Agenda and minutes

To agree the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 17 March 2011.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 17 March 2011 be agreed subject to the following amendment namely that Councillor J Markham had sent his apologies.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute members present.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

There were no declarations made pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

The OSC is about to formulate next years OS work plan incorporating a programme for this Panel. In view of this, the Panel may wish to bring forward suggestions/ideas on topics for inclusion in its work programme for next year.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted. The Panel was advised of the following in relation to its Work Programme:

(a)        Existing Programme

Item 5              Review of Officer Delegation to be submitted to the February 2012

Item 6              Review of Financial Regulations to be submitted to the February 2012.

Item 7              Planning/Covenants – Council Responsibilities put before the July Panel meeting.

Item 8              Review of Petitions – Change in Legal Requirements put before the November 2011 Panel meeting.

Item 9              Review of Annual Council arrangements put before the February 2012 Panel meeting.

Item 10            Statutory Review of Polling Stations put before the November 2011 Panel meeting.

(b)       New Items

There were extra items announced for the Panel’s Work Programme, as follows:

• Review of Audit and Governance Committee Membership. The Corporate Governance Group had queried whether a Deputy Portfolio Holder should sit on the Audit and Governance Committee. It was anticipated that a report would be submitted to the July Panel meeting.

• Report from External Auditor on the former Chief Executive, this was dependent on a Council decision expected in late July.

• Councillor Mrs M Sartin requested a report regarding a Review of Webcasting. This would be scheduled into this year’s Work Programme.

• The Panel Chairman requested a report concerning Scrutiny Panel Chairmen making presentations at Council meetings.

• The Panel Chairman also requested a report on the Annual Report 2010/11 of the Remuneration Panel.

• It was advised that a report would be submitted to the Panel concerning how Member reports on Outside Bodies were presented at Council meetings.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were to note the additional work of this Panel.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report regarding the Referendum and Elections, held on 5 May 2011, from Mr I Willett, Returning Officer.

The Referendum on the voting system for United Kingdom Parliamentary Elections was held on 5 May 2011, together with the District and Parish/Town Council Elections. The Referendum was being held to decide on the following question:

“At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”

A total of 18 District Council Wards were contested and there were 4 Parish/Town Council wards contested.

Results

The electorate for the Referendum in the Epping Forest District was 95,778, the results were as follows:

(1)  A total of 36,909 papers were issued of which 36,908 were counted;

(2)  28,240 electors cast votes in favour of No (77% of the share votes cast) and 8,533 cast votes in favour of Yes (23% of the share of the votes cast). The turnout was 39%;

(3)  The overall UK result of the Referendum was 13,013,123 in favour of No (67.9%) and 6,152,607 in favour of Yes (32.10%); and

(4)  In each of the District Wards contested, one Councillor was due for election. Turnout in the District Wards varied between 47.80% in the Chipping Ongar, Greensted and Marden Ash Ward and 26.10% in the Waltham Abbey Paternoster Ward.

Arrangements

The Referendum was held under the framework provided by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA). It was therefore conducted under a different management and accountability structure requiring a Chief Counting Officer, responsible for certifying the overall result and giving specific directions to Counting Officers relating to the discharge of their functions in the Referendum.

Polling Stations

The Chief Counting Officer directed ratios in relation to the staffing of polling stations. They were as follows:

(a)   Polling Station could not have more than 2,500 electors allocated to it;

(b)   additional to a presiding officer, there was one Poll Clerk for Polling Stations with up to 750 electors;

(c)   one additional Poll Clerk was appointed for Polling Stations with up to 1,500 electors;

(d)   one further Poll Clerk was appointed for Polling Stations with up to the maximum of 2,500 electors; and

(e)   In order to abide by this direction it was necessary to provide 87 Polling Stations on 5 May 2011 and the appointment of over 80 Presiding Officers, and around 150 Poll Clerks.

Postal Votes

The total number of Referendum postal vote packets issued was 9,540 many of which also included District Council ballot papers and some also Parish/Town Council ballot papers. Approximately 74% were returned. The Chief Counting Officer directed that arrangements were made for a final sweep of Royal Mail Sorting Offices on polling day, to locate and receive postal votes still in the postal system.

(i)      This required a licence from Royal Mail costing £598.00 and payment of £544.00 for a sweep of the Main Sorting Office in the District, and £435.00 for each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr I Willett, Assistant to the Chief Executive, regarding Member Complaints Panel – Limits of Jurisdiction.

