Agenda item

Planning for the 6 Month Review of New Governance

Presentation by the Interim Director Legal and Governance

 

Minutes:

6.1

The Committee received a presentation from the Interim Director of Legal and Governance. It was explained that the presentation outlined a proposed approach to shaping the 6-month review.

 

6.2

The Head of Policy and Partnerships, Laurie Brennan, presented the report to the Committee. The presentation would also be uploaded onto the Council’s meeting webpages, following the meeting.

 

6.3

Members of the Committee were asked to give their views on the whether they thought the outlined approach to the review felt appropriate, whilst going through the presentation. 

 

6.4

Members of the Committee asked questions and made comments, and the key points to note were: -

 

6.5

In relation to the whole presentation, a Member of the Committee thought the approach felt very Town Hall centred. He mentioned that the presentation did not identify any best practice suggestions that demonstrated what the Council was doing in regard to public engagement. The work being undertaken in Page Hall was used as an example of how the Council should engage with communities.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships, Laurie Brennan agreed with the comments made. He mentioned there was a risk that public engagement was only seen in physical form, for example with public participation at Council meetings and public question/petitions, whereas the day-to-day interactions between the Council and the public was huge. Therefore, they should look to bring more of that to light. He also explained that Involve was looking at engagement across the whole City, and were looking at improving engagement internally.

 

6.6

In relation to slide 6 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked if the review of Full Council was a separate formal review, and whether the Lord Mayor/Deputy were invited to take part in that review.

 

The Head of Democratic and Member Services, Jason Dietsch informed the Committee that the Whips had been tasked with reviewing the operations and arrangements relating to Full Council. He confirmed that the Lord Mayor and Deputy were invited to take part in that review.

 

6.7

In relation to slide 7 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked whether it was clear as to when Members were looking at constitutional rules, or alternatively, aspects that had been governed by political agreement. He mentioned how there was no rules that required the Council to have Group Spokespersons on committees, although stated how important they had been since the change to a Committee System.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships explained there would be many aspects, like that one, which will be identified in the review. He mentioned how it would be important for Committees to share what was working well and not, for the purposes of the review and so that other Committees could adopt best practice.

 

The Interim Director Legal and Governance, David Hollis explained how the role of Group Spokesperson could be covered by both. The Committee could recommend that Groups Spokespersons were identified within the role of Chairs of Committees.

 

Emily Standbrook-Shaw (Policy and Improvement Officer) referred to the review of governance arrangements in 2019. She mentioned that a key message following that review was not necessary around constitutional aspects, but about the Council’s behaviours and ways of working. It was important that this was considered in this review.

 

The Head of Democratic and Member Services informed the Committee that the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) were considering the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the role of Groups Spokesperson. Although they wished to understand more about the role. Therefore, the role of Groups Spokesperson could be defined as part of the review and fed back to the IRP.

 

6.8

A Member of the Committee believed it could be useful for the Governance Committee to pre-negotiate cross-party agreements, through the review.

 

6.9

A Member of the Committee suggested it be useful to have two separate rules, for whether the political make up of the Council was in a hung position or had a different political make up and Council was not in a hung position.

 

6.10

The Member of the Committee raised that something that should be discussed through the review was the extent to which Committees were able to debate matters in full at Committee meetings and the role of pre-agenda meetings which included the Chair, Deputy and Spokesperson.

 

6.11

In relation to slide 7 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee believed there were gaps around the timeliness of decision making. She also mentioned that the cost of the new committee system was an important consideration. Therefore, there should be references to the cost of the system, through the review.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships explained that part of the Transition to a Committee System piece of work, there was an appendix that outlined costs of the new system in more detail. He added that this should be brought back for the attention of Members, in the review.

 

6.12

The Chair (Councillor Sue Alston) stated that it would be beneficial to have sight of the Council’s constitution throughout the review, so that Members of the Committee could reflect upon it whilst making recommendations.

 

6.13

The Head of Policy and Partnerships mentioned that a wide range of people will be consulted through the review. These would include all Elected Members, Council Officers, Stakeholders and members of the public.

 

6.14

A Member of the Committee suggested that the review also needed to look at the role of Task and Finish Groups and the relationship between Strategy and Resources Policy Committee and the other Policy Committees. He added that after the review, the functionality of the committee system needed to be re-enforced to Members and Officers.

 

6.15

In relation to slide 8 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee stated that Members of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee, actively went out and engaged with members of the public, and worked with Officers to change how consultation was delivered.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships agreed there were many ways in which citizen engagement could be delivered. He mentioned that through the review, best practice from all the Policy Committees should be considered and adopted if necessary.

