Where relevant conduct is already on the public record, it can be assessed before a decision is taken rather than examined afterwards, within an agreed scope, by someone independent of the decision.
Publicly accessible online conduct sits within the standards framework for elected office. In its 2019 review of local government ethical standards, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that councillors be presumed to act in an official capacity in their public conduct, including statements made on publicly accessible social media, and that section 27(2) of the Localism Act 2011 be amended accordingly. The Government declined, taking the view that it was for individual authorities to consider whether their own codes adequately addressed social media use.
Because the question was left to individual authorities, the same conduct may be treated differently in different places.
In November 2025 the Government set out its intention to reform the local government standards regime in England, including a mandatory national code of conduct, mandatory standards committees at every principal authority, and a power to suspend councillors for up to six months. These are proposed measures rather than current law. Nothing on this page should be read as describing the position they would create as one already in force.
Milton Keynes City Council published its own costings in September 2025. An uncomplicated complaint ending in a finding of no breach was estimated to cost the authority at least £295 in officer time. Where an external investigator was appointed, recent quotes ranged from £4,000 to £9,500 for a single investigation, before any hearing. A hearing was estimated at £1,000 to £1,500 an hour once the Monitoring Officer, deputies, governance officers, Independent Persons and investigators were counted. Those figures cover officer time only.
Cost is the measurable part. A standards process also runs in public, occupies officer capacity for months, and places the panel or party that made the selection in a position it has to explain. None of that is recovered by a finding either way.
Milton Keynes City Council, Standards Committee, Cost of Code of Conduct Complaints, 30 September 2025.
Integri makes no claim about the frequency of conduct failures. The Committee's own finding was that a minority of councillors engage in seriously disruptive behaviour.
The case for assessment before selection does not rest on volume. It rests on something narrower. Conduct already on the public record can be assessed before the decision rather than after it.
The case also depends on what counts as evidence. Integri does not use published trackers of councillor departures, in this material or in its assessments. Such trackers record party realignment, resignation and defection alongside conduct matters, and the available sources are maintained by parties with an interest in the subject. Neither the categories nor the sources meet the standards of provenance, independence and relevance Integri applies to its own work.
Integri is politically neutral. Its methodologies, standards and assessment processes are applied consistently regardless of political affiliation, organisational structure, ideology or elected office. Integri does not endorse political parties, candidates or public policy positions.
The standards framework case concerns elected office. The same proposition applies where an organisation is considering an approach rather than an appointment: what can be corroborated about a prospective counterparty is usually discoverable beforehand, and the cost of establishing it afterwards falls on the organisation either way.
That is the case for Pre-Engagement Due Diligence.
If you are weighing an appointment or an approach and want to know whether independent assessment would help, start with the situation.
Start with the situationAll Integri services and outputs are advisory only. Integri does not provide legal advice or representation, exercise statutory powers, certify compliance, determine suitability or fitness for any role, make appointment, selection, disciplinary or removal decisions, or guarantee any particular outcome. Clients and commissioning organisations retain sole responsibility for their own due diligence, human judgement and final decisions. No Integri output must be relied upon as the sole basis for a governance, publication, appointment, selection, engagement, disciplinary, removal or legal decision.