Report of the Director of Legal & Governance to follow.
Minutes:
6.1.1 |
The Committee received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance concerning the committee system structure.
|
6.1.2 |
The Assistant Director (Governance), Alexander Polak referred to the report. It was mentioned there was 86 recommendations for the Committee to consider and these were split into 13 sections.
|
6.1.3 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) would aim to summarise each section, if necessary, before Members of the Committee discussed any recommendations they wished to have a debate on. Members could then propose amendments to the recommendations, where necessary, then vote on that amendment and recommendation.
|
6.1.4 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained there were recommendations in italics within the report. These were recommendations that had previously been agreed in Committee.
|
6.1.5 |
The Committee were informed that the report had been produced in alignment with the framework and design principles, and that these should continuously be kept in mind when amending the recommendations.
|
|
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
|
6.2.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the recommendations in this section outlined how the Council intended to engage with citizens, communities and partners immediately, and how the Council also planned to continuously engage in the future.
|
6.2.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 1-13 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.2.3 |
A Member of the Committee did not believe it was appropriate to only allow public questions / petitions that related to topics on a policy committee agenda. It was stated that questions / petitions on other issues needed to be brought to committees. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the reason for recommendation 4 was to reduce the amount of volume and time spent in committees.
|
6.2.4 |
In relation to recommendation 4, a Member of the Committee agreed that public should be allowed to present questions / petitions at policy committees that referred to issues separate to the items on the agenda, as that was their opportunity to input on policy.
|
6.2.5 |
In relation to recommendation 4, it was stated that questions / petitions that related to other topics should be allowed. This could lead to a particular committee wanting to investigate different issues, not currently on their work programme.
|
6.2.6 |
It was suggested that the total number of signatures required to trigger a petition debate should be included in recommendation 5, as it is not clear whether that detail had been rescinded. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that if details like this one had not been specified in the report, then it meant that the detail was to remain the same in the new system. Therefore, the threshold still required 5000 signatures to trigger a debate at Council.
|
6.2.7 |
It was suggested that recommendation 9 be amended, to make it more clear for the public, on how they contact their Councillor through the Council’s webpage. The Assistant Director (Governance) agreed it needed to be clear, although stated there needed to be balance on how many enquires councillors received direct and what issues could be resolved through other services within the Council. Therefore, Councillors would not be overloaded.
|
6.2.8 |
It was stated that the use of electronic voting and the recording of those votes should be either used in every Policy Committee or none, to keep consistency within meetings. It was added that it needed to be clear whether other committees required recorded votes as well as policy committees.
|
6.2.9 |
It was mentioned that recording votes by show of hands or verbal agreement, was a quicker way to deal with votes, rather than carrying out a recorded vote each time. It was agreed that further consideration be given to this as part of recommendation 11.
|
6.2.10 |
A Member of the Committee advised that any future Council policy should embed how it intended to engage with public.
|
6.2.11 |
It was suggested that each Policy Committee could have an individual tasked with making sure the Committee reached out and engaged with as many citizens and communities as possible. However, an opposing view, that this ought to be all councillors’ responsibility, was also expressed.
|
6.2.12 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards.
|
6.2.13 |
Removal of ‘(limited to substantive topics on that day’s meeting agenda,)’ from recommendation 4.
|
6.2.14 |
To add ‘advise petitioners’ in replace of ‘route petitions’ at recommendation 5.
|
6.2.15 |
To add ‘the decision remains with the petitioner’ to recommendation 5.
|
6.2.16 |
To add ‘or if not the option to attend another policy committee or full council’ to recommendation 6. |
6.2.17 |
To add ‘and to make it easier to access to information on councillors both online and in other such places’ to recommendation 9.
|
6.2.18 |
To amend recommendation 11 to read ‘Further consideration be given to options relating to electronic voting and an online record of councillor’s votes’
|
6.2.19 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.2.13 to 6.2.18 above were carried. |
|
|
|
FULL COUNCIL
|
6.3.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the recommendations in this section were in place so that the function of Full Council will work effectively. Some recommendations had already been discussed and agreed at previous Committees. It was added that Full Council should not cut across any decision about to be made by a Policy Committee without following an appropriate path.
|
6.3.2 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained there were amendments to recommendations 22, 23 and 24, which had been suggested by officers, for the Committee to consider.
|
6.3.3 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 14-25 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.3.4 |
A Member of the Committee asked for clarification on recommendation 15. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that Council agreed a budget and corporate plan on an annual basis, to set out the division of resources and where those resources were intended to go. That constituted the proportion of the budget policy framework, which the policy committees will sit within. Therefore, the purpose of recommendation 15 was to agree for Full Council, to be the place where the policy committee remit is agreed each year.
