Constitution Working Party
Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
13 February 2015
A meeting of the Constitution Working Party will be held in Meeting Room 3 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday 23rd February at 10.00am.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs H Cox, Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A M Moore and Miss B Palmer, Mr T
FitzPatrick, Mr MJM Baker
cc Mr J Punchard, Mr G Williams
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting, please let us
know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a
different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Strategic Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
MINUTES
(page 1)
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Constitution
Working Party held on 09 February 2015.
3.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
3.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
4.
UPDATES TO THE CONSTITUTION
To consider any recent changes to the Constitution, as advised by the Monitoring
Officer.
The changes could reflect:


5.
Changes in the law
Changes in the internal structure of the Council, titles of postholders etc.
Improvements to the existing constitution suggested by the Monitoring Officer
REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
To receive an update from the Monitoring Officer on the following parts of the
Constitution:



6.
Review of the Protocol for Officer/Member relations
Review of the Scheme of Delegation
Review of the procedure and rules for Council meetings (to include a summary of
statutory and discretionary rules)
REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
To receive an update from the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services Team
Leader on progress regarding the review of governance arrangements.
7.
FUTURE MEETING DATES
Monday 16th March 2015 – 10am Committee Room
8.
WORK PROGRAMME
February 23rd 2015
To feedback on and discuss the following:
-Review of Governance arrangements
-Review of Constitution (including above workstreams)
March 16th 2015
Planning Delegations
Review of Financial Regulation
To agree on the report/update to Council regarding
progress on the review of governance
arrangements and the overall review of the
Constitution
Nicola Baker
Karen Sly
CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY
Minutes of a meeting of the Constitution Working Party held on 09 February in the
meeting Room 3, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Working Party:
Mrs H Cox, Ms V Gay, Mrs A Moore, Miss B Palmer
Mr G Williams (substituting for Mr T FitzPatrick)
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer and the Democratic
Services Team Leader
1
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs A Fit, Miss B Palmer
2
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2015 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman
3
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
4
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
5
UPDATES TO THE CONSTITUTION
The Monitoring Officer informed Members that ‘he had made some changes to the
Proper Officer designations in the Constitution to ensure that they fully reflected any
legislative requirements. The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the version
of the Constitution on the Council’s website had been updated to reflect these
changes.
6
FUTURE WORK AREAS – REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to introduce this item. The Chief Executive
explained that she felt this was a good opportunity to reflect on the aspects of the
Constitution that worked well or didn’t work well for both officers and members and
ensure that the Constitution was as ‘fit for purpose’ as possible following the election
in May 2015.
The Chief Executive said that three areas stood out as potentially needing a review:
1. The Protocol on Member/Officer Relations. This was currently a bit of a grey
area and a review, with the aim of providing a framework, would be beneficial to
both officers and members. The Chief Executive referred to the current guidance
Constitution Working Party
1
09 February 2015
on consultation with local members and said that officers felt that there was not
enough clarity on when they needed to consult with or notify members about a
matter affecting their ward. She also referred to members’ frustrations regarding
this issue.
2. The Scheme of Delegation. This part of the Constitution was very specific in
some areas and not so clear in others. It was felt that a review would ensure
consistency and make it easier for officers to comply with and also ensure that
the Scheme of Delegation fully reflected the requirements of the Transparency
Code and the Openness Regulations.
3. Procedure at Council meetings. The Chief Executive referred to some current
aspects of Council meetings that didn’t seem to work well such as the updates
from Cabinet members which currently did not allow an opportunity for members
to ask questions. However, it was important that there were some procedural
rules in place to ensure that business progressed.
The Chairman asked the Monitoring Officer if he wished to add anything further. He
said that he had started work on reviewing the Scheme of Delegation and the
Protocol on Member/Officer relations. He acknowledged that the hardest part would
be the review of the Council procedure rules as it needed to reflect what Members
wanted. He wondered whether some items that were currently considered by Council
could be dealt with outside of the meeting.
Ms V Gay said that Council meetings were a grey area and they seemed to be
shaped by the Chairman as everything was at their discretion. A good chairman
ensured the meeting ran well but this was not always the case. The Monitoring
Officer replied that Members could vote to suspend standing orders if they felt the
meeting was not running as it should.
Mr G Williams commented that he had once attended a Council meeting that had
lasted over 9 hours and although Members would not want to opt for lengthy
meetings, very short meetings were also an indication that the processes and
procedures were not working well. He agreed that it made sense to allow Members to
question Portfolio Holders and said that the best approach to take would be for
Members to ask themselves what they wanted Council meetings to achieve and then
the rules should reflect this.
The Chief Executive said that some clear rules would provide clarity for the Chairman
and Members. The more discretion the Chairman had the more challenging the
meeting could be.
The Chairman referred to her experience as chairman of Norfolk County Council.
She said that it was very difficult to remain fully independent when chairing a meeting
but that the Chairman should remain in control at all times. She went onto say that
fewer Members had experience of how to chair a meeting now and that robust
guidelines would be helpful.
The Chief Executive asked whether it would be helpful for the Monitoring Officer to
look at the current rules and explain which ones were set by statute and which ones
members had discretion over. Members agreed that this would be helpful.
Mr G Williams said that this topic was linked to the next agenda item - the review of
governance arrangements - as the way Members interacted at Council meetings
reflected their involvement in the decision-making process more generally.
Constitution Working Party
2
09 February 2015
The Chief Executive asked the Working Party if there were any other areas of the
Constitution that they wished to review. Mrs A Moore referred to the planning scheme
of delegation and queried whether it should be updated to reflect the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Monitoring Officer said that he would look at
this as part of his wider review. He explained that he was intending to take a broader
look at delegations to allow officers to undertake the day to day running of the
Council, reserving policy decisions to Members.
Mr G Williams asked about delegation to portfolio holders. The Chief Executive
confirmed that there was no scheme in place for this. Currently officers made
decisions in consultation with the relevant portfolio holder.
The Chairman said that she felt that one of the main areas of concern for Members
was around consultation with local members on matters affecting their ward. The
Chief Executive replied that one of the reasons for providing a framework was to
clarify the difference between notifying and consulting as this currently caused a lot
of confusion. The Chairman replied that she felt these issues and concerns were
filtering through to Council meetings and causing some frustration for Members. Mr G
Williams agreed and said that a new protocol should cover everything from members
wanting to know something to needing to know something. The Monitoring Office
said that he would look into the County Council protocol which Members seemed to
favour.
7
REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
The Chairman invited the Monitoring Office to introduce this item. He began by
referring Members to the report he had prepared. He explained that two models of
governance were predominant – an Executive or Leader and Cabinet system and the
Committee system. A few councils had an elected mayor but this must be preceded
by a referendum. He advised members that any change would need to be in place for
5 years – or a referendum would need to be held.
He then referred to the LGA publication ‘Rethinking Governance’ which had been
circulated to the Working Party. He said that it was important that any system of
governance was the choice of the authority and reflected the needs and priorities of
its members. He then outlined the essential differences between a Cabinet and
Leader system and the Committee system. He said that the Committee system was
often considered to be more democratic as it was more participative but it should be
acknowledged that it could be a slower process. He concluded by referring to a
hybrid system of governance. This was essentially the Cabinet system with some
additional committees put in place to enable discussion and input prior to Cabinet
meetings. He suggested that a good starting point may be to consider the merits and
disadvantages of the Cabinet system versus the Committee system.
The Chairman invited the Working Party to comment:
1. Ms V Gay said that she had no experience of a committee system but she did
not want to delegation to Portfolio Holders under the current Cabinet system.
She asked about the power of the Chairman under a committee system as
historically there had been the perception that they could be corrupt. Mr G
Williams replied that he did have experience of working within a committee
system (however, not since 2012) and he was familiar with the use of
‘chairman’s decisions’ to expedite business. This indicated that the system could
be overly bureaucratic although it was a good way of sharing member’s
experience and knowledge. A committee system would always require a coordination committee to avoid a free for all. Mr Williams reiterated his earlier
Constitution Working Party
3
09 February 2015
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
point that members should decide on what they wanted from a governance
system and then see how that could be achieved. The Monitoring Officer added
that many local authorities which were now moving to a committee system were
looking at a modernised version to ensure the processes weren’t too onerous.
He agreed that committee chairmen did assume the role of portfolio holders in
many ways.
The Chief Executive asked how the chairmen of committees were elected under
a committee system – by Council or by the committee? The Chairman replied
that at Norfolk County Council, committee chairmen were selected by the
Leader. This had caused some issues as one political group had no chairmen
appointed at all. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was a matter of law
and that the first item of business for any committee was to elect a chairman.
Ms V Gay queried whether there was a mechanism in place for reversing a
decision under a committee system. Mr G Williams referred to the minority group
process which used to operate. The Monitoring Officer said that this was a safety
net but in effect any decision could be reversed – as it could under the cabinet
system. The only problem would be changing a decision once someone had
acted on it.
The Chief Executive referred to a decision taken when the council operated
under a committee system previously. She said the outcome depended on who
turned up to the meeting which made it very difficult for officers in terms of
strategic planning. She agreed that members had more of a role to play under
this system but it was in specialised areas on particular committees. She
concluded by saying that if the scrutiny function worked well and working parties
were in place to develop policy then the current cabinet system could operate
even more effectively.
Mr G Williams agreed. He said that developing the scrutiny function and altering
the sequencing of committee meetings so that scrutiny could have an input into
policy development could provide a solution to some of the issues concerning
members.
Mrs A Moore said that allowing items to go to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee prior to Cabinet would allow the members to partake openly without
pressure from their political groups. The Chief Executive said that the feedback
from the recent corporate peer review had highlighted that the role of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee in policy development could be very effective.
Mr G Williams added that portfolio holders should welcome any input from the
scrutiny committee.
The Chairman said that Member involvement in the decision-making process was
very important. The country was entering a period of political instability and members
need to think about their commitment and level of involvement. Mr G Williams added
that when the cabinet system was first introduced it was seen as a way of freeing up
time for ward level activities but unless this was fed back into the decision-making
process it did not work well. This was why an effective scrutiny function was so
important as it allowed Members to feed back.
Ms V Gay agreed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was very important as it
provided a broad overview of the Council’s work.
The Chairman said that it was important to acknowledge the strengths that existed
within the current system as a starting point and then look at areas which could be
improved. Mr G Williams agreed and said that it might be worth getting together a
group of Members to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.
The Chief Executive said that this would be a good opportunity to find out the views
of all Members. Ms V Gay suggested that the Member Development Group might be
Constitution Working Party
4
09 February 2015
a good forum for facilitating a session for all Members. Ms B Palmer added that it
was also important to try and ascertain why some Members did not participate at all.
The Democratic Services Team Leader informed members that the Democratic
Services team was currently in the process of preparing an ‘exit survey’ for all current
Members to try and capture their views and experiences of being a councillor over
the previous four years. She suggested that an additional question could be included
to cover governance and decision-making. This would ensure that all Members would
have an opportunity to feed in their views.
8
WORK PROGRAMME
The Chairman asked Members to consider the upcoming work programme. The
Chief Executive said that future meetings would be advertised fully to all Members.
The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the dates would be included in the
Members’ Bulletin and the agendas would be circulated widely.
The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive for attending the meeting and for
informing the Working Party about officers’ views on constitutional issues.
The meeting closed at 3.22 pm.
Chairman
Constitution Working Party
5
09 February 2015