Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Councillor Carol Bulman noted at the bottom of Page 11, there was a paragraph that related to closures between Pyms Lane and Flowers Lane Hospital Campus. Councillor Bulman had been made aware than an open letter had been sent on this matter and she felt this should be shared with the Committee.
The Chair was aware of this matter and noted that she had no opportunity to speak to Councillor Rachel Bailey, who was unable to attend the meeting, but this was an item that could be taken away and shared with the Committee in due course.
The Committee noted a number of grammatical and spelling errors within the minutes of the last meeting:
1) Page 7 Paragraph 2 read:
“…the communication issues and the personality liability for himself and the Business Manager.”
This should read: personal liability.
2) Page 9 Paragraph 2 read:
“…were known this would enable the Mazars to complete the work in a timely manner.”
This should read: …were known this would enable Mazars to complete the work in a timely manner.
3) Page 10, the fifth line of the second paragraph read:
“…and these had been report to the National Anti-Fraud Network and several
This should read: reported
4) Page 10, the final bullet point read:
“Issued that had occurred in the past between approved use of purchase credit cards.”
This should read: Issues
5) Page 12, the first bullet point read:
“…be managed through the consultation period for the Medium Turn Financial Strategy (MTFS).”
This should read: Term
6) Page 12, the first bullet point read:
“There was now a three-year financial settlement that had enabled to Council to balance the budget.”
This should read: the Council
7) Page 13, the exclusion of the press and public resolution read:
“…and the public interest would not be served in publishing the served in publishing the information.”
This should read: and the public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
The Chair added two points of accuracy on page 11- Member Code of Conduct:
1) Whilst the second paragraph noted the comments from the Leaders Group, the item had been deferred because the Working Group had not had time to consider the comments.
2) There had been an amendment in the previous meeting that had not been minuted, that the Working Group had not had time to consider the expanded wording to the amendment that was suggested by the Vice-Chair at the beginning of the meeting.
That subject to the changes outlined above, the minutes of the 26 May 2022 be accepted as a correct and accurate record.
Publication date: 28/09/2022
Date of decision: 28/07/2022
Decided at meeting: 28/07/2022 - Audit and Governance Committee