making a Complaint)  All Code of Conduct complaints should now be addressed to the Chair of the Standards Committee, care of the Council’s Monitoring Officer at Stockton- on-Tees Borough Council, Municipal Buildings, Po Box 11, Church Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 1LD.  Complaints should be made in writing. Complaint forms and guidance notes for complainants are available on the authority’s website at:  On receiving a complaint, the Monitoring Officer will determine whether the complaint appears to be a substantive allegation of member misconduct, rather than a policy / service disagreement, a complaint against an Officer or some other form of alleged procedural or administrative irregularity.  If the complaint appears to be a conduct matter relating to a member, the complaint will be acknowledged in writing by the Monitoring Officer, which will include a request for any additional information.

4 Stage Two (Assessment Sub- Committee)  Within 20 working days of receiving the misconduct complaint an Assessment Sub-Committee meeting will be arranged to consider the complaint.  An Assessment Sub-Committee will be formed from Standard Committee members and shall consist of at least three members, with an independent co- opted chair, at least one elected member of the Council and a parish representative when considering a misconduct matter relating to a Parish or Town Council.  The Assessment Sub-Committee meetings are held in private and no representations from the member complained about are received, as the meeting is an assessment of a complaint and is not a determination of the complaint based on any findings of fact.

5 Stage Two (Assessment Sub- Committee)  The Assessment Sub-Committee will consider the information provided in relation to the complaint, and will decide whether or not any further action is justified, taking into account the assessment criteria / guidance documents which are available to help the Sub-Committee reach their decision. ss/revasssubcrit.doc  The Assessment Sub-Committee’s decision will be one of the following:  No action should be taken in respect of the allegation  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer or Standards Board for England for Investigation  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer for other action (mediation, training, conciliation, etc)  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer of another authority, if the member is no longer a member of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council but is a member of that other authority.

6 Stage Two (Assessment Sub- Committee)  As far as is reasonably practicable (usually 5 working days) the complainant, subject member and clerk (if it is a Town or Parish Council matter) will be notified of the Assessment Sub-Committee’s determination via a decision notice. This notice will detail the reasons for the decision.  If the Assessment Sub-Committee decide that investigation or other action is appropriate the complaint will be referred to the Monitoring Officer. However, the Sub-Committee can refer a matter to the Standards Board for England (see assessment criteria document).  If the Assessment Sub-Committee determine that no action is warranted, the decision notice will confirm that the complainant has a right to a review of the decision should a request be made in writing within 30 days of the date of the decision notice.

7 Stage Three (Review Sub- Committee)  On receiving a valid review request a Review Sub- Committee meeting will take place within 3 months of the date the request was received, although attempts will be made for the Review Sub-Committee meeting to take place as soon as practicably possible (usually within 20 days of receipt of the request).  A Review Sub-Committee will be formed from Standard Committee members and shall consist of at least three sub-committee members, with an independent co-opted chair, at least one elected member of the Council and a parish representative when considering a misconduct matter relating to a Parish or Town Council.  The Review Sub-Committee will not consist of any member who took part in the original assessment of the complaint.

8 Stage Three (Review Sub- Committee)  The Review Sub-Committee will be conducted in two stages:  To determine whether the original decision was unreasonable based on the information at the time.  To consider any new evidence which demonstrates the initial decision is no longer sustainable.  The Review Sub-Committee’s decision will be either:  No action should be taken in respect of the allegation  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer or Standards Board for England for investigation  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer for other action (mediation, training, conciliation, etc)  Refer the allegation to the Monitoring Officer of another authority, if the member is no longer a member of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council but is a member of that other authority

9 Stage Three (Review Sub- Committee)  As far as is reasonably practicable (usually 5 working days) the complainant, subject member and clerk (if it is Town or Parish Council matter) will be notified of the Review Sub-Committee’s determination via a decision notice. This notice will detail the reasons for the decision.  If the Review Sub-Committee determine investigation or other action is appropriate the complaint will be referred to the Monitoring Officer. However, the Sub- committee can refer a matter to the Standards Board for England (see assessment criteria document).  If the Review Sub-Committee determine that no action is appropriate, the decision notice will confirm that this is the end of the process and that there is no further right of appeal to the Council against this decision.

1010 Stage Four (Other Action)  If the Assessment or Review Sub-Committees determine that a matter should be referred to the Monitoring Officer the subject member and complainant will be contacted by the Monitoring Officer regarding the other action proposed (mediation, training, conciliation, etc).  Following attempts to reach a resolution with the subject member and complainant, the Monitoring Officer will report back to the Sub-Committee on the action proposed and / or taken.  If the Sub-Committee are not satisfied with the action proposed and / or taken, or the response, they can make a further direction to the Monitoring Officer. This direction cannot however include investigation, as this option is no longer available once other action has been chosen.  Once the Sub-Committee is satisfied with the action proposed and / or taken or the response the complaint will be closed and the subject member and complainant will be advised accordingly.

1 Stage Five (Referral to the Monitoring Officer for Investigation)  If the Assessment or Review Sub-Committees decide that a matter should be referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, the Monitoring Officer will appoint an Investigator locally.  Once appointed the Investigator will write to the complainant and subject member to introduce themselves and to confirm details of the forthcoming investigation process.  Investigations / enquiries will be made by the Investigator and in most cases a draft report produced, which will detail the findings and the investigators opinion on whether or not there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct.  The draft report will be forwarded to the complainant and subject member for comments. The Investigator will then finalise the report having considered any comments made.  The Investigator’s report will then be considered by the Standards Committee’s Consideration Sub- Committee who will determine if the findings of the report are agreed or not.

1212 Stage Five (Consideration Sub- Committee)  A Consideration Sub-Committee will be formed from Standard Committee members and shall consist of at least three sub-committee members, with an independent co-opted chair, at least one elected member of the Council and a parish representative when considering a misconduct matter relating to a Parish or Town Council.  Assessment / Review Sub-Committee members may also sit on the Consideration Sub-Committee in connection with the same complaint.  At the Consideration Sub-Committee meeting the Investigator will attend to present his report orally. The Sub-Committee will determine whether the meeting is open to the press and public or to be held in private and will be able to ask the investigator any relevant questions.  Having considered the investigation report the Consideration Sub-Committee’s decision will be either:  that it accepts the finding of the report of no failure  that the matter should be considered at a hearing  that the matter should be referred to the Adjudication Panel for England for determination.

1313 Stage Five (Consideration Sub-Committee)  If there is a case to answer the Sub-Committee will direct the Monitor Officer to make arrangements for a hearing or refer the matter to the Adjudication Panel for England (APE).  A referral to the APE will only be made if the Consideration Sub-Committee agree that a serious breach of the Code may have taken place and that the sanctions available to the Standards Committee are insufficient. The President of APE must also have indicated that he is willing to accept such a referral.  The APE process is by means of a referral to a quasi- judicial case tribunal. The sanctions available include suspension not exceeding 12 months / disqualification not exceeding 5 years.  If the Sub Committee considers that there is no case to answer the relevant parties will be notified and the case will be closed.  The Consideration Sub-Committee will in each case explain the reasons for their decision.  The Sub Committee also has a statutory duty to publish a finding of no failure, unless the subject member requests the Sub Committee not to do so.

1414 Stage Six (Hearing)  A Hearing Sub-Committee will be formed from Standard Committee members and shall consist of three to five members, with an independent co- opted chair, at least one elected member of the Council and a parish representative when considering a misconduct matter relating to a Parish or Town Council.  Standards Committee members involved in the complaint’s initial assessment / review can take part in a subsequent Hearing Sub-Committee.  A Consideration Sub-Committee member should not take part on a Hearing Sub-Committee that deals with the same complaint.  The hearing is a formal meeting of the Council and not a court of law. It will consider verbal and written presentations regarding any disagreements about the facts of the case, in accordance with its agreed procedures.

1515 Stage Six (Hearing)  Factual evidence will be decided on the balance of probabilities.  The hearing is a three stage process and the Hearing Sub-Committee will: 1. Make findings of fact. 2. Based on the finding of facts decide whether or not the Code of Conduct has been breached. 3. If a breach is found, determine what sanction/s are appropriate, if any.  The Hearing Sub-Committee may also make any additional recommendations to the relevant authority with a view to improving members ethical conduct.

1616 Stage Seven (Appeals)  A member subject of a finding of a breach / sanction as a result of a Standards Committee hearing can seek permission to appeal and apply for the suspension of a sanction (until such time as any appeal is determined) by way of a notice in writing to the president of the Adjudication Panel for England.  Such notice must be received by the president of the Adjudication Panel within 21 days of the member’s receipt of the Standards Committee notice of finding.  The president of the Adjudication Panel will determine whether an application for permission should be granted on the basis that there is a reasonable prospect of success (either in whole or part). Within 21 days of receipt of the written notice the president of the Adjudication Panel will confirm the decision and give reasons.  Where permission is granted and the member has not consented to an appeal being conducted by written representations the matter will be referred to an appeals tribunal hearing.

1717 Stage Seven (Appeals)  An appeals tribunal will consist of not less than three members appointed by the president of the Adjudication Panel for England.  The procedure for conducting an appeal will be such as the appeals tribunal considers appropriate.  An appeals tribunal must either uphold or reject the Standards Committee finding (including any sanction imposed).  Where the appeals tribunal rejects a finding, the Standards Committee decision will cease to have effect from the date of the decision.  Where the appeals tribunal upholds the finding, or part finding it may confirm the decision to impose no sanction or it may impose any sanction that was available to the Standards Committee.  Should the Adjudication Panel for England decision be disputed, the member may seek to appeal further, on a point of law to the High Court.