Agenda item
Advice of the Monitoring Officer & Chief Finance Officer/ Section 151 Officer in relation to Mayoral Decision Log No: 021 - Budget Implementation 2013/14 (No 1) (virements to fund East End Life) - To Follow
To consider the contents of the report.
Minutes:
The Chair informed OSC members that:
· Reports containing the advice of the Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer/ Section 151 Officer in relation to Mayoral Decisions 021 (virements to fund East End Life) and 022 (virements to fund Mayoral Advisors), as requested by the OSC at their last meeting, had been circulated to all Members of the Council on Friday 3rd May 2013 under a covering letter from Mr John Williams, Service Head Democratic Services. The documents had been Tabled for co-opted OSC members.
· Mr Williams had advised that although useful for OSC members to be informed of the contents of the reports without delay, the formal route for the reports was to the Executive in the first instance, who were then required in turn to report to the OSC.
A discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Consideration that the reports were badly drafted and the terminology used was difficult for a layperson to understand.
o The OSC had requested advice as to whether the Mayoral decisions were outside the Budget and Policy Framework (BPF) and on the validity of the Mayor’s decision that the decision being taken was non-key, however the reports did not answer whether the decisions were within the BPF.
o The report on East End Life (EEL) virements advised that the decision was lawful which was a different matter entirely.
o The reports contended that the decisions were not key decisions and valid based on the virement rules. Consideration that the purpose of virements was easement of the authority’s financial position, in response to changes in circumstances, in order to ensure it met its obligations, wheras in these cases virements had been made to revoke decisions of the Budget Council passed by a two thirds majority. Accordingly the validity of the advice provided in both reports was disputed and clarification was sought and given as to whether the OSC could seek independent financial and legal advice on these matters and once received consider the matters further. Mr Galpin advised that the procedure for Calling In decisions outside the BPF, contained within the authority’s Constitution, had been invoked; and specifically the provisions of Rule 7.1 to request advice from the Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer. Such advice had now been provided and the next stage was for the Executive to consider the advice. He was not aware of any mechanism to seek further advice and vary the constitutional process, however Mr Galpin undertook to look into the matter and report back.
o Both reports referred to the ‘Doncaster MBC case’ which, although interesting, did not have a bearing on the issue in these cases.
· The reports provided contained no new information to that considered by OSC on 9th April, despite the OSC having requested further information.
· Clarification was sought and given on the simplified meaning of paragraph 3.1 “Virement” in both reports. This was statutory DCLG guidance under a 2010 Act, not Officer advice, and had been directly quoted.
· Comment that in view of the advice provided in the reports the rationale for the authority’s Budget setting process in future years, and the role of Councillors in this, was both unclear and called into question.
· Comment also that the full Council had passed a motion in January 2013 that Officers should work with the LGA and London Councils in undertaking a governance review. This review encompassed a number of areas where the Executive and Non-Executive elements of the authority’s governance structure had a role/ powers, and where the inter-relationship was becoming unworkable; and in relation to which Officer advice had varied. Accordingly proposed that the LGA and London Council’s governance review be asked to examine budget making/ virement arrangements and the decision making process relating to virements under Mayoral Decisions 21 and 22.
The Chair commented that although the OSC could not refer these matters to full Council [under the provisions of the BPF Procedure Rules] as the next stage in this procedure was for the Executive to consider the advice and report back to the OSC, she considered and proposed that a formal complaint in relation to the Mayoral decision making in these cases should be lodged for full Council consideration, at her request. The Chair also proposed that the deliberations of the OSC and additional comments made on these matters be forwarded to the Mayor for his consideration. The Chair subsequently Moved and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the advice of the Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance contained in the report be noted;
2. That the Head of Legal Services (Community) examine whether the OSC could seek independent financial and legal advice on this matter, and once received consider the matter further;
3. That the deliberations and additional comments of the OSC on this matter be forwarded to the Mayor for his consideration;
4. That a formal complaint in relation to the Mayoral decision making in this matter should be lodged for full Council consideration, at the request of the OSC Chair; and
5. That the Local Government Association and London Councils be asked to consider budget making/ virement arrangements and the decision making process relating to virements under Mayoral Decisions 21 and 22, as part of their current governance review at Tower Hamlets.
Action by:
Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services, CE’s) [Resolution 3, 4 &5]
David Galpin (Head of Legal Services [Community], CE’s) [Resolution 2, 4&5]
John Williams (Service Head Democratic Services, CE’s) [Resolution 4 &5]