The Member Complaints Panel (CP) was responsible for considering complaints at Step 4 in the Council’s complaints procedure. Currently, certain types of complaints fell outside the limits of jurisdiction of the Panel and cannot therefore be considered at Step 4.

These exclusions were:

(1)        A complaint about a situation which had arisen more than 12 months before it was brought to the attention of the Council.

(2)        Where an alternative and formal right of appeal existed, and for which the complainant failed to exercise his/her right to appeal within the specified timescale, or has not yet appealed, or had already made such an appeal.

(3)        Matters which would best be dealt with by the courts.

(4)        Matters which would affect the majority of the people in the Epping Forest District.

(5)        Complaints for which a resolution could only be achieved through a change in the law, or a change in the policies of another organisation.

(6)        Complaints about polices currently subject to a review, or about matters for which it had already been agreed that a policy needed to be reviewed or formulated.

(7)        Complaints about the frequency of delivery, or the level of a service which was subject to contract conditions.

(8)        Where the customer elected to pursue legal action as a means of determining their complaint.

In recent years, other types of complaints had been made for which consideration by the Complaints panel was found inappropriate. It was therefore recommended that the limits of jurisdiction should be extended to encompass these as well:

(a)        If, at Step 1, 2 or 3 in the complaints procedure, the complainant had already been offered the maximum remedy that the Complaints Panel was empowered to offer.

Reason:          The complainant gained no additional benefit from a further review at Step 4.

(b)        When there was no evidence that the complainant had suffered any harm or injustice even if there had been administrative fault by the Council.

Reason:          Unless the complainant could show that they have suffered an injustice, there were no matters that required rectification. Members noted that the Local Government Ombudsman applied the same exclusion.

(c)        If, at Step 1, 2 or 3 in the complaints procedure, the complainant had already accepted the proposal remedy and had formally confirmed that he or she had done so in full and final settlement of all of his or her complaints.

Reason:          Formal acceptance of a remedy concluded the complaint.

(d)        If, by going to Step 4, the complainant would then be left with insufficient time to submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman within the Ombudsman’s 12 month time limit.

Reason:          The Ombudsman would not usually consider a complaint of more then 12 months had elapsed since the complainant first became aware of the problem. If the Council insisted that all complainants always go through Step 4 before being able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr I Willett, Assistant to the Chief Executive, regarding Member Substitution at Committees.

The District Council’s Constitution allowed for substitutes to be nominated at Overview and Scrutiny Committee/Panels and the District Development Control Committee.

Currently a substitution was notified to Democratic Services by 10.00a.m. on the day of the meeting. The point of contact being a single member for each group. The Constitution stipulated that only the Deputy Group Leader could undertake this role. The Panel considered whether there was scope for widening this role to include the Group Deputy Leader and a political group whip or other delegated individual.

At the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 11 April 2011, a request was made for a report to be submitted to this Panel, regarding the process of making substitutions for Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the District Development Control Committee. The request had been to change the 10.00a.m. deadline for notification to 4.00p.m. on the day of the meeting, providing groups with greater flexibility when arranging substitutions. It was noted that not all meetings concerned here started at the conventional time of 7.30p.m. In these cases notification for substitutions should take place earlier.

Members requested that notification should take place not later than 30 minutes before the start of the meeting.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That a report be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and then Council recommending as follows:

(a)        to permit a Leader, Deputy Leader or other appointed member of a political group to notify the Assistant to the Chief Executive of any substitute members to attend a meeting;

(b)        to require that any political group member so appointed be notified to the Assistant to the Chief Executive at the beginning of each Council year;

(c)        to amend the deadline for notifying substitutes from “not later than 10.00a.m.” to “not later than 30 minutes before the commencement of the meeting concerned.”

(2)        That a report be submitted to the Council recommending that approval be given to these alterations and their publication in the Constitution.

(3)        That, if possible, the substitution notification deadline be included on every agenda where this is permitted under the Constitution; and

(4)        That this process be reviewed after 1 year.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

The following reports were being submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12 July 2011:

(1)        Referendum and Elections 5 May 2011;

(2)        Complaints Panel – Limits of Jurisdiction; and

(3)        Substitutions at Meetings

At the last meeting of the Panel, proposed dates for Panel meetings in 2011/12 were noted, they were:

30 August;

22 November; and

28 February 2012

However, since that time it was found that these dates were not compatible with the schedule of Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings. Therefore officers have booked new meeting dates as shown below:

27 July;

8 November; and

20 February 2012

The next programmed meeting of the Panel was 27 July. It was advised that two extra meetings would be needed because of Panel workloads. Officers would inform members of the suggested dates.