 

6.16

A Member of the Committee referred to a previous comment about the ongoing work in Page Hall. It was stated that not many people knew what the Council was doing there, and how that piece of engagement should be fed in, so that different committees could adopt such best practice.

 

The Chair mentioned the importance of Members sharing pieces of good work like this in the review.

 

6.17

In relation to slide 8 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked when dealing with responses to public questions/petitions, do Elected Members get to check the responses, before Officers responded to members of the public. It was mentioned that in the Council’s previous system, Officers would usually formulate a response, then check them with Cabinet Members, before responding.

 

The Head of Democratic and Member Services suggested that the process of dealing with public questions/petitions should be picked up as part of the review.

 

6.18

Another Member of the Committee explained that he, as Chair of a Policy Committee, recently had questions submitted in advance, yet there were no draft responses provided. Therefore, agreed the process needed to be clearer.

 

6.19

A Member of the Committee talked about meeting members of public’s expectations, when dealing with public questions/petitions. It was stated that a policy needed to be defined for when the 30-minute time limit for public questions/petitions was reached, when not all questions had been answered.

 

6.20

The Interim Director of Legal and Governance, David Hollis suggested that part of the review, the Committee considered whether the public would benefit from having multiple responses to their public questions/petitions.

 

6.21

In relation to slide 9 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked that with the Council currently been in a hung position, whether they needed to consider the new committee system functioning in both hung and not hung situations.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships believed these aspects had already been incorporated and considered, when designing the system.

 

6.22

In relation to slide 10 of the presentation, the Chair of the Committee advised that Members highlighted anything they wished to be considered as part of the LGA (Local Government Association) Peer Challenge.

 

6.23

In relation to slide 10 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee suggested the LGA Peer Challenge looked at how the relationship between Members and Officers needed to change, with the transition to a new committee system.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships agreed to feed this comment into the LGA Peer Challenge.

 

6.24

In relation to slide 13 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked if there would be other ways that people could feed into the review, as not everyone will have the time to contribute to the whole committee sessions.

 

Emily Standbrook-Shaw (Policy and Improvement Officer) advised there would be alternative ways for people to share their views and feed into the review. It was mentioned that one platform that could be looked at was citizen space.

 

6.25

In relation to slide 13 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee asked if there were alternative environments available, that allowed people to contribute to the review. Having to attend meetings in-person, for the Committee, could discourage people from contributing.

 

The Head of Policy and Partnerships believed this was a good idea. He also mentioned how this demonstrated inclusiveness.

 

6.26

In relation to slide 13 of the presentation, a Member of the Committee suggested that other rooms in the Town Hall be used to hold evidence hearings and whole committee sessions, as part of the review. It was also stated that not everyone would feel comfortable attending the Town Hall or speaking online. Therefore, consultation could be taken to people in their communities.

 

6.27

A Member of the Committee mentioned how the Council had to operate under a committee system for at least 10 years since implementation. Therefore, as part of the review, the Committee should consider how the system will be reviewed and how often it will be reviewed, within that 10-year period.

 

6.28

Slide 15 of the presentation set out the recommendations for the Governance Committee. The Interim Director of Legal and Governance explained that he had added an additional recommendation, for Members to request that he produce a report on the more detailed arrangements for the review, to include scope and arrangements for engagement, to be submitted at the next meeting of the committee.

 

6.29

The Interim Director of Legal and Governance clarified the recommendations to the Committee, which they would need to consider as follows:

 

That Governance Committee (1) notes the presentation concerning the 6 month review by the Interim Director of Legal and Governance; (2)

notes and agreed the outlined scope and discussions as the starting point for further consideration to define the scope of the review; (3)

agrees to set up a working group of all Governance Committee Members to meet regularly and support the ongoing progress of the review within the proposed timetable; and (4) requests that the Interim Director of Legal and Governance produce a report on the more detailed arrangements for the review, to include scope and arrangements for engagement, to be submitted at the next meeting of the Committee.

 

6.30

RESOLVED: on the motion of Councillor Dianne Hurst, seconded by Councillor Joe Otten: That Governance Committee (1) notes the presentation concerning the 6 month review by the Interim Director of Legal and Governance; (2) notes and agreed the outlined scope and discussions as the starting point for further consideration to define the scope of the review; (3) agrees to set up a working group of all Governance Committee Members to meet regularly and support the ongoing progress of the review within the proposed timetable; and (4) requests that the Interim Director of Legal and Governance produce a report on the more detailed arrangements for the review, to include scope and arrangements for engagement, to be submitted at the next meeting of the Committee.

 

 

Supporting documents: