Agenda item

To review and note the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report.

The MO introduced the report and informed Members that it included a summary of actions taken throughout 22-23 in relation to her role. She added that appendix A covered Freedom of Information Act requests, of which 654 requests had been received, which was an eight percent increase over the previous year. It was noted that the MO also had a responsibility to determine where Section 36 exemptions applied which release of information might prejudice the Council’s conduct in undertaking its business, but there had not been any instances of this throughout the year. The MO noted that 29 Subject Access Requests had been received, and there had been no serious data breaches requiring referral to the ICO. She added that the Council had undertaken one covert investigation throughout the year in-line with the RIPA Policy, which had proceeded to the Magistrates Court. It was noted that there had not been any whistleblowing disclosures made, and that the Anti-Fraud, Corruption and Bribery Policy was up to date. The MO reported that appendix B covered ombudsman complaints, of which only two had resulted in any findings against the Council, resulting in small compensation payments. She added that Members registers of interests were hosted on the Council’s website, and a new online form had been developed to make the process more efficient. It was noted that only one instance of gifts and hospitality had been declared on the Member’s register, whilst the officer’s register had eighteen declarations. On code of conduct matters, it was noted that twenty complaints had been received throughout the year, with seventeen relating to Parish and Town Councils, and three to the District Council. The MO stated that the Council had now appointed two independent persons, and that most complaints related to inappropriate behaviour.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman referred to FOI requests and noted that the number reported equated to approximately two per day, and asked whether these requests ever related to information that was already publicly available. The MO replied that the Council had a dedicated officer for processing FOI requests, but due to their working hours, the requests amounted to approximately four per working day, not including Subject Access Requests. She added that some information could be found elsewhere, and the Council had a scheme of publication that requestees were often referred to. It was noted that more specific requests often required the involvement of specific officers.

      ii.          Cllr S Penfold referred to appendix C and noted that Members were often given tickets to the opening of the Cromer Pier Show, and asked whether this should be declared on the register of gifts and hospitality. The MO replied that Members would need to contact her to declare gifts and hospitality, though there was a £50 threshold with no obligation to report below this amount. The CE stated that he had recently discussed the matter with the MO and in the interest of transparency all gifts and hospitality to officers were reported. He added that the Council owned the Theatre and had a unique relationship with the operator, which meant that opening night tickets were often offered to staff and Members and was not deemed to be inappropriate.

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to FOI requests and asked whether there were any identifiable trends that could be addressed to reduce the overall number of requests received. The MO replied that topical matters covered by the local and national media often warranted more requests, but they did not generally follow a pattern. The CE noted that approximately seventy percent of requests did not directly relate to the actions of the Council, with many speculative requests received from journalists regarding national issues.

    iv.          The Chairman referred to appendix F on code of conduct complaints and noted that there appeared to be a high number from Fakenham, and asked if there was any reason for this. The MO replied that this was the result of a number of complaints received from a single individual, rather than several separate complaints.

      v.          Cllr L Vickers clarified that complaints from Fakenham involved Town Councillors, rather than District Councillors.

    vi.          The Chairman referred to the standard report template and asked why this hadn’t been used for the report, to which the MO replied that the annual report did not ordinarily fit into the standards template. The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to use the standard template in future, with the inclusion of a summary page.

   vii.          The Chairman referred to the simplification and presentation of financial information and suggested that this was critical matter to ensure that Members fully understood reports that they were required to approve, and asked whether this could be considered going forward. The MO replied that additional finance training was planned, with further training for officers to improve understanding of financial reports.

  viii.          The Chairman referred to contract exemptions and asked whether limited supplier availability impacted the Council’s ability to achieve best value for money. The MO replied that there was guidance available for these instances, and officers would be given support from statutory officers. The Chairman asked whether these situations increased costs for the Council, to which the CE replied that the procurement exemption process had recently been updated with a robust framework. He added that some contracts required specialist suppliers, and in many cases the Council was still able to demonstrate value for money. It was suggested that IT systems and licenses were a concern, as the number available was continually reducing, which significantly limited the options available to local authorities and therefore posed a risk. The MO stated that it helped to seek options early in the procurement process to ensure that all options had been considered.

RESOLVED

To review and note the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report.