Agenda and minutes

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

There were no substitutions made.

(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.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor A Watts declared a non-pecunary interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee. The Councillor advised that his interest was not prejudicial and would stay in the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon:

• Item 7 Audit and Governance Committee – Article 11 of the Constitution

To consider the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 20 February 2012 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel, held on 20 February 2012, be agreed.

(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 received updates to the Work Programme as follows:

(a)        Item 7 (Review of Petitions)

A report was scheduled for 25 September 2012, however this would be submitted to the Panel in January 2013.

The Vice Chairman suggested that the Panel discuss moving all District Council meetings Mondays to Wednesdays, and allowing the Parish and Town Councils to meet Thursdays and Fridays. It was advised that if agreed, this process could only begin from May 2014. Members agreed to discuss this issue in December 2012.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director (Democratic Services), regarding the Local Elections, 3 May 2012.

There were 22 District Council Wards and 9 Parish/Town Council Wards contested on 3 May. In each of the District wards contested except for Epping Lindsey and Thornwood Common, one Councillor was due to be elected. In Epping Lindsey and Thornwood Common, two Councillors were due to be elected, one to fill the scheduled vacancy, and another to fill a casual vacancy resulting from a resignation. An election was not scheduled for the Hastingwood, Matching and Sheering Village Ward, but was necessary following a boundary change. Turn out in the district wards varied between 39.06% in the Theydon Bois ward and 18.64% in the Waltham Abbey South West Ward.

In the Parish and Town Council Wards, the number of candidates per ward varied from 14 in Buckhurst Hill East to 4 in Loughton St. John’s. The turnout ranged from 38.43% in Loughton Forest to 24.14% in Loughton Fairmead.

A project plan and a risk register for the elections was prepared in December 2011 and updated regularly. Returns were submitted to the Electoral Commission at intervals, regarding compliance with their guidance and actions in the Project Plan.

Polling Stations

There were 57 established polling stations were provided in 48 different buildings on 3 May 2012. In Stapleford Tawney it was necessary to use St. Mary’s Church, as the normal venue was unavailable. Fifty Presiding Officers and around 110 Poll Clerks were appointed, with sufficient standby staff, some of whom were called upon at short notice.

On election day representations were made about the condition of the entry path to the Allnutts Institute Polling Station. The surface to the entry path had deteriorated at the point where it joined the public footway making it difficult to negotiate by some electors. Tellers suggested that a better location would be the Scout Hall in Hut’s Lane. However, there were concerns about using that venue from a road safety point of view, although it had a car park. An alternative was the renovation/repair of the entry path, discussions were taking place with the Institute.

Representations were made about restricted access to Murray Hall in Borders Lane, Loughton. One of the main entrance doors was open, and the other which accommodated wheelchairs, could have been opened by pressing the entrance button. Discussions were taking place with Loughton Town Council regarding the possible re-positioning of the sign drawing attention to the entrance button.

The Presiding Officer on duty at St. Edmunds Church Hall, Matching Green raised the viability of the venue as a polling station as it accommodated two polling districts, but the total number of electors voting was 12 in one, and 15 in the other. All the electors arrived by car. Because of boundary changes, many electors who had previously at the Church Hall now voted at the Matching Village Hall. Following consultation with the parish clerk, the local district and county members, it had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant to the Chief Executive regarding Audit and Governance Committee (AGC) – Article 11 of the Constitution.

When this Panel considered Article 11 of the Constitution (Audit and Governance Committee) on 8 November 2011, the discussion was based on a review of its membership rules. As a result, the District Council adopted proposals allowing Portfolio Holder Assistants to serve on the committee for a year, subject to review. It was reported that the AGC wished to carry out a further review of Article 11 in a number of respects.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the following alterations to Article 11 of the Constitution, the Terms of Reference of the Audit and Governance Committee be approved:

(a)        removal of the requirement for the 3 seats for Councillors to be allocated according to pro rata rules;

(b)        inclusion of new membership requirements for the three Councillor seats, namely:

(i)         that the seats should be allocated so that they are not drawn from one political group, and are open to independent Councillors (ie those not affiliated to any political group);

(ii)        that the 3 Councillors should be appointed on the basis of expertise, experience and interest as recommended by the Council’s Appointment Panel;

(iii)       that informal attendance and performance standards be operated in respect of the three Councillor members when re-appointment is under consideration by the Appointments Panel;

(iv)       that the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee and the co-opted members of that Committee be consulted informally about appointment and re-appointment of Councillor members of the Committee;

(c)        appointment of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee to be the responsibility of the Committee rather than the Annual Council meeting;

(d)        the offices of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee to be open to Councillors or co-opted members;

(e)        co-opted members to be subject to the same informal attendance and performance standards as apply to Councillor members of the Committee during their terms of office;

(f)         co-opted members to serve for overlapping terms of three years subject to the following conditions:

(i)         a maximum of two consecutive 3 year terms as of right but subject to attendance and performance review as set in (e) above; and

(ii)        ability to serve for further 3 year terms, subject to success in open competition following  a public advertisement;

(g)        determination of starting dates for the new three year terms of office for the present co-opted members to be delegated to the Committee;

(2)        That the revision to Article 11 of the Constitution relating to the terms of reference of the Audit and Governance Committee be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Council for adoption and publication in the Constitution.

