Agenda item

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

The Panel received a report from Mr S Hill, Senior Democratic Services Officer, regarding Review of Annual Council Meeting and Appointments Procedures.

 

At the Panel meeting in June 2010, Members agreed that a review should be undertaken on aspects of the Annual Council meeting.

 

Committee, Sub-Committee and Panel Appointments

 

Over the last 10 years, the length of Annual Meetings had remained fairly constant. The number of appointments required at the Annual meeting had declined over the years because of a number of reviews of outside bodies, and the introduction of more Leader decision making on executive appointments.

 

The one exception to the trend was the Annual Meeting in 2009, a county election year, when no new members were elected. On that occasion political groups had more time to sort out their appointment schedules in good time.

 

Issue 1 – Briefing of Group Leaders and Independent Members Regarding Pro-Rata Requirements before Elections.

 

The statutory basis for pro-rata memberships came from the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. There were four main principles for appointments to “ordinary committees:”

 

(a)        not all seats were allocated to the same group.

 

(b)        a group having a majority on the Council, must have a majority of seats on Committees.

 

(c)        the total number of seats on Committees must be allocated in the same proportion as the group memberships bear to the Council’s membership.

 

(d)        the number of seats on each Committee must be proportional to each group’s membership of the Council.

 

It was advised that these “rules” be reproduced for the Group Leaders meeting each year. Officers suggested a procedure for sending a reminder to Group Leaders before any election. An Excel spreadsheet should be dispatched to the Groups for filling in with the correct numbers allocated to each committee and/or Panel.

 

Issue 2 – How Consultation between Political Groups might be Improved

 

Traditionally, a meeting of Group Leaders was called a few days after the May elections once pro-rata calculations were carried out. The following issues were identified:

 

(a)               It was felt that supplementary agenda with appointments at Full Council should be avoided as much as possible as they caused confusion;

 

(b)               Within each political group, all candidates should be issued with a list of all the committees and panels before the election.

 

(c)               An Excel spreadsheet for groups with a list of wards and how many seats per ward would assist.

 

(d)               The Group Form needed signing early. The number of members signing formed the basis of the pro-rata. It was felt that more than one form could be circulated to speed the process and that officers could deal with the forms at a convenient time.

 

Issue 3 – Whether the Principle of pro-rata Allocations on Outside Organisations is still fit for purpose.

 

Allocation to outside organisations was set out in a protocol included within the Council’s Constitution.

 

Outside bodies that fell into the “Executive” category were appointed by the Leader. Last year this left only 21 representations and 4 deputies to appoint at Council.

 

Members felt that the pro-rata system of making appointments could be discontinued provided all groups could be assured of some seats especially the local ones. Officers suggested reviewing attendance to Outside Bodies, this was usually completed around March/April time. The statistics could be circulated to Group Leaders.

 

Issue 4 – How voting on appointments to outside organisations can be made easier, including ways of monitoring appointments made easier to avoid mistakes if pro-rata was to be retained.

 

Voting on appointments to outside bodies had traditionally been made in alphabetical order. This meant that once a group had successfully gained its pro rata allocation of seats it should then withdraw nominations for later bodies. Some suggestions were made about other ways of dealing with this if pro-rata alterations continue. However as the latter was not favoured, it was felt that these were not necessary.

 

Issue 5 How the paperwork can be made simpler.

 

Officers needed guidance on the paperwork they provided members with. The solution was to ensure that papers were circulated well before the meeting. Another option was to defer some of the appointments to the June Council meeting. The Panel preferred the former option.

 

Issue 6 – Whether there were other options for making these decisions which did not require full Council decision making

 

The Constitution currently specified that these decisions should be made at Council. Any delegation powers to a Committee or Sub-Committee would require any such Committee to be subject to formal pro-rata. The Panel favoured a Sub-Committee but one which recommended appointments to the Council rather than having delegated powers of its own.

 

Issue 7 – How can the ceremonial aspects of the Annual Council meeting be improved?

 

In the previous review, members discounted the idea of having a separate meeting for the in-coming Chairman and other civic requirements.

 

The Panel felt that the following improvements could be made:

 

(a)               involve Vice Chairman candidates in planning the Annual Meeting;

 

(b)               a rehearsal for all members and officers involved in organising that meeting;

 

(c)               declarations of acceptance of office to be agreed during the Annual Meeting at a desk in the well of the Chamber for both new and elected members; and

 

(d)               consider an earlier start time for the Annual Meeting.

 

Appointment of Vice Chairman of the Council

 

Members had requested a review of the current protocol for the appointment of a new Vice Chairman of the Council each year, examining whether the current system of appointing on merit with candidates being nominated by members of more than one group was appropriate.

 

The current system of appointment was contained within the Constitution. It required any nomination for the office of the Vice Chairman to be supported by 12 Councillors drawn from at least two political groups. The onus was on the Leader to co-ordinate such nominations.

 

This requirement was not placed on the election of the Chairman of Council who was expected to be the Vice Chairman from the preceding year. Thus there was nothing to prevent further nominations to the position of Chairman.

 

The Panel felt that the present arrangements were fit for purpose. The only change members felt useful would be to consider setting a deadline for Vice Chairman nominations.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That those items listed above for further investigation be included in a further report with detailed proposals.