Agenda and minutes

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 16 July 2012 be agreed.

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

It was noted that Councillors K Angold-Stephens and K Chana were substituting for Councillors J Markham and Mrs M McEwen respectively.

(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 of interest 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 received updates to the Work Programme as follows:

The Assistant to the Chief Executive advised that the Panel would need an extra-ordinary meeting to deal with its workload. Members advised that regarding Item 12 Housing Appeals and Review Board – Review of Order of Presentation, would be checked with Housing officers, it was possible that a further matter regarding the Board would arise later in the year.

To consider a report arising from the Cabinet meeting on 10 September 2012 (To follow).

The Panel received a report from Ms P Maginnis, Head of Human Resources, regarding the Staff Appeals Panel’s Terms of Reference. In attendance was the UNISON Branch Secretary, Mr P Freeman.

The report proposed changes in relation to the Staff Appeals Panel’s jurisdiction in respect of appeals by staff. In regard to re-grading appeals, these proposals derived from a recent review of the Council’s job evaluation scheme, and particularly the issue of a staff member’s right of appeal. The report included proposals for removing from the Panel’s responsibilities some other staff appeals for which it was currently responsible, these resulted from advice sought from Counsel. The proposals had been agreed by the Cabinet which had asked the Panel to review the Terms of Reference of the Staff Appeals Panel, to ensure that they accorded with the new policy.

Job Evaluation and Regrading Appeals

The Job Evaluation Maintenance Policy and the Job Evaluation Appeals Procedure were introduced in 2003 following the implementation of the national Job Evaluation Scheme as part of the Single Status Agreement. Implementation of the Job Evaluation process was subject to a Collective Agreement agreed by management, the trade unions and Members. Since 2003, the policy had stated that the employee had the right of appeal to an officer/trade union Appeal Panel and that the decision of the Appeals Panel was final.

It had come to light that the Council’s Constitution had continued throughout this period to include re-grading matters within the Terms of Reference for the member Staff Appeals Panel. Four posts, involving seven members of staff appealed under these terms, those appeals having been heard and concluded.

In response, concerns were raised by UNISON’s Regional Officer regarding the implementation of the policy and specifically the appeals procedure, as a result both UNISON and GMB representatives had withdrawn their support from the Job Evaluation process until matters were clarified.

The Staff Appeals Panel had indicated that it did not wish to consider job evaluation matters in the future. The Chairman of the Staff Appeals Panel had provided written evidence for the Panel which was tabled at the meeting. He felt that job evaluation required significant experience and “semi technical knowledge” that was not easily achieved by Panel Members. There was currently one level of appeal with a trained expert panel and there was a need for confidence by both staff and management in the process. The Panel supported the report’s recommendations.

The opinion of the UNISON Regional Organiser was that job evaluation appeals should not be submitted to a Member Staff Appeals Panel. The local UNISON Branch Secretary had informed the Council that until all matters of concern regarding the Job Evaluation Policy were resolved they would continue to withdraw their support from the process. The Council recently obtained legal advice on the Terms of Reference for the Staff Appeals Panel regarding Job Evaluation at the same time.

Counsel’s opinion on job evaluation could be summarised as follows:

(a)        the original job evaluation scheme precluded any appeal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

The Panel received a report from S Hill, Senior Democratic Services Officer, regarding the Review of the Petitions Scheme.

On 14 December 2010 the Council approved a new Petitions Scheme required by the Government. The legislation, and subsequent statutory guidance, had placed a requirement on the Council to have a scheme which would include introduction of an ePetitions facility through the Council’s website by 15 December that year.

In the autumn of that year, following the general election, the Government withdrew the statutory guidance and gave authorities more scope to define their own scheme. The Government also funded the Council a sum of just over £6,000 for the expense of introducing such an electronic facility. The Council’s Committee Management System provider supplied an additional facility for no cost and the system was implemented by the statutory deadline. No grant funding was called upon. This sum remained within the Council’s DDF.

During December 2010 the Government gave notice that provisions of the Localism Act removed any duty to provide such a system. The Localism Act gained Royal Assent in November 2011, Section 46 of the act completely repealed the earlier Act’s provisions, including any duty to promote democracy and having such a petitions scheme. However members had requested a periodic review of the operation of the system to assess its effectiveness.

