Issue - meetings

(Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report (STD-002-2015/16).

The Monitoring Officer presented a report on the proposed Terms of Reference for a merged Audit & Standards Committee.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that many local authorities had combined their Audit and Standards Committees, especially as the workload of the Standards Committee had dwindled in recent years since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011. The proposal was to combine the Standards Committee with the Audit & Governance Committee and have a combined Terms of Reference that followed good practice from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA). The Committee was reassured that there were no new functions in the proposed Terms of Reference that were not already being performed by one of the two Committees.

The Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee that it had had more issues to deal with in the past, but the Localism Act 2011 had delegated authority to the Monitoring Officer to deal with Member behaviour issues and report the outcomes to the Standards Committee. And although it still had a role in examining and commenting upon protocols and procedures, it was felt that it no longer had enough business to merit being a separate Committee - three of the scheduled six meetings in the previous 18 months had been cancelled due to a lack of business. There would be a standing item on each agenda of the new Committee for Standards issues to be discussed, and this approach had worked well at other Councils.

The Monitoring Officer reported that a number of other Councils had combined their Audit and Standards Committees, including Harlow District Council and Broxbourne Borough Council with whom the Council had a shared Chief Internal Auditor. The reasons for this being low complaint activity following the implementation of the Localism Act 2011, and the similarities and synergies as both Committees dealt with issues concerning governance, probity and the transparency of processes. This issue had been considered by the Audit & Governance Committee at its meeting on 30 November 2015, who had welcomed the report and had agreed the merger in principle as they felt that it would be more efficient. If the Standards Committee was in agreement then final approval for the merger would need to be sought from the Council.

The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee of the comments received from Parish Cllr Whybrow, who had been unable to attend the meeting. She had suggested that Standards issues be scheduled at the beginning of the agenda, so that Parish and Town Council representatives could excuse themselves from the rest of the meeting when that item had been dealt with, and the Monitoring Officer agreed that this would be a sensible course of action.

Cllr Stallan stated that he had not supported the merger of the two Committees last year, and that nothing had changed his opinion since then. He emphasised that a number of Committees had meetings cancelled on a regular basis due to a lack of business, but that did not mean they should be considered for dissolution. Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24

(Chief Internal Auditor) To consider the attached report (AGC-012-2015/16).

The Chief Internal Auditor presented a report on the proposed terms of reference for the Audit and Standards Committee.

The Chief Internal Auditor advised the Committee that many local authorities had combined their Audit and Standards Committees, especially as the workload of the Standards Committee had dwindled over recent years since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011. The proposal was to combine the Standards Committee with the Audit and Governance Committee and have a combined Terms of Reference that followed good practice from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The Committee was reassured that there were no new functions in the proposed Terms of Reference that were not already being performed by one of the two Committees.

The Chief Internal Auditor highlighted one issue concerning oversight of Treasury Management. Currently, it was the Audit & Governance Committee which provided Member monitoring of the Council’s Treasury Management function, and the Committee received three reports per year, in September, November and February. If this function was provided by the Resources Select Committee instead, then the number of meetings for the Audit & Governance/Standards Committee could be reduced from the current five to four each year.

The Chief Internal Auditor stated that if the Committee was in agreement then final approval for the merger of the Audit & Governance and Standards Committees would need to be sought from the Council following formal consultation with the Standards Committee and possibly the Resource Select Committee as well depending on the outcome of discussions regarding the oversight of Treasury Management.

The Director of Governance added that the Council needed a facility to deal with complaints if necessary, and that vehicle was the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee had more issues to deal with in the past, but the Localism Act 2011 delegated authority to the Monitoring Officer to deal with Member behaviour issues and report the outcomes to the Standards Committee. And although it still had a role in examining and commenting upon protocols and procedures, it no longer had enough business to merit being a separate Committee. There would be a standing item on each agenda of the new Committee for Standards issues, and this approach had worked well at other Councils. It was also highlighted that the Independent Members would not have voting rights on any Standards issues considered by the new Committee.

The Director of Resources reminded the Committee that the Council used Arlingclose for Treasury Management advice, and Member training events for Treasury Management were held each year. It was acknowledged that Member knowledge of Treasury Management would vary each year, and that the Independent Members of the Audit & Governance Committee had provided the on-going expertise.

The Committee welcomed the report and were in general agreement that the Committees should merge as it would be more efficient. It was felt that oversight of the Treasury Management function should remain with the new Committee. It was highlighted that Treasury Management would be reported to Audit in the private sector and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31