Agenda and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest at the meeting.

Philip McCourt of Bevan Brittan will provide the following documents for discussion. These will be circulated to Members prior to the meeting:

·       Draft terms of reference for the committees, along with structure diagrams.

·       Spokesperson Member role descriptions.

·       A draft revised key decision definition and a referral process.

·       A draft of a rescission process is attached to be discussed as an alternative to O&S call-in.

The Assistant Director of Governance and Law advised that a webpage had been created on the council’s website, including information about the change in the council’s governance arrangements. The webpage would be updated as things progressed.

She also added that at Full Council the previous week, it had been agreed to extend the term of the existing IRP Members, and recruit an additional IRP Member.  The IRP would be convened later in the year to consider and make recommendations on a new allowances scheme for Members.

Phillip McCourt then gave a presentation setting out the proposed structure of the new committee system, and listing the functions for each of the two proposed service committees.  He advised that it was down to Members to decide how the functions were to be divided up between service committees. The presentation also included a draft role description for the spokesperson role.  He also outlined the three further documents, relating to the process for referring a decision to a committee, a recission process, and an outline of a key decision/forward plan process.  

Members of the Working Group commented on various issues, and the following points were discussed:

·       Would the proposed structure slow down decision making?

·       The Planning and Audit and Governance Committees would remain separate, as per current arrangements.

·       A two service committee system would enable the pool of members involved in decision making to be widened. With two committees made up of 12 Members, this would give 24 out of the 30 members an opportunity for input into decision making.

·       The proposed split of functions seemed sensible, and the Communities Committee should have a Housing Sub-Committee.

·        Business relating to Oportunitas and Otterpool Park LLP would be considered at the Shareholder Sub-Committee, which was considered good governance.

·       It was preferable that there be no double handling of items between committees, and therefore vital that there was clarity as to what items needed to go to which committees. This could delay decision making and cause confusion with officers.

·       It would be possible for Members to be part of both service committees.

·       It was important that there was no ability for committees to keep ‘recycling’ items, and could only be referred to Council once. There should also be an urgency provision built into any ability to call items in.

·       A rescission process was useful, but the criteria should be set high, ie 50% of the Council and cross party, to ensure it could only be used in exceptional circumstances.

·       What powers did the Leader have?

Phillip McCourt added the following points:

·       Having a set financial threshold for which items would automatically go to the Resources Committee would allow clear parameters for decision making.

·       An agreement as to the final structure and terms of reference for each committee needed to be reached within the next two months, but there was still time to make changes at present. Working Group Members would be expected to discuss the proposed structures within their political groups, and feedback to the Working  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.