| Minutes: | CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY 26TH JANUARY, 2004 Minutes of the meeting of the Constitution Working Party of the Flintshire County Council, held at County Hall, Mold on Monday, 26th January 2004. PRESENT: Councillor R.K. Evans (Chairman). Councillors: D.M.D. Clayton, Q.R.H. Dodd, E.F. Evans, P.G. Heesom, K. Iball, T.W. Jones, D.G. Parry, H.G. Roberts, N.R. Steele-Mortimer and Mrs. P.J. Walkden. SUBSTITUTES: Councillors J.F. Jones for L.A. Aldridge, D. Barratt for R.C. Bithell, R. Hill for E. Hall and K.W. Richardson for Mrs. A. Slowik. Councillor K. Armstrong-Braun was also present. IN ATTENDANCE: Monitoring Officer and Principal Administration Officer.
1. MINUTES RESOLVED: That subject to the name of the Member substituting for Councillor Mrs. A. Slowik being amended from J.O. Jones to J.F. Jones, the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd September 2003 be approved as a correct record.
2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The Monitoring Officer reported that when his report was considered by the County Council at its meeting held on 18th November 2003, a Member raised the question as to whether there was any age limit in relation to those who could speak and raise questions under this facility. As this matter had not been addressed by the Constitution Working Party, the matter had been referred back accordingly. Members accepted that there should be no upper age limit. It was suggested that it may be appropriate to introduce a lower age limit of possibly 16 or 18 years of age. However, after some debate, Members felt that if a young person was interested enough to raise a question with the Council, then they should not be restricted from doing so purely on the grounds of age. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there was no legal requirement to impose any age condition. RESOLVED: That there be no age limit on persons who wish to speak and raise questions as part of the Public Question Time.
3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION The Working Party considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to consider a request to amend the Constitution and Delegation Scheme and to note other decisions to amend the Scheme made by the Executive, and the Leader. The Constitution Working Party had been requested to consider the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in Section 3 of the Monitoring Officer’s report. The reasons for the amendments were to either reinstate delegations that had been previously given, but were omitted from the first draft of the Constitution, or to provide clarity in the interpretation of Rules or delegations. The Monitoring Officer reported that as the Council Procedure Rules were currently drafted, five Members could requisition a Special Meeting of the County Council under the Council Procedure Rules. However, the Rules failed to provide a timescale within which the Chairman should call a meeting, what happened if he did not do so, or some of the original five Members calling the meeting decided they no longer required such a meeting. Officers had recently, for the first time, had to implement this particular provision and found it to be awkwardly worded and less than adequate to deal with the situation. The report contained a suggested amended clause to address this matter as an interim measure pending clarification from the Welsh Assembly Government concerning the Model Procedure Rules and the statutory position following which the Working Party could discuss the situation further. Members discussed this matter in detail and Councillor Evans suggested with regard to paragraph 3.4 that “3” should replace “4”, on the basis that this would constitute a majority of the five who had raised the issue. Councillor D.M.D. Clayton also suggested that it may be appropriate for para. 3.2 to read “any five or more Members should be entitled to requisition a special meeting of the Council.” On this basis, if one of the signatories withdrew the requisite five signatories would remain. This was duly proposed and seconded and there was an equality of voting. In the circumstances the Chairman felt that it was appropriate that he should use his casting vote in favour of the proposal as identified in the report of the Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer also referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, and recommended the addition of a paragraph as detailed in his report on the Terms of Reference of each of the four functional Overview and Scrutiny Committees. He explained that whilst there was no doubt that the four functional Committees had such powers already, this would provide consistency with the Terms of Reference of the Co-Ordinating Committee. The Monitoring Officer also referred to the transferring of delegated powers exercised by the County Secretary to the list of delegated powers exercised by the Director of Transportation, Planning and the Environment, in relation to powers on Public Path Orders, and these were identified in his report. He explained that the first of these powers was a new delegation, whereas the