Agenda item
Governance Review - Oral Update
Minutes:
Meic Sullivan-Gould provided an oral update on the governance review that commenced last year. He informed the General Purposes Committee that:
Ø The Law, Probity and Governance section was heavily involved in the governance review that would see the revamping of the Council’s constitution.
Ø The review was being led by a working group consisting of senior officers and advisors on productivity at the LGA.
Ø The working group work included –
vThe “Local Choice” Functions – legislation largely determined what functions were either “Executive” or “Council”. However, there was some local choice in certain specified functions that required a number of approaches to determining the most appropriate decision-making mechanism in those cases.
vThe Policy Framework determinable by the Full Council – there was a statutory list of policies which can only be proposed by a Mayor but must be approved by Full Council. However, there was a local discretion to extend that list.
vThe dispute resolution procedures in the Budget and Policy Framework Rules – there were a wide number of approaches to deal with disputes about the content of policies and their revision. Equally, there were differences of approach where the Mayor was proposing to do or already doing something that members of the Full Council consider to be beyond the mandated Budget and Policy Framework.
vThe discretion of the Directly Elected Mayor to make in year adjustments to budgets – there were a number of different approaches.
vThe respective roles of the Directly Elected Mayor and the Chairman/Speaker of the Council – each authority has a unique solution to an area where both the legislation and government guidance is silent. Whatever the local solution it does however need to be agreed and recorded so that there is clarity in the respective roles.
vThe processes for revising the Constitution – the Constitution sets out the rules that the Council and Administration adopt in order to deliver services and resolve disputes democratically in a rapidly changing world. The rules need regular review and there needed to be a quick, authoritative and clear approach to allow the Council and its Administration to be agile to respond to new and emerging challenges and opportunities.
vThe Council Procedure Rules – there were a range of approaches as to how the Full Council operates where there is a Directly Elected Mayor.
vThe recording of and dissemination of images and sound of decision-making – With Royal Assent from the Local Audit and Accountability Act, regulations were now expected to extend the access to meetings, access to documents and freedom of information regimes to include a right to record and transmit the proceedings of the Council and its Administration. There will be a number of ways in which to meet those new requirements.
vOverview and Scrutiny – this function was a product of the Local Government Act 2000 and was expressly modelled on the Select Committee system in the House of Commons. Select Committees had changed and the delivery of overview and scrutiny across local government since then has been very varied.
vContract Procedure Rules – the Public Procurement regime would be changing following recent European legislation and it was anticipated that legislation and regulations would follow. There would be choices to be made about how those new regulations would be applied locally.
vCodes of Conduct – The Committee on Standards in Public Life had expressed concern about the effectiveness of the changes to the Member Conduct regime introduced in the Localism Act 2011 and a further review can be expected. The LGA has updated its “Probity in Planning” guidance. Local Codes had not in general caught up with the changes introduced by the Bribery Act 2010 and do not address the increasing willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue individuals under the common law offence of “Misconduct in a Public Office”. The behaviour proscribed by this offence had not been legislated for (although a Law Commission review was scheduled) so in the meantime public officials (elected and appointed) cannot know what decisions, actions or inactions would be subsequently amount to a criminal offence. There was now a wide variety of approaches to the resolution of complaints about misbehaviour of elected people.
Ø The recording of meetings issue was resolved by legislation – the dissemination of officer decisions is still work in progress. A report will be done by David Galpin/Matthew for next GP Committee.
Ø Standards (Advisory) Committee had its first meeting about reviewing Code and Complaint procedures this week.
Ø The process was envisaged to last another 2/3 years and reports on options for the General Purposes Committee consideration would occur in due course.
Members were concerned whether the Speaker had sufficient powers for dealing with an unruly Councillor at a Council meeting. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that the Speaker had a number of powers that could be sufficient dealing with a badly behaved Councillor.
Members asked whether the working group could involve interested Councillors. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that he was willing to share information with Councillors or alternatively the General Purposes Committee could set up its own working group.
Members enquired when a working group would be set up. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that there was no urgency and thought that a working group should be set up in the next 2/3 years.
Members enquired whether there was any information available on those councils that were looked at for good practice. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that the information was available and the councils looked at were those who had Executive Mayors such as Bristol, Doncaster. Members asked whether the working group had considered councils that used to have Executive Mayors such as Hackney and Lewisham. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that the working group had not since those authorities have strong majorities of Council Members who are of the same party as their Mayors so have a different political dynamic.
Members asked whether Councillors were able to deal with an impartial Speaker. Meic Sullivan-Gould replied that the Speaker was aware that his role was extremely challenging and had spent some time looking at the last webcast in order to find ways to improving his performance and handling of the Council meeting. The Speaker was aware that Council needed good leadership to ensure better debate.