During the period January 2011 to August 2012 the Council received 12 formal petitions on paper and during the same period 2 electronic petitions were received and completed. One related to provision of places at Epping Forest College and the other regarded the St. John’s Road Development Brief. No petitions during this period met the threshold for debate at either Overview and Scrutiny or at Full Council.

One issue that had been raised by the Director of Planning and Economic Development related to the approval to list petitions during formal consultation periods. During the St. John’s Development Brief Consultation a request for a petition was received and approved for the website. This allowed people to register their names against a petition calling for the Council to acknowledge objections to the development of a supermarket on the site. The view had been put forward that where such formal consultations were being carried out, either current or contemplated, allowing such petitions weakened the results of the consultation and gave signatories the false impression that their views would be automatically taken into account in the consultation responses.

Members requested that Portfolio Holders should advise the Full Council of the number of petitions they have received when they make their reports.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the present petition scheme be captured subject to the following amendments:

(a)        exclusion from the scheme of petitions which are the subject to an open consultation exercise;

(b)        revised website content; and

(c)        new requirement for Portfolio Holder reports at Council meetings to include references to petitions received and action taken;

(2)        That the public questions procedure at Council and Cabinet meetings be amended to as to include the presentation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

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

The Panel received a report from the Senior Democratic Services Officer, regarding the Electronic Delivery of Agenda and Other Information.

Background

The District Council introduced its Committee Management System (CoMS) in April 2005, the system was a large database containing information presented via the website and internally, allowing for all of the Council’s information to be stored automatically with some sensitive items being stored on an Intranet version.

The workflow handled by the system was:

(1)        268 clerked meetings’ agendas and minutes;

(2)        50 Member’s Bulletins; and

(3)        21 Policy Bulletins

This workflow amounted to 20,000 pages of agenda in 2011-12 a reduction from 294 meetings and 24,000 published pages the previous year.

The Panel had been asked by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to investigate the number of agendas sent to all members, the use of technology for agendas and meeting arrangements and the legal advice on the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 concerning paper copies of agenda and whether electronic dispatch arrangements compromised the Council’s responsibilities.

Printing Costs

All Council agenda printing was carried out by the in-house Print Unit. By April 2005 expenditure on agenda printing had reached £79,000 per annum, last year (2011-12), printing expenditure was £33,700 on a budget of £49,900, some £16,000 under budget. This reduction was due to new bulk printing machines a general reduction in printed copy circulation, shorter agendas, and the move to electronic distribution methods offered by the technology.

This budget was a mix of fixed and variable costs. The Print Unit ended the year with a cost centre deficit and therefore, these were reallocated from the Print Unit back to the services based on usage of the service. This charging back meant that print spending for Democratic Services was approximately £2,000 overspent last year. Were the Council to continue to actively seek to reduce its level of agenda paper printing then the Print Unit fixed costs would be recovered from other departments, not reducing the overall costs to the Council save those associated with the variable costs element. The panel were advised that the arguments for moving to electronic delivery could not be based on paper/print usage. Officers advised that there was an inconsistency in the accounting of paper copies and who were charged. It was unclear as to how effectively was the Print Unit utilised, staff were often using cartridge printers and photocopiers for large copies. Members requested that a report regarding printing charges should be submitted to the Audit and Governance Committee.

Member’s IT Related Costs

It was agreed in 2005 that an IT allowance would be paid to members as part of their remuneration scheme was intended to assist with IT running costs. The total budget sum was £17,000 per annum. This was payable on the basis that Members attending IT Connectivity training, and signing a connectivity agreement which stated that they could opt out of receiving paper agenda for those committees they were not a member of, relying on electronic notification and delivery.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The next meeting of the Panel was scheduled for Tuesday 4 December at 7.00p.m. in Committee Room 1, and thereafter on:

(a)        Monday 7 January 2013 at 7.00p.m.; and

(b)        Tuesday 26 March at 7.00p.m.

The next Panel meeting was scheduled for Tuesday 4 December 2012 at 7.00p.m. in Committee Room 1, and then on:

(a)        Monday 7 January 2013 at 7.00p.m.; and

(b)        Tuesday 26 March 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 would be forwarded to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

(a)        Staff Appeals Panel;

(b)        Review of Petitions Scheme; and

(c)        Electronic Delivery of Agenda and Other Information