remainder related to the transfer of power from the County Secretary to the Director of Transportation, Planning and the Environment. The Working Party felt that this was sensible. However, they noted that in some of the delegations there was a clear instruction for local Members to be consulted, whereas in others whilst it was generally accepted that there would be such consultation, it was not specified. The Constitution Working Party agreed that this should be included. The Working Party supported the proposals identified in para. 3.4 in relation to the Chief Building Control Officer; they did similarly for 3.5 in relation to all Chief Officers. Within para. 3.5 Members sought clarification on the term “some other substantial reason”, and the Monitoring Officer explained that this was identified in the legislation. The Working Party supported the decisions of the Executive. In respect of the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation the Working Party referred specifically to 3.7.2. Councillor J.F. Jones, supported by a number of other Members expressed concern at this proposal, and felt the previous system of a Joint Agricultural Board was particularly effective. Members acknowledged difficulties because Denbighshire County Council had not yet identified a commitment in this area. However, there was a shared view that a similar system should be introduced taking account of the expertise of Members who could contribute to the function. It was therefore agreed that the Monitoring Officer pursue this point with the Leader of the Council. On a general point in relation to delegations, Members indicated that in some instances such as decisions on Planning Applications, they were informed of the delegated power decisions. However, in some cases this did not happen and they felt it would be useful for Members to be kept informed. The Monitoring Officer explained certain difficulties in this area, and the need to identify what are purely operation matters and what in fact was a delegated decision which should be brought to the attention of Members. He explained that he had commenced discussion suggesting the introduction of a system where a central record of decisions made under delegated powers was kept. Whilst accepting the benefit of this, Members felt there were issues which they need not trouble the Monitoring Officer about when they just wished to know what a decision was, and suggested that details of all such decisions could be left in Members’ Group Rooms, and this was noted by the Monitoring Officer. RESOLVED: (a) That the recommendations contained in the report be approved; (b) That the Monitoring Officer write to the Leader of the Council bringing to his attention the Working Party’s views in relation to Agricultural (Farm Business) Tenancies; (c) That the Monitoring Officer examine the possibility of introducing a system whereby copies of the appropriate decisions under delegated powers are left in Members’ Group Rooms.
4. CONTRACT PROCEDURE RULES The Working Party considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to enable them to consider the final draft of the Contract Procedure Rules, which had previously been circulated. The report detailed the background to the preparation of the report, and the considerations that were necessary. Members noted one or two typographical amendments, and the Monitoring Officer indicated that he felt this would be a working document and could be amended, particularly during the first 12 months, with the benefit of experience. RESOLVED: That the Contract Procedure Rules as identified in the report of the Monitoring Officer, be approved subject to the minor amendments noted by the Monitoring Officer.
5. CLWYD THEATR CYMRU The Constitution Working Party considered a request from the Chairman of the Governing Body regarding distribution of the minutes of the Board to the Press. The Monitoring Officer suggested it may be appropriate for him to prepare a report for the next meeting of the Working Party, and expanded upon his reasons, particularly in relation to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. REDOLVED: That the Monitoring Officer submit a report to the next meeting accordingly.
6. QUESTIONS AT COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON THE MINUTES OF COMMITTEES The Monitoring Officer reported upon a request to consider a review of the current practice whereby only questions of accuracy concerning minutes were permitted. The Monitoring Officer explained how the current system operated and in particular the role of the Chairman. He had written to all the other Monitoring Officers in Wales to ascertain what systems operated in their Councils, and although he had had a limited response it appeared that a similar system was generally the norm. However, he suggested that when he had received all the other comments and undertaken further research, a further report be submitted to the Working Party. RESOLVED: That the Monitoring Officer submit a report to the Working Party accordingly. DURATION OF MEETING The meeting commenced at 2:00 p.m. and ended at 3:15 p.m. ………………………………… Chairman - 1085 - |
|
