Agenda and minutes

The Chairman explained that she hoped that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee could become less confrontational, more inclusive, more forward looking and more constructive.  The Chairman proposed three vice chairmen, one from the Conservative group (Mr Manning), one from the Labour group (Mr Christie) and the Independent Member (Mr Lees).  In the absence of the Chairman the Vice Chairmen would chair the meeting in rotation.

This was agreed by the Committee.

The minutes of the meeting on 29 April 2009 were approved as a correct record.

The Chairman highlighted the information that the Director of Personnel and Development had agreed to provide at the Cabinet Scrutiny meeting on 29 April, Mrs Taylor would chase this information on behalf of the Committee.

The Committee noted the follow up report.

The notes of the Budget Informal Member Group held on 14 May 2009 were agreed.

The Chairman asked the Cabinet Scrutiny spokespeople to confirm which Members would be on the Informal Member group (IMG) on Budgetary Issues Mr Manning agreed