From lack of respect to bullying - Documents reveal the most common complaints against Sheffield councillors

All councillors and co-opted members must adhere to Sheffield Council’s code of conduct from the moment they start their role as a representative.

The code applies to all forms of communication including face-to-face, online and telephone meetings; social media messages and posts; and non-verbal communication.

Its purpose is to guide their behaviour, provide a personal check and balance and set out the type of conduct that could lead to action being taken against them.

There were 64 complaints about councillors since the start of 2019 and of those 15 resulted in action being taken against the accused, a Freedom of Information request submitted by the local democracy reporting service revealed.

No action was taken on most of the complaints, around 75 per cent, some of these were due to there being no further information from the complainant or no breach being found.

Most of the cases that prompted action were dealt with by an informal resolution.

Around 42 per cent of complaints made in the past two and a half years related to number one on the councillors’ code of conduct: respect.

Respect is described in the most recent code of conduct – introduced in June this year – as “politeness and courtesy in behaviour, speech, and in the written word” and states councillors must not subject individuals, groups of people or organisations to personal attack.

It goes on to suggest if members of the public are being abusive, intimidatory or threatening, councillors should stop the interaction and report them to the council, police or relevant social media platform.

The second most common was complaint related to members behaving contrary to the council’s duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and the third most common related to bullying and intimidation.

Other complaints related to codes about disclosing confidential information; social media; misusing resources for political gain; disclosing interests; preventing access to information; bringing the council into disrepute; giving the impression of acting in an official capacity when acting in a personal capacity; using position to confer or secure advantages or disadvantages; leadership; openness; accountability and integrity; selflessness; and objectivity.

The council refused to release the date and detailed nature of each complaint saying the accused could be identified.

In a report on complaints discussed at a council overview and scrutiny committee meeting earlier this year, Stephen Bower, internal audit and risk manager, said the number of complaints made against elected members was relatively small and the majority were dealt with quickly.

However, in the meeting councillors raised concern about the length of time it was taking to resolve more complex complaints which the council pays thousands of pounds to legal firms to investigate.

The council paid more than £27,000 to legal firms for three separate investigations into complaints about councillors since the 2018/19 financial year and all were overdue, according to the council’s protocol to resolve complaints within 12 weeks, it was revealed through a Freedom of Information request submitted by the local democracy reporting service.

Number of complaints per year:

2021: 11 so far

2020: 31

2019: 22