(3)        That the attention of the Council be drawn to the legal requirement that the adoption of recommendation (1)(a) above must be approved with no member voting against.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant to the Chief Executive, regarding the 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. Some complaints fell outside the Panel’s jurisdiction, and could not be considered at Step 4. These exclusions were:

(a)        a complaint about a situation which arose more than 12 months before it was brought to the attention of the Council;

(b)        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 had not yet appealed, or had already made such an appeal;

(c)        matters dealt best by the courts;

(d)        matters which would affect the majority of the people in the District;

(e)        complaints for which a resolution could only be achieved through a change in law, or a change on other polices;

(f)         complaints about policies currently subject to a review, or about matters for which it had already been agreed that a policy needed reviewing or formulating;

(g)        complaints about the frequency of delivery, or the level of a service which was subject to contract conditions;

(h)        where the customer elected to pursue legal action as a means of determining their complaint;

(i)         if the complainant, at Steps 1, 2 or 3, had already been offered the maximum remedy that the Complaints Panel was empowered to offer;

(j)         when there was no evidence that the complainant had suffered any harm or injustice even if there had been administrative fault by the Council;

(k)        if the complainant had already accepted the proposed remedy and had formally confirmed that they had done so in full and final settlement of all of their complaints;

(l)         if, by going to Step 4, the complainant would then be left with insufficient time to subsequently submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman within the 12 month time limit; and

(m)      if the complaint had already been determined by the Local Government Ombudsman.

In the light of some complaints that were considered during 2011-12, it was recommended that the following further exclusions be applied:

(i)         Where a complainant’s claim for financial compensation or reimbursement had already been considered but rejected by an independent body which had the legal authority to determine such claims.

Reason:          The decisions of independent bodies took precedence over decisions of the Council so could not be overturned by officer or members.

(ii)        Where the complainant disagreed with a decision made by the Council but had neither suggested nor provided any evidence that there was any administrative fault in the way that decision was made.

Reason:          Both the Council’s complaints procedure and that of the Local Government Ombudsman could only determine if there was any administrative fault in the way a decision was made.

(iii)       Where the only remedy requested by the complainant was financial by nature and the amount requested was less than £150.00.

Reason:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant to the Chief Executive regarding Substitutions at Meetings.

The District Council’s Constitution allowed for the nomination of substitutes for Committees, Sub-Committees, Panels, Boards and Groups (Operational Standing Orders – Non Executive Bodies (14).

Following a request from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 11 April 2011, this Panel on 2 June discussed the process of making substitutions for the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the District Development Control Committee. The Panel recommended that the procedure was amended to allow for substitutions to be made up until 30 minutes before the commencement of the meeting concerned. However, at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12 July, members amended the report for substitutions to be made until 60 minutes before the meeting which was subsequently adopted by the Council on 26 July 2011. This Panel recommended that a review of this process take place in a year’s time.

Officers advised that the generic email “Democratic Services,” for Group representatives to notify officers at Research and Democratic Services of substitutions was not always being used. Otherwise, from officer’s perspective, the process appeared to have worked efficiently.

Members recommended that Operational Standing Order 14 – Non Executive Bodies should be amended as paragraphs 1 and 3 were no longer felt needed, it should be for the Chief Executive to undertake these tasks. With this in mind paragraph 14(2) had been re-worded setting out the duties of the Chief Executive and the circumstances under which he could act.

RECOMMENDED:

That a report be submitted to the Council recommending that the Appendix to Operational Standing Orders (Non Executive Bodies) be amended as follows:

(a)        to delete paragraphs 14 (1) and (3);

(b)        to re-number paragraph 14 (4) as paragraph (1); and

(c)        to amend paragraph 14 (2) to read as follows:

“(2) It shall be competent for the Chief Executive, in circumstances where a political group notifies that a Councillor from that group will be temporarily unable to attend a Committee for a period of 8 weeks by reason of serious illness or other incapacity, to approve a substitute member and to report to the Council on action taken.”

The next programmed meeting of the Panel will be held on Tuesday 25 September 2012 at 7.00pm in Committee Room 1 and then on:

Tuesday 25 September;

Tuesday 4 December; and

Tuesday 26 March 2013

Due to the workload of this Panel it will be necessary to arrange an extra-ordinary meeting for January 2013. The date will be confirmed at this meeting.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel would be on Tuesday 25 September 2012 at 7.00p.m. and then on the following dates:

Tuesday 4 December at 7.00p.m.;

Monday 7 February at 7.00p.m. Extra-Ordinary Meeting;

Tuesday 26 March 2013 at 7.00p.m.

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 next Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

(a)        Local Election – 3 May 2012;

(b)        Audit and Governance Committee – Article 11 of the Constitution; and

(c)        Member Complaints Panel – Limits of Jurisdiction