Reputation management

Local government has always come under heavy scrutiny from the press and from members of the public, in terms of the conduct of elected representatives and the decisions they make, but in the digital age, inappropriate conduct, acts and omissions are ever more visible to the public.

The use of digital and social media has grown exponentially in recent years. This has positive benefits to be embraced, such as the opportunity to engage with communities by providing online information and services. However, with these benefits comes greater accountability and risk of reputation damage if local authority executives and members conduct or decision making is inappropriate, biased, unfair or perceived to be unfair. To maintain public trust in the system, members and employees have a duty to maintain high standards of conduct and ethics and to consider the consequences of their personal conduct on the reputation of the local authority as an entity.

The Localism Act 2011 abolished the Standards Board regime and the national code of conduct that went with it and replaced it with a requirement that authorities promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members.

Part

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Local Government News

Local Government weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes enhanced coverage on the Supreme Court judgment in The Father v Worcestershire CC, in which the father’s appeal against the care order placing his children in foster care, was dismissed, coverage of the Cabinet Office's final preparations for the Procurement Act 2023, which is set to go live on 24 February 2025 and expert analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment in Hussaini v Islington LBC. Case reports include the decisions in Sheffield CC v The Mother, on the Family Court's ruling that the child experienced significant harm due to parental neglect, meeting the threshold criteria under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989; (R (LR) v Coventry CC where the Court of Appeal quashed the local authority's support assessment for family, citing legal errors and failure to consider children's welfare; Tickle v The BBC concerning the Court of Appeal’s setting aside of an order anonymising judges in family proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural bias; R (MM) v SSHD in which the Administrative Court upheld the interim relief order for the claimant's accommodation and care support amid judicial review; IS v SSWP in which the Upper Tribunal upheld the decision on PIP entitlement, confirming no error in handling overlapping benefit claims; R (SARCP) v Stoke-on-Trent CC where the Court quashed the local authority's care home fee decision due to inadequate consultation and statutory breaches; Boffey v Dyer on the High Court’s ruling that property used solely for living accommodation remains liable for council tax; and DurhamCC v Stephenson where the High Court granted an interim injunction to prevent ongoing planning control breach in County Durham. The weekly highlights also includes further updates on Public procurement, Education and Healthcare.

View Local Government by content type :

Popular documents