Complaints about councillors are at their highest level for five years, according to a new Brighton and Hove City Council report.
There were 42 complaints about councillors last year, compared with 32 in 2024, according to the report to the council’s Audit and Standards Committee.
The complaints were about 23 unnamed members of the council. In 2024, the 32 complaints were about 12 councillors but in 2023 – an election year – 27 different councillors were the subjects of complaints.
Councillors are currently not compelled to co-operate with investigations, which have been described as toothless because councils have no powers to suspend or disqualify those who breach the members code of conduct.
But the government published its response in November to a public consultation which supported introducing a mandatory code of conduct.
Measures that could feature in future legislation include
- A right to review for both the complainant and the subject of a complaint to have the case reassessed
- Powers for councils to suspend elected members for up to six months for serious rule breaches, with the option to withhold allowances for those suspended for the most serious breaches
- Powers to suspend elected members if they are under police investigation or awaiting sentence in a criminal court
- The prospect of disqualification for any elected member subject to the maximum period of suspension more than once in five years
- A new national appeals function to consider appeals from elected members against decisions to suspend them and/or withhold allowances and for complainants if they consider their complaint was mishandled
The report said: “Members will be mindful that the above changes will involve significant changes to the status quo.
“While primary legislation is needed to give effect to the above reforms, there is currently no indication of a likely timeframe.
“A watching brief will be maintained and the committee will be alerted once timescales become clear and the detail of the proposals is announced.”
The report on standards complaints showed that the public made 36 of the 42 complaints last year, with the other six made by fellow councillors.
The biggest number of complaints were about councillors’ conduct at council meetings, with 15 complaints.
A further 11 complaints were made about how councillors carried out their ward duties or other activities in their wards.
There were eight complaints about conduct related to council business outside council meetings, including on social media, and eight more about statements reported in the press and on social media.
Ten complaints from last year were still outstanding, the report said.
One complaint, made on Thursday 16 October, concerning a councillor’s conduct is subject to a formal investigation.
The Audit and Standards Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm next Tuesday (27 January). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
The highest number, but only 6% progressed beyond an initial assessment. What does that tell us?
That the Council marks its own homework
No, they don’t, lol. How are they “marking their own homework?”
I guess accumalating complaints is what Cllr Bella Sankey means when she talks about “Labour values in action”
No privacy for former Conservative Councillor Robert Nemeth though, was there? Why are the current Councillors being afforded privacy in complaints made against them that Mr Nemeth was not? https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2022/02/25/yet-more-standards-complaints-lodged-against-hove-councillor/
Seconcly this appears to be damning evidence that the Cabinet council forced upon us is not working for residents if Councillor complaints have almost doubled since it was imposed.
Well, I can answer your question by reading the second sentence in the article you linked. He posted his story on social media.
He was also found to be in breach, twice, and actions undertaken against him.
Any data on who made the complaint……. always the same two people….. will they get a job!!
Yes, but not publicly. The councillor in question is also made aware of who made the complaint unless a reason for non-disclosure is made and accepted.
Councillors who use their contacts for personal use (ie checking systems when they don’t want their trees reasonably “trimmed on Norton”)!
Why are these complaints and the names of the Councillors concerned being kept confidential in a democracy? All complaints about Councillors acting in their public capacity and the outcomes of these complaints should be published on the council website in the public domain. Along with all council FOI requests and their results.
What is the point of the “Democratic Services” department if this is not one of their functions?
Because, as Chris articulated very well before, people deserve not to be hounded by people, especially when the claim was unsubstantiated, which 94% of these from the report are.
The outcomes and complaints are published, that is literally what this article is about, same with FOI requests when done via WhatDoTheyKnow.
It’s clear you definitely would benefit from doing even a basic level of research, or just asking a question, before going off into bad faith rhetoric.
I’m happy to debate the merits of the report, but I’m not interested in engaging with this level of condescension. If you can move past the personal insults and the ‘bad faith’ rhetoric, let me know. Otherwise, there’s no point in continuing this.
If BH Council ran a democratic council to be proud of, there wouldn’t be paranoid talk of “being hounded”. We’d be talking about which bus to name after each Councillor. Instead we endure childish insults and contempt as if they are our masters rather than our servants. Again, what is the point of “Democratic Services”? Their very existence implies “democracy” is completely separate to the rest of the council’s functions.
It’s still a logically unsound perspective.
Let me explain it differently – in practice, a full disclosure of ongoing and unsubstantiated complaints would likely chill legitimate reporting and encourage targeted campaigns against councillors, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds or minority viewpoints.
I think we all know how quickly that can escalate into real-world harm. Transparency matters. But so does fairness.
No wonder they’re delaying local elections again.
Which BHCC elections have been delayed? Let alone ‘again’ ?
In any case the council has zero power to delay elections only the government.
The next BHCC will be in 2027 as scheduled and there is zero need to delay them as BHCC isn’t affected by the council reorganisations.
If elected officials are not held liable for their behaviour, nor required to participate in investigations in which they may be the subject of, involved with or connected to, I have no doubt that the seemingly unending corruption, misappropriation of public funds and utter lack of accountability will continue forever. Publicily elected officials should be required to prove that they are capable to fulfil their function and are fit for purpose before they receive a single penny in wages. Perhaps if Councillor’s wage payments were deferred by 12 months and then only paid if there was anything left in the coffers, we’d probably have a lot fewer people riding the gravy train.
On your second point, though, you would inadvertently reduce the kind of people who could become councillors, just purely down to financial barriers. Remember, these are not wages; if they were, the amounts are so small that it would be unlawful. It’s not a role one does to get rich.
Or your first point, I think that is very reasonable. The process should have some “teeth” as they describe it; otherwise, is there a point to having that process in place? Some might argue that the political party might then decide to go further with it, but then that doesn’t work for independents.