The Governance and Ethics Committee convened to discuss proposed changes to the council's constitution, receive an update on a complaint against Councillor Greg Brackenridge, and review annual reports on information governance and complaints performance. The committee approved the proposed changes to the council's constitution and noted the findings of the sub-committee regarding Councillor Brackenridge. They also reviewed and noted the annual reports on information governance and complaints.

Determination of Complaint Against Councillor Greg Brackenridge

The committee noted the decision of the Governance and Ethics Committee Sub-Committee regarding a complaint against Councillor Greg Brackenridge.

The complaint against Councillor Greg Brackenridge concerned allegations that he had misrepresented his military service, specifically that he had claimed to have served as a Royal Marine when he had only completed 30 weeks of the training process but had to withdraw due to personal circumstances. The Sub-Committee concluded that Councillor Greg Brackenridge had breached the Code of Conduct, specifically regarding treating others with respect, not using his position improperly, not bringing the council into disrepute, and cooperating with Code of Conduct investigations.

The Sub-Committee determined that Councillor Greg Brackenridge should issue a public apology to the Complainant and the Armed Forces Community, and that the Leader of the Council be recommended to remove Councillor Greg Brackenridge from the Resources and Equality Scrutiny Panel.

Proposed Changes to the Council's Constitution

The committee approved proposed changes to the council's constitution, specifically the Full Council Procedure Rules. The changes are set to take effect on 18 September 2025.

The proposed changes include:

• Limiting questions from members of the public and councillors to 25 words.
• Requiring councillors who are not present to notify the Monitoring Officer of a substitute councillor who may ask the question on their behalf, otherwise the question is deferred to the next meeting.
• Allowing the Monitoring Officer to reject motions that are defamatory, frivolous or offensive .
• Adding a Point of Clarification section to allow councillors to challenge statements made during a debate if they believe it is materially misleading or factually inaccurate.

The report noted a request to revert the time allowed for the principal speech and subsequent interventions on motions back to the previous time allowances, but the committee decided to continue with the current time limits and review again later in the year.

Information Governance Annual SIRO Report - 2024-2025

The committee noted the contents of the Information Governance Annual SIRO Report for 2024-2025.

The report provided an update on the work carried out by the Information Governance function, including managing data protection and monitoring risk via the council's Strategic Risk Register. The report stated that the Information Governance team had ensured that the council met its statutory compliance obligations in relation to Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation, and had maintained a proactive stance on compliance by documenting and monitoring action plans designed to minimise risk and enhance organisational performance.

The report also noted that the Council's Statutory Data Protection Officer (DPO) considered that the council had continued to demonstrate resilience and adaptability, maintaining high standards in statutory compliance, effective risk management, and a strong culture of governance.

The report highlighted that failure to effectively manage information governance carries a financial risk, with potential fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of turnover for serious violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Complaints Annual Performance Report - 2024-2025

The committee noted the contents of the Complaints Annual Performance Report for 2024-2025.

The report provided an overview of complaints, including those investigated by the Local Government and Social Care/Housing Ombudsman, received between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025. The council's complaints team handles complaints, compliments, and service enquiries from members of the public, with those relating to children's, adults, and public health matters falling under a statutory framework, while the remainder are handled under the council's Corporate Complaints Policy.

The report stated that the complaints team has continued to work effectively and build strong relationships with council services and Leadership Teams ensuring they meet the corporate and statutory functions and deadlines. The council will continue to maintain a professional relationship in their role as the link officer with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and Housing Ombudsman (HO); this will ensure that the process works effectively for both the council and the Ombudsman whilst resolving complaints quickly and improving public services through learning from complaints.

Code of Conduct – Acting in an Official Capacity

The committee received a presentation on what constitutes 'acting in an official capacity' for the purposes of engaging the Code of Conduct.

The presentation noted that the Localism Act 2011 requires a code of conduct, engaged when councillors are acting in their capacity as a councillor. This applies to face-to-face, online, and telephone meetings, as well as written, verbal, non-verbal, electronic, and social media communication.

The presentation stated that a distinction must be drawn between the individual as a councillor and the individual as an individual, and that a councillor is not a councillor twenty-four hours a day. A link to that person's membership of their authority and specifically their role as a councillor is needed.

The presentation referenced the case of Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England [2006], in which Mr Justice Collins considered the question of official capacity and determined that offensive comments to a journalist were not sufficiently connected to his position as Mayor as to engage the Code of Conduct. The judgement established that for a councillor to be acting in an official capacity:

• the councillor should be engaged in business directly related to the council or constituents; and
• the link between the councillor's office and the conduct should have a degree of formality.

The presentation concluded that Wolverhampton Council can only investigate matters where a member was acting as a councillor at the time of the alleged incident or was giving the impression they were acting as a councillor, meaning that the councillor must either be on council business, representing the council formally, or discussing council matters in such a way as to give the impression that they are on council business.

Webcasting Data from Municipal Year 2024-2025

The committee noted the webcasting data from the municipal year 2024-2025. The data included the overall views, live views, and archive views for Full Council, Cabinet, committees, scrutiny boards, and panels.