Agenda item

Visits to Town and Community Councils

That the Committee agrees to a rota of visits and the guidelines for how they should be undertaken.

Decision:

(a) That the guidelines in paragraph 1.03 the report be amended to reflect that:

· Independent members of the Committee wishing to participate be provided with meeting dates and contact details to enable them to notify Clerks in advance of visits;

· a rota of visits is not to be published;

· that the member should advise the Clerk to the council of his/her intention to visit a specific meeting;

· that each attendee introduces themselves to the Clerk when they arrive at the meeting and then takes a seat in the public gallery;

· that the attendee should not speak at the meeting unless invited to do so, and should only explain the nature and purpose of the programme of visits;

· that the attendee should decline to give specific advice on matters under the code such as declaring interests, and should refer any such requests to the Clerk, Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer instead;

· Verbal feedback to be reported to the Committee to enable comments to be approved before submitting to Town and Community Councils; and

(b) That the Committee receive a report from officers on the financial implications of making the visits an official duty for the purposes of co-opted member allowances.

Minutes:

The Monitoring Officer presented a report to consider the approach for independent members of the Committee to undertake visits to Town and Community Councils, as suggested at the January meeting. Following communication with Town and Community Councils, only one Town Council had responded to welcome the visits. On that basis, members were asked to consider whether they wished to defer the item pending further consultation or to proceed and consider the draft guidelines in the report.

Councillor Woolley proposed that the Committee accept the recommendation and guidelines as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Heesom.

Mrs. Julia Hughes explained that the aim of the visits was to help improve standards and ensure that members of the public had good access to their local meetings. The practice operated by a neighbouring council was not to pre-publish a rota for the visits but for participating independent members to be provided with a list of council meeting dates. They would then contact the Clerks and introduce themselves, explaining their intention to attend a meeting to observe rather than participate (the same as a member of the public) and leave the meeting prior to any exempt items. In the event that the member was asked to introduce themselves, a common script was used to explain the purpose of the visit in raising awareness of the Code of Conduct and supporting councils to understand their obligations. Generic verbal feedback would be regularly reported to the Standards Committee on issues such as access to agendas, procedural matters, member participation, giving examples of good practice and highlighting training needs.

Mrs. Phillipa Earlam suggested the publication of a checklist to show transparency but Councillor Johnson was concerned that this could be interpreted as an inspection. He felt it was important to promote the visits as working in partnership with Town and Community Councils and went on to ask if there would be a conflict of interest for Members of the Committee who were also on Town and Community Councils. The Monitoring Officer advised that Members who were dual-hatted would not need to declare a personal interest.

The Monitoring Officer suggested that he write to Clerks to explain the nature of the visits in taking notes of perceptions and looking at processes leading to good ethical behaviour which were within the remit of the Committee.

Members discussed how feedback should be reported to the Committee. Mrs. Hughes felt that verbal feedback should be generic, with the key points included in the minutes which were a public document. Mr. Rob Dewey said that feedback could indicate the number of councils visited along with the main findings.

Councillor Johnson suggested that the approach taken by the neighbouring council could be observed and adapted for Flintshire use. It was pointed out that members were able to view the published minutes of that council to see how verbal feedback was reported.

Mrs. Hughes proposed an amendment to the substantive motion from Councillor Woolley that the rota for visits not be published and for Town and Community Councils to be notified individually by members undertaking the visits. This was seconded by Mr. Ken Molyneux. It was noted that this would need to be clarified in the guidelines set out in the report, which had been agreed by the Committee. On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

Following further discussion, the Monitoring Officer summarised the views in that no feedback would be given by the independent members during the visits and that verbal feedback would be reported to the Standards Committee so that comments could be approved before submitting to Town and Community Councils. This further amendment was proposed by Mr. Dewey and seconded by Councillor Woolley. On being put to the vote, this was carried.

The motion put forward by Councillor Woolley, as amended, was put to the vote and carried.

Councillor Johnson asked whether the visits were subject to the payment allowance scheme for co-opted members. Following discussion, Councillor Heesom proposed that the officers report back on the financial implications and this was supported by the Committee.

RESOLVED: