Report to follow
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered first drafts of the following documents:
Part 2 (a) to (d): Responsibility for Functions
This was a fundamental rewriting of Parts 2 and 3 of the original constitution: Introductory Chapters and Responsibility for Functions. Of particular note was the proposal, widely supported at the joint workshop, that in future decisions by individual Portfolio Holders, other than key decisions, would not require a formal decision-making meeting.
Part 2 (e): Officer Scheme of Delegation
This was a fundamental rewriting of rewriting of the Scheme of Delegation to Senior Officers. Much of what was in the original constitution would now appear in local schemes of delegation which would be accessed through a hyperlink in the main Scheme. The local schemes would be drafted by Bevan Brittan and brought to members for consideration. There would also be a Specific Delegation Register which would capture and record one-off delegations, eg by Cabinet.
Proper Officer Register (as referred to in Part 2 (e))
This was referred to in the Officer Scheme of Delegation. It would be a separate document accessible through a hyperlink in the Scheme.
With regard to the proposal for individual Portfolio Holder decisions to be taken in private, members sought assurances that advance notice of such decisions would still be given, with access to the report to be considered by the Portfolio Holder, that such decisions would be published on the website and notified to all councillors, and that such decisions, key or non-key, would be subject to call-in. It was also acknowledged that a mechanism would be needed which would prevent spurious use of call-in for Portfolio Holder decisions. Officers undertook to report back with details of how the new arrangements would work.
Members also asked about how they would be able to track the changes to the constitution to ensure that everything was accounted for and that nothing had been changed or added. Bevan Brittan advised that it would be difficult to make direct comparisons with the existing constitution as the new document adopted a very different approach. The officers reiterated the undertaking given at the previous meeting, and in line with the Constitution Committee, that they would exercise caution in bringing changes of substance to the Sub-Committee’s and the Committee’s attention.
It was proposed, as part of a wider member engagement process, that drop-in sessions for all members would be held on 12th and 13th October at Westfields in order to provide an informal briefing on how the review of the Constitution had been conducted and to explain the key changes that had been approved by the Constitution Committee. Presentations had also been offered to the political groups, and a briefing for Group Leaders was in the process of being arranged.
RESOLVED
That
1. the initial drafts of the new Part 2 of the constitution and Proper Officer Register be noted;
2. the officers report back with detailed arrangements for the proposed Portfolio Holder decision-making process; and
3. consideration be given to including in the constitution clearer reference to the Council’s processes in relation to ‘WARNS’ (Waivers and Record of Non-Adherence Notifications).