Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, Councillors of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

Councillors must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

No disclosures or whipping of interests were made.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Review of Outside Bodies and Organisations Scrutiny Panel held on 22 February 2018.

The notes of the meeting of the Review of Outside Bodies and Organisations Scrutiny Panel Committee held on 22 February 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Panel has invited a Link Officer to attend the meeting to help inform their investigation.  Anthony Masson (Senior Planning Officer – CBC), will provide information on the role, the support services provided together with the work carried out with the appointed Member(s) throughout the appointment to the Outside Organisations and the Organisations themselves.  Additionally, Craig Downs (Funding and Commissioning Officer – CBC), whilst not able to attend the Panel meeting will provide a briefing note on the above, together with information relating to the grants process. (Paper to be circulated separately).

The Panel had invited Link Officers to attend the meeting to help inform their investigation.  Anthony Masson and Ian Warren from the Council’s Planning Department provided information on the role, the support services provided together with the work carried out with the appointed Member(s) throughout the appointment to the Outside Organisations and the Organisations themselves. 

Both officers work was planning based, and for the purposes of the scrutiny panel was in connection with the Conservation Area Committees where there was a historic or architectural interest or if there were comments required on a planning application.  The majority of the committees were independent but worked with the council. Attendance by councillors tended to be by Ward members. With regards to the role and responsibilities, it was made clear that the officers do not attend every meeting and only do so if there is a specific issue or item of concern.  However if/when a new Conservation Area Committee is established greater attendance may be required at the outset purely to assist in the arrangements and to provide guidance.  It was confirmed that the officers act as advisors as the Councillors tend to have the local knowledge and provide the conduit between the council and the Committee.

Panel Members were of the view that the officers’ roles should be advisory and the councillors nominated to outside organisations should be the conduit (link member) and assist the organisation with providing links to other services within the council should other queries arise.

The Scrutiny Panel welcomed the update and the Chair thanked the Officers for their contribution and attendance at the meeting.

Craig Downs (Funding and Commissioning Officer – CBC), whilst not able to attend the Panel meeting had provided a briefing note on the above, together with information relating to the grants process.  It was acknowledged that the role of the Link Officer was advisory and assisted in enabling communications between the council and outside organisations or voluntary/community sector. 

Panel Members identified that it was paramount for the nominated councillors to be the link between the organisation and the council. A discussion took place as to whether the term ‘Link Member’ would be preferred. However it was noted that depending on the capacity served on an outside organisation, an individual councillor will represent that organisation. As a result it was determined that the term ‘Nominated Member’ should remain.  Furthermore, it was discussed whether the term ‘Link Officer’ was still valid, given that the role is advisory and the councillor should be dealing with the majority of enquires, thus further supporting the evidence provided at the witness session.  The term ‘Link Officer’ is a well-known and used term and whilst the responsibilities may have altered it would be reasonable to continue its use.

To discuss the recent consultation exercise undertaken with Outside Organisations, Members and Link Officers, together with the analysis.

Panel Members discussed the recent consultation exercise undertaken with Councillors, Link Officers and Outside Organisations, together with the analysis of the results. 

It was evidenced that many responses linked the nomination of outside organisations to the receipt of community grants.  It was highlighted that this was a misnomer. The nomination of Councillors to Outside Organisations should not be undertaken based on the provision of, or the scrutiny of, the council awarding a Community Grant.

The provision of Community Grants is specifically administered by the Funding and Commissioning Officer within Community Development and applies stringent terms and conditions. Organisations awarded funding are required to sign a standard funding agreement, which includes certain undertakings - which includes providing regular detailed monitoring reports on the use of any funding within a specified period.  The Grants Process is audited through the council’s Internal Audit. This is included in the Internal Audit Plan, submitted to the Audit Committee.

Referring to the consultation analysis, it was clear that there were inconsistencies with regards to the survey responses.

At the time of writing, 7 responses had been received from outside organisations.  This response was low and other local authorities had been stringent in their approach to reviewing appointments to outside organisations. In some cases, it had been recommended that where a response was not received an appointment was no longer made by the Council.   It was noted that responses were also still outstanding for councillors. Consequently the Panel discussed an option where if a response was not received from both the organisation and related nominated councillors to propose that an appointment is no longer made.  It was however felt that this may be too strict an approach.

The majority of those responses received from the outside organisations were positive in terms of the current relationship and how well this had worked over the last 12 months.

At the time of writing, 11 responses had been received from Link Officers, one of whom also responded to say that they did not know which organisations they were a Link Officer for. 

Whilst 81% (9) of the respondents receive agendas for the meetings, only 27% (3) regularly attend the meetings.  This supports the information provided at the witness sessions by the Planning Officers that officers only attended where there was a specific need.

With reference to the responses from councillors, 36 surveys remain unreturned. It was noted that based on the 20 responses received, only 55% correctly identified their Link Officer.

There was a mixed response in terms of ‘adding value’ to the council.  75% (15) of councillor responses had positive comments regarding the process.  It should be noted that 2 respondents included inaccurate reference to the Community Grants process.

More alarmingly, following the analysis that had been completed it was clear that councillors were unaware or unsure of the capacity in which they serve on the various outside organisations.  When comparing and contrasting the results from the organisations along with those from councillors nominated for that organisation it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To receive any relevant updates/information from Officers and Panel Members, including additional information required in advance to support the AGM process.

The Panel considered whether criteria should be applied for the determination of outside bodies to which an appointment is to be made.  Other authorities had applied criteria such as:

·         The proposed appointment was a statutory requirement.

·         The proposed appointment would contribute to the aims and objectives of the council’s priorities.

·         The proposed appointment would add value to the council’s activities.

Panel Members discussed the above in connection with the survey results as to whether the nominations to outside organisations ‘added value’ to the council.  Whilst the response rate was low (36 surveys unreturned), 75% were positive towards the nomination adding value.  It was agreed that applying criteria was not pertinent at this time.

A future meeting of the Panel would take place after the Council AGM and 12 June 2018 was provisionally allocated.

      i.        What additional information the Panel requires to help progress or complete the review.

     ii.        Whether it is ready for a final report on the work of the Panel to be drafted for submission to a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission and, if so, to agree how this report should be prepared.

    iii.        Agree recommendations and content for the final report.

The Panel discussed the preparation of the report. It was agreed that a draft report would be compiled incorporating the proposals as discussed and agreed.  The report would be circulated in advance of the proposed meeting to enable comments to be incorporated into the final version for a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission in June.