Most of the events that gave rise to accusations of gerrymandering against Westminster London Borough Council occurred before the role of local government monitoring officer was created.

The Westminster case highlights the formidable bite of an external auditor whose power extends to issuing prohibition orders in advance.

By contrast, the monitoring officer has only a feeble bark -- he can issue a report.The creation of the monitoring officer role by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was an interesting experiment.

However, it has technical weaknesses and is less effective as a safeguard of standards than a duty on all employees to report wrongdoing.Before the Local Government Act 1972 was passed, every council had to have a clerk.

Many of these clerks were lawyers and most of them would certainly have seen it as part of their job to keep the council on the straight and narrow path of procedural and substantive propriety.

The 1972 Act abolished that requirement and, in its place, provided 'proper officers' to do a range of tasks, none of which were specifically concerned with propriety.Solicitors in local government came to see themselves as implicitly being responsible for maintaining standards.

Most were rather surprised when the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 created a new position which encompassed that role.

They were equally surprised that Parliament thought any such provision was necessary.Despite occasional and well-publicised failings, nearly all local government lawyers worked in local authorities where the members would run a mile rather than consciously risk doing anything unlawful.Every council -- apart from parish councils -- must appoint one of their officers as a monitoring officer (see s.5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989).

It is often assumed that an officer is an employee but, until well into the 20th century, the chief positions in large councils were held by non-employees.

The clerk of Hertfordshire County Council was in private practice until just after the Second World War.However, I know of no monitoring officer who does not also have another main job; about half of the posts are held by solicitors to the council and the other half by chief executives.There is now a trinity of specified posts -- the monitoring officer, the head of the paid service and a chief financial officer -- which every council must have.

Each is required to co-operate with the others.The 1989 Act requires the monitoring officer to act if it 'appears to him' that something is amiss.

He is a watch-dog.

A cynical council would appoint the deputy manager of its most remote depot as a monitoring officer in the hope that very little would be found to be amiss.

A prudent authority would appoint a lawyer who also worked on the committee service.

The ideal solution would be to appoint a lawyer who managed the committee system.If a monitoring officer issues a report, the full council has to meet to consider it within 21 days.

During this time the proposal is suspended.

The council is free to accept or reject the report, but rejection could be taken as evidence of willfulness.

It is expensive and unpopular to summon a full council -- especially in counties which are accustomed to meeting quarterly -- so a considerate monitoring officer will time his report to catch an ordinary meeting.For the same reason, most monitoring officers will be content to see reports of adverse local ombudsman findings go to committee rather than the full council.

This is despite the fact that there must have been maladministration and a case for a special council meeting to be convened.Reports from monitoring officers are rare, often detailing unimportant issues and sometimes ignored.

The existence of the reporting function does, however, strengthen the monitoring officer in debates with councillors and fellow officers.

Although the duty is usually supposed to be aimed at councillors, it is just as likely that officers, in pursuit of laudable aims, may be tempted to cut corners.

However, it is not a whistleblower's charter.In reality, monitoring responsibility is much better served by the provision of the code of conduct for local government employees (Local Government Management Board and the Local Authority Associations 1994) which expects every employee to report impropriety.WHAT DOES THE MONITORING OFFICER MONITOR?The monitoring officer's target is anything done or not done by any part of the council, which is, was or would be:-- unlawful -- this sounds straightforward but in Credit Suisse v Allerdale BC and Credit Suisse v Waltham Forest BC [1996] The Times, 22 May a bevy of QCs and judges had problems with the law.

The monitoring officer may not even be a lawyer;-- in breach of a statutory code -- eg the national code of conduct for councillors which deals with non-pecuniary interests; and-- maladministration -- this word is used in local ombudsman legislation but is not defined.

The Crossman litany describes it as including 'bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness' It is difficult for any organisation with over 40,000 employees to maintain that it is free of these sins.