|
6.3.5 |
A Member of the Committee asked for clarification on recommendation 18 b. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the intention was to ensure better use of Members’ time in committees.
|
6.3.6 |
In relation to recommendation 24, it was mentioned that it needed to be clear that Council had the power to rescind a committee’s authority, to investigate specific issues, if an outcome of a notice of motion meant that it would contradict that committees workstreams. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that he had looked to amend the Council’s constitution, which would limit Full Council’s ability to crosscut with Policy Committees, therefore making it more organised and aligned. The Director of Legal and Governance added that if Full Council needed to make a decision that affected a policy committee’s ability to make a decision, then Full Council would have to agree to rescind delegated authority for the particular committee within that meeting. At the following Full Council meeting, there would be a report that outlined the legal, financial and equalities implications so that Full Council could then make an informed decision on that matter.
|
6.3.7 |
Concerns were raised around the time it could take for reports to return to Full Council, if the decision was to rescind authority from a policy committee. It was mentioned that this could take up to 2 months, as the new system states that Full Council would meet on alternate months. The Director of Legal and Governance explained if there was an urgent decision needed to be made by a policy committee, that committee could call for an additional meeting. Also, Full Council could be called take an urgent decision if necessary.
|
6.3.8 |
The Director of Legal of Governance mentioned that Members could turn to officers for advice on notices of motion, prior to the submission date, and that this would be useful if Members knew a decision of a motion could cause significant impact.
|
6.3.9 |
A Member of the Committee advised that the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee should have the ability to change a policy committees work programme.
|
6.3.10 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Peter Garbutt.
|
6.3.11 |
That further consideration be given to recommendation 18c and 18d.
|
6.3.12 |
To add ‘advise petitioners’ in replace of ‘route petitions’ at recommendation 19.
|
6.3.13 |
To add ‘but the decision remains with the petitioner’ to recommendation 19.
|
6.3.14 |
To add ‘advise questioners’ in replace of ‘route questions’’ at recommendation 20.
|
6.3.15 |
To add ‘but the decision remains with the questioner’ to recommendation 20.
|
6.3.16 |
That recommendation 22, 23 and 24 be amended to read ‘Further consideration be given to a system whereby full council can rescind authority from committees, in order to take decisions at full council’
|
6.3.17 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.3.11 to 6.3.16 above were carried.
|
|
LEADERSHIP – KEY COUNCILLORS’ ROLES
|
6.4.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that this section of recommendations was to set out key roles for Councillors with Leadership responsibilities. These included the Leader of the Council, the Lord Mayor and Chairs of Policy Committees.
|
6.4.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 26-29 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.4.3 |
A Member of the Committee raised concerns around the practicality of co-chairing and job sharing the Chair role of policy committees. It was suggested that a review should take place if councillors were to co-chair or job share that role. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained there was already co-chairs and job shares operating within the Council.
|
6.4.4 |
It was suggested that recommendation 29 defined whether there would be either a job share or co-chairs. Additionally, a maximum of 2 co-chairs.
|
6.4.5 |
A Member of the Committee believed evidence from the inquiry process gave the Committee knowledge that co-chairs were effective when aligned with cross-directorships. Sheffield City Council was to align the policy committees with a single directorship, therefore asked whether co-chairs would be necessary, or the current chair/vice chair model would be as equally effective. Another Member of the Committee mentioned that Brighton & Hove Council operated with co-chairs, and they had single directorships. That Council believed it was effective having co-chairs for large directorships, so that each chair could pick cover different areas, with it not being overbearing. It was added that Brighton & Hove Council did have Vice-Chairs although their role was not necessarily needed, as the work was divided across the co-chairs.
|
6.4.6 |
It was suggested that the Lord Mayor should be able to vote on decisions at Full Council. Rather than just having the casting vote, as this may not be needed throughout the term of Lord Mayor.
|
6.4.7 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Dawn Dale.
|
6.4.8 |
To amend recommendation 29 to read ‘The facility for Councillors to either job-share a Chair role or to co-chair a committee, with clarity about expectations and allowances including:
|
6.4.9 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraph 6.4.8 above were carried.
|
|
INDIVIDUAL COUNCILLORS
|
6.5.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that the new system would potentially increase Councillor workload, therefore this section of recommendation set out provisions for councillors, with the intention to mitigate this.
|
6.5.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 30-36 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.5.3 |
In relation to recommendation 31 (Member development), it was suggested this was member-led.
|
6.5.4 |
The Director of Legal and Governance explained that she met with group Whips, to discuss member development, in addition, the Audit & Standards Committee currently reviewed member development as part of their terms of reference around the Code of Conduct. The combination of the two guided the Council’s current member development. It was mentioned that officer support to Member development had previously been reduced due to the Council’s budgetary position, although recently, more resource had been put in place within Democratic Services to facilitate this.
|
6.5.5 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Peter Garbutt.
|
6.5.6 |
To add ‘Member-led’ to recommendation 30.
|
6.5.7 |
To remove ‘full time’ from recommendation 32.
|
6.5.8 |
To add ‘as part of the review of the scheme’ to recommendation 32.
|
6.5.9 |
To replace ‘member questions (casework)’ with ‘member’s casework’ in recommendation 35.
|
6.5.10 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.5.6 to 6.5.9 above were carried.
|
|
POLICY COMMITTEES
|
6.6.1 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 37-52 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.6.2 |
It was suggested that each policy committee had a member responsible for equalities, diversity and inclusion, and biodiversity and climate change. The Director of Legal and Governance advised that future reports would aim to be written in a way that covers important aspects like these. Although, it was recommended that there not be an individual be responsible for this.
|
6.6.3 |
It was asked whether recommendation 40 needed to be amended to reflect that certain sub-committees may need to remain, rather than being time limited. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the recommendation stated that sub-committees, at a minimum, will be reviewed at the Council’s annual meeting. Therefore, sub-committees may remain, if seen as still necessary at Council’s annual meeting.
|
6.6.4 |
It was suggested that further consideration be given to recommendation 45. It was added that the Committee needed to consider other responsibilities and duties that some Councillors had, besides been an elected member, when agreeing the timings and scheduling for committees.
|
6.6.5 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) confirmed that Democratic Services were currently scheduling a timetable for committee meetings, for the consideration of Members.
|
6.6.6 |
A Member of the Committee suggested to include to separate meetings times to recommendation 45. To give each committee the option of which they would prefer to meet.
|
6.6.7 |
In relation to recommendation 50, a Member did not believe it was appropriate to agree a certain time period in which decisions can be overturned. Alternatively, decisions should stand unless clear evidence suggested otherwise.
|
6.6.8 |
It was raised that recommendation 52 needed to be amended, to align with previous amendments around public questions/petitions. Therefore, a Member suggested removing all wording within the brackets.
|
6.6.9 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Sioned Mair Richards.
|
6.6.10 |
To re-word recommendation 45 e to read ‘Further consideration be given to the timing and scheduling of all committee meetings on an annual basis’
|
6.6.11 |
To add ‘for councillors’ to recommendation 47.
|
6.6.12 |
To add ‘Further consideration be given to’ to recommendation 50.
|
6.6.13 |
To remove ‘(which must relate to substantive agenda items on that day’s agenda)’ from recommendation 52.
|
6.6.14 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.6.10 to 6.6.13 above were carried.
|
|
STRATEGY AND RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE (AND FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE)
|
6.7.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the recommendations in this section outlined some important aspects around the strategy and Resources Policy Committee.
|
6.7.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 53-62 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.7.3 |
In relation to recommendation 54, a Member of the Committee asked what the process would be if a Member was to go on long-term sickness as the recommendation stated that no substitutes can attend for members of that committee. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee would comprise the Chairs of each policy committees, plus others for political proportionality. Therefore, if a Member was to be away for a long period of time, the policy committee would need to appoint someone as chair in their absence, which then gave them a seat on the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee. If a member of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee, who was not a chair of a policy committee was to be away for a long period of time, the appropriate political group could re-nominate a member of their group onto the committee.
|
6.7.4 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) raised how it was important to ensure the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee stayed politically proportionate. If a Member of that committee was to send a substitute, who was not from the same political party, then it would unbalance the proportionality. Therefore, it was recommended that no substitutes can attend for members of that committee.
|
6.7.5 |
A Member of the Committee mentioned there was a duplication of work around the conducting of regular monitoring of the revenue and capital budget, as recommendation 62 stated that both the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee and Finance Sub-Committee, would monitor this. The Assistant Director (Governance) stated that both committees would meet on alternate months. Therefore, monitoring this area would be checked each month, although it was agreed it needed to be clear that no overlap between the committees occurred.
|
6.7.6 |
After the discussion and debate, no amendments were proposed to recommendations 53 to 62.
|
|
URGENT DECISIONS
|
6.8.1 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 63-65 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.8.2 |
It was raised that there needed to be clear understanding on what classified as urgent and whether the Chair of Strategy and Resources Policy Committee should be able to take these decisions. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained that no individual councillor can take an urgent decision. If an urgent decision was unable to go to a committee, it would go to an officer for a decision.
|
6.8.3 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sioned Mair Richards, seconded by Councillor Sue Alston.
|
6.8.4 |
To replace ‘at least an attempt to consult with the Chair first’ with ‘wherever practically possible consultation with the Chair. In the absence of the Chair, consultation with the Vice Chair. In the absence of the Vice Chair, consultation the Leader of the Council’ at recommendation 64a . |
6.8.5 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraph 6.8.4 above were carried.
|
|
LOCAL AREA COMMITTEES
|
6.9.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the Committee had already agreed the principle of how Local Area Committees operated and these recommendations do not intend to change their delegated authority, but to agree some specific functionality aspects within the Committees.
|
6.9.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 66-68 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.9.3 |
In relation to recommendation 68, a Member of the Committee asked whether it would be more appropriate for the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee to be consulted, when the Monitoring officer is reviewing referrals from one committee to another. The Assistant Director (Governance) stated that these referrals could occur often. Therefore, it would be more efficient for the Monitoring Officer to take a decision, and then report back to the committee once it had been referred.
|
6.9.4 |
It was suggested that recommendation 68 be amended, so it was clear that the Chair of the referring committee would be notified when any referral pathway had changed.
|
6.9.5 |
It was suggested that Local Area Committees were monitored by the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee, rather than the policy committee with responsibility for communities. It was mentioned that Local Area Committees and Policy Committees were equals within the new system therefore a committee with more authority should have the responsibility for monitoring the Local Area Committees.
|
6.9.6 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sioned Mair Richards, seconded by Councillor Sue Alston.
|
6.9.7 |
To amend recommendation 67 to read ‘The Strategy & Resources Policy Committee will have a special role in monitoring what is referred to all other committees by Local Area Committees and looking for patterns, in liaison with the LAC chairs. The policy committee with responsibilities for communities will have a role to oversee the Communities/Localism strategy within which the LACs are operating’
|
6.9.8 |
To add ‘and the LAC Chair to be notified where any referral pathway is changed’ to recommendation 68.
|
6.9.9 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.9.7 to 6.9.8 above were carried.
|
|
SCRUTINY (INCLUDING STATUTORY SCRUTINY)
|
6.10.1 |
The Assistant Director (governance) explained the term ‘scrutiny’ commonly referred to the Cabinet and Leader model which the Council would be moving away from. Although there would not be an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, there needed to be appropriate mechanisms for holding to account and other such statutory scrutiny functions within the new system.
|
6.10.2 |
It was added that the recommendation from Officers was not to implement a Call-in function within the new system. This was based on evidence received from the inquiry process, in which other Local Authorities explained it was not efficient for councillors to call-in decisions made by a committee as it was believed that decisions needed to stand to ensure certainty.
|
6.10.3 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 69-73 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.10.4 |
A Member of the Committee believed the recommendations did not consider political differences. Therefore, it was suggested that a minority report should be able to be presented at either Full Council or the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee, to decide whether a decision that had been made, needed to be looked into further. Another Member of the Committee stated that debates within committees should be the place where councillor’s thoughts were considered, and the scrutiny of decisions took place.
|
6.10.5 |
It was suggested there needed to be a mechanism that allowed for the public and stakeholders to call-in decisions made by the Council. This would also ensure the Council had considered them, at different points in the whole process. Another Member stated there would be opportunities for Stakeholders to attend policy committees and share their thoughts before a decision was made.
|
6.10.6 |
After the discussion and debate, no amendments were proposed to recommendations 69 to 73.
|
|
OTHER COMMITTEES
|
6.11.1 |
No discussion or amendments were proposed to recommendations 74-75.
|
|
SCHEMES OF DELEGATION
|
6.12.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) introduced this section and suggested that given the continued rises in property prices and the need to be efficient with committee time, a higher threshold might be more appropriate in recommendation 79, such as £300k or £500k.
|
6.12.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 76-82 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.12.3 |
A Member of the Committee believed the figure of 250k in recommendation 79 concerning decisions about property was too high. It was suggested that this figure be amended to 150k. Another Member thought £150k may lead to too much business for the committee to consider on a regular basis. The Director of Legal and Governance suggested this be monitored and reviewed within the 6-month review process.
|
6.12.4 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Mohammed Mahroof, seconded by Councillor Mark Jones.
|
6.12.5 |
To replace ‘250k’ with ‘150k’ in recommendation 79.
|
6.12.6 |
To add ‘Ongoing review of this threshold to be within the Governance Committee’s terms of reference’ to recommendation 79.
|
6.12.7 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.12.5 to 6.12.7 above were carried.
|
|
STAFFING, RELATIONSHIPS AND CASEWORK
|
6.13.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained there were no recommendations in this section as these covered operational aspects on how committees would be supported. Although this section had no recommendations, it was still important for the Committee have sight of this information and consider it, as necessary.
|
6.13.2 |
Members of the Committee did not further discuss this section of the report.
|
|
ONGOING REVIEWS OF GOVERNANCE
|
6.14.1 |
The Assistant Director (Governance) explained this section of the report was to inform the Committee of how it was intended to review the governance arrangements of the Council in the future.
|
6.14.2 |
Members of the Committee discussed recommendations 83-86 and the key points to note were: -
|
6.14.3 |
It was highlighted that the current Governance Committee is formed of Chairs and Vice chairs of transitional committees, which would mirror the membership of Strategy ad Resources Policy Committee. Therefore, would the Committee need to make it clear the membership of the Governance Committee, needed to be different to the membership of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained there were no constraints for which councillors can be nominated to have a seat on the Governance Committee.
|
6.14.4 |
It was suggested that at least 1 councillor who does not have a seat on any policy committee had a seat on the Governance Committee, for independent perspectives. The Assistant Director (Governance) suggested these perspectives are considered when nominating councillors onto committees.
|
6.14.5 |
A Member of the Committee stated that it needed to be clear, that members of the public were included in the review process, within the Governance Committee. It was added that public should also be appointed onto the Governance Committee and have the authority to vote on decisions. The Assistant Director (Governance) explained the Committee could co-opt an individual, with expertise in a certain area, onto the committee although they would not have voting authority. The Committee were advised to take caution if they decided to do this, to ensure the Council was not accused of political bias when appointing a co-opted member.
|
6.14.6 |
A Member of the Committee thought it would be beneficial for the current membership of the Governance Committee to remain the same, at least until the 6-month review was complete.
|
6.14.7 |
In relation to recommendation 84, The Head of Policy and Partnerships, Laurie Brennan, suggested that partners be included in the list of who the Governance Committee committed to directly engage and participate with in their ongoing consideration of the health of Sheffield’s democratic environment.
|
6.14.8 |
A Member of the Committee advised that there could be recommendations for the Committee to consider, following the report of the Race Equality Commission. The Member suggested a recommendation was included to reflect that the Committee would take into consideration, the recommendations of the Race Equality Commission. The Director of Legal and Governance mentioned there was risk of including specific names into the recommendations, as this could look like the Council was not taking other groups into account. The Member was content that recommendation 86a agreed to take account of any changes to the local and national context.
|
6.14.9 |
A Member of the Committee raised whether guidance around decisions been taken during the pre-election period needed to be included in the standing orders. The Director of Legal and Governance reassured Members on the position around decisions through the election period. It was added there is no restrictions for decision-making through the election period, the restrictions apply to the publication linked to decisions.
|
6.14.10 |
The Director of Legal and Governance confirmed the legislation allowed for the Leader of the Council to still take decisions, up until the annual meeting of the Council.
|
6.14.11 |
After the discussion and debate, the following amendments were proposed by Councillor Sue Alston, seconded by Councillor Peter Garbutt.
|
6.14.12 |
To add ‘Governance’ to recommendation 83.
|
6.14.13 |
To add ‘and partners’ to recommendation 84.
|
6.14.14 |
On being put to the vote, the amendments at paragraphs 6.14.12 to 6.14.13 above were carried.
|
6.15.1 |
RESOLVED: That (1) the elements of a committee system of governance set out in this report, including 85 recommendations as amended and Appendix 1, be agreed to inform the detailed drafting of the Constitution as follows;
i. Core City status and associated meetings/bodies ii. The Mayoral Combined Authority
i. Too urgent to wait until next scheduled meeting of Committee ii. Too urgent to wait until an extraordinary meeting of an urgency sub-committee
(2) That the Governance Committee conduct a review of the new governance system, commencing six months after implementation (November 2022) with a view to Full Council implementing any necessary changes at its AGM in May 2023. This review will:
|
Supporting documents: