CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY 10TH NOVEMBER, 2004 Minutes of the meeting of the Constitution Working Party held in County Hall, Mold on Wednesday, 10th November, 2004. PRESENT: Councillors J.B. Attridge, D. Barratt, Mrs. D. Banks, J. Beard, D.M.D. Clayton, D. Cox, Mrs. G. Diskin, Mrs. R. Griffiths, R.J.T. Guest, P.G. Heesom, M. Higham, P. Walkden and A. Woolley. IN ATTENDANCE: Monitoring Officer and Principal Administration Officer. 7. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN RESOLVED: That Councillor D.M.D. Clayton be appointed Chair of the Constitution Working Party for the remainder of the current municipal year. 8. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN RESOLVED: That Councillor D. Cox be appointed Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the current Municipal Year. 9. MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 26th January, 2004 were confirmed as a correct record. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Minute number 5 – Clwyd Theatr Cymru Councillor P.G. Heesom requested information on this issue and the Monitoring Officer advised that following the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, the information would be available and accordingly agreed the minutes would be available. Councillor Heesom also commented upon his concern at not being able to access minutes and the Monitoring Officer agreed to pursue this point. Minute number 6 – Questions at County Council Meetings on the Minutes of Committees The Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had pursued this issue with other Monitoring Officers but only 6 had responded. However it was his intention to pursue this issue at the next meeting of Monitoring Officers with a view to obtaining information on the trends in other Authorities. Councillor Heesom reiterated his point of concern in relation to Members having the right to question issues when minutes were submitted to County Council. In supporting this view Councillor Steele-Mortimer commented that he felt it was reasonable for Members to be allowed the opportunity to check progress or otherwise on particular issues. The Monitoring Officer indicated that he would report on this issue to a future meeting of the Constitution Working Party. 10. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to consider that part of the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled “Review of Governance Arrangements” dealing with a number of issues which were fully detailed in the report. The Monitoring Officer commented that the report produced by the Council’s External Auditors had already been considered by the Council’s Audit Committee and also to the extent that its role was effected by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee. A copy of the relevant parts of the report dealing with the matters identified by the Monitoring Officer were attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Members were informed that the first matter which required consideration by the Working Party related to the business needed to be undertaken at the Council’s Annual Meeting. PricewaterhouseCoopers had identified two failures in relation to the annual meeting held on the 15th May, 2003. The failures were that the appropriate parts of the Scheme of Delegation and the programme of ordinary meetings for the year were not approved. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that these failures were rectified prior to the annual meeting held on 10th June, 2004 and therefore no further action was necessary. The second matter related to the recommendation that where a Member voted against a majority report at an Overview and Scrutiny Meeting such objection must be made in writing to the Executive or Full Council in the form of a minority report. The Monitoring Officer reported that at its meeting held on 28th October, 2004 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered this recommendation and agreed that the Working Party be recommended to support the retention of the current arrangements. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that in his report to the Committee, the Assistant County Secretary pointed out that the Constitution provided for one minority report to be considered by the Executive or the Full Council as appropriate at the same time as the majority report and if its recommendation were to be implemented it could deter Members from voting against the majority report. PricewaterhouseCoopers also referred to consideration being given to the present limitation on the number of reports that could be submitted to the Executive which was currently two per meeting. In the report they further suggested that if the limit was to be retained, clarity should be provided as to the manner in which the two reports were selected. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee also considered this recommendation at its meeting on 28th October and resolved that the Working Party be recommended to submit the principle that there would be no limit on the number of reports that could be submitted. The Working Party felt that this was reasonable. Finally the Monitoring Officer reported upon an issue which arose from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s discussion concerning the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs and the reference to the action plan attached to PricewaterhouseCoopers report which indicated that there was an expectation that the number of Scrutiny Committees would be increased from four to six with the Chair of two then being filled from the Opposition Groups. The Committee accepted that the most appropriate forum for any such discussion was the Constitution Working Party. Attached to the report was an extract from the Statement issued by the Minister which clearly referred to Scrutiny Chairs and not Scrutiny Vice Chairs. A considerable discussion ensued and Councillor Heesom supported by Councillor N.R. Steele-Mortimer felt that the Opposition should hold a more even balance of Chairs and Vice Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Committee. They supported, by certain other Members, felt it would emphasise a neutrality of the Overview and Scrutiny function if there was such a balance. Councillor Beard supported by Councillors Diskin and R. Griffiths was of the opinion that with the proposal to offer the Opposition Groups two Chairs of the new Overview and Scrutiny Committees significant concession had been made. Reference was also made to the fact that the Opposition Groups held the Chair and Vice Chair of the Audit and Licensing Committees and in fact the Chair of this Working Party. The view was also expressed that the Overview and Scrutiny Function had to date operated effectively on a non political basis. Councillor Beard also referred to the comments of PricewaterhouseCooper and the Governance arrangements and Councillor Heesom felt that the position of the external auditors could in fact be called into question. Councillor Heesom proposed and was duly seconded that the Working Party recommend that three of the Chairs and three of the Vice Chairs be offered to the Opposition Groups, however on being put to the vote this was lost. RESOLVED: (i) That the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee be supported:- (a) that there be no limits on the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports that the Executive can be required to consider at any one meeting. (b) that there be no mandatory requirement for any Member voting against a majority report to object in writing in the form of a minority report. (ii) That the action taken already in relation to the recommendation concerning annual meetings of the Council be noted. (iii) That the Working Party support the proposal that two Chairs, only, of Overview and Scrutiny Committees being offered to the Opposition Groups. 11. CORPORATE PLAN The Working Party considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to consider recommending to the County Council that the adoption of the Corporate Plan be a function of the County Council rather than a function of the Executive. The Monitoring Officer explained that there were a number of plans and strategies referred to in the Constitution as the Council’s Strategy Framework the adoption of which was the sole responsibility of the County Council. For Members benefit a list of those plans and strategies was attached to the report. The Working Party were informed that in practice draft plans or draft revised plans were initially presented to the Executive and consulted upon through the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committees before recommendations were made to the County Council for their adoption. The Monitoring Officer explained that at present the Corporate Plan was not one of the plans or strategies contained in the list and would in normal circumstances be capable of adoption by the Executive. However it appeared that the widely accepted view was that the Corporate Plan was at least as important to the Council as other plans contained in the list. In the circumstances it was suggested that whilst the formulation of the Corporate Plan, subject to consultation, would be undertaken by the Executive, its adoption should become a function of the County Council. In supporting the thrust of the recommendation, Councillor P.G. Heesom felt that the County Council should have a formative role in this function. Supporting this view Councillor A. Woolley felt that it was important that there was not a perception that the Council’s involvement would be a rubber stamping exercise. Councillor J.G. Beard commented upon the arrangements for joint meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees which all Members of the Council had been invited to attend when this issue was under consideration. The Monitoring Officer expanded upon the role of the Overview and Scrutiny function in the consultation process. RESOLVED: That the County Council be recommended to approve that the adoption of the Corporate Plan became a function of the County Council. 12. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to provide clarification in relation to the call in powers contained in paragraph 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules and to clarify that Council Procedure rules 22.2 and 22.3 did not apply to meetings of the Licensing Committee, Appeals Committee or Appointments Committee. The Monitoring Officer reported upon the existing provisions relating to the procedure for call in of decisions. The Monitoring Officer explained at present that the procedure did not specifically stipulate that the request should be in writing and signed by all the Members seeking to make a requisition. To avoid any potential difficulties in the future it was recommended that Paragraph 16 (c) be amended with the addition of the words “all such requests should be in writing and signed individually by those requesting the call in”. The Monitoring Officer reported that Council Procedure rule at rule 22.2 made provision for Members to attend Committees of which they were not a Member to speak on matters significantly affecting their wards. Rule 22.3 also enabled Members in some circumstances to attend meetings to observe and speak at the discretion of the Chair. The Monitoring Officer reported that it would not be appropriate for Members of the County Council to seek to exercise such rights in relation to matters to be determined by the Licensing Committee, the Appeals Committee or the Appointments Committee and it was therefore recommended that these paragraphs be amended accordingly. RESOLVED: That the County Council be recommended that the call in procedure and the rules relating to Members attendance at Committees and sub committees of the Council be amended as detailed in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the report of the Monitoring Officer. 13. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DELEGATION SCHEME The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer, the purpose of which was to consider recommending to the County Council further delegations identified following the last review of the delegation scheme. The Working Party were informed that the delegation scheme adopted by the Council differentiated between the delegation of County Council functions and the delegation of Executive functions. The Leader of the Council was responsible for approving a scheme of delegation in relation to Executive functions and had power to amend them as and when he considered it appropriate to do so. Functions which were the responsibility of the County Council must be approved by the County Council and the practice had developed for prior discussion of any such proposed amendments by the Constitution Working Party. The Monitoring Officer explained the delegations required by the County Treasurer in relation to risk management and procurement functions and also referred to the delegations to the Director of Corporate Strategy which required amendment to enable her to make determinations in respect of applications for injury allowance pursuant to part 5 of the Local Government (Discretionary Payments) (Regulations 1996); this would avoid any potential conflicts of interest. It was considered appropriate to delegate the Head of Human Resources any determinations as to whether a Council employee should be dismissed on the grounds of permanent ill health. Draft regulations had recently been published for consultation purposes which would lead to automatic amendments being made to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. One of the proposals was that the functions of the Licensing Committee would become a local choice matter. This would mean that the County Council should decide whether or not it became a County Council function or an Executive function. The Constitution had been drafted on the basis that Licensing Committee functions would be County Council matters although largely delegated the Licensing Committee and its sub committees with only matters such as the appointment of the Committee and the adoption of the Licensing Policy being reserved for determination by the County Council. Members felt that this was reasonable. The Monitoring Officer also referred to the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation and for Members information advised of amendments that were to be made to the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation. This related to the functions of the Director of Transportation, Planning and the Environment and the Director of Community and Housing. Whilst having no objection to the principle Councillor A. Woolley referred to that delegation identified in 4.01 (c) and felt that with regard to road humps/traffic calming there should be a revision after six months of their implementation on their effectiveness or otherwise. Councillor Barratt also suggested and was supported by the Working Party that delegations in this area should also include “removal of” and this was also supported by the Working Party. RESOLVED: That the suggested amendments detailed in section 3.0 of the report be approved and that the Leader be requested to include in his Scheme of Delegation to the Director of Transportation, Planning and the Environment the amendments suggested by Members of the Working Party as detailed above. 14. CALL IN PROVISIONS The Monitoring Officer reported upon a request to consider an amendment to the Call In provisions so that in addition to the Chair and/or four Members of the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committees having the power to call in reports of the Executive, the Chair and/or four Members of the Co-ordinating Committee would also have the power. Councillor R.J.T. Guest suggested that it would be appropriate for any four Members of the Council to have this right. The Chairman suggested it may be appropriate for the Monitoring Officer to submit the report on the ramifications of such a proposal. However on being put to the vote Members supported Councillor Guest’s proposal. RESOLVED: That the County Council be recommended to amend the provisions in relation to the call in whereby any four Members of the Council have the power to call in reports of the Executive. 15. DURATION OF MEETING The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m. and finished at 11.35 a.m. ……………………….. Chairman SUMMARY OF DECLARATIONS MADE BY MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTYDATE:10TH NOVEMBER 2004 MEMBERITEMMIN. NO. REFERS NO DECLARATIONS WERE MADE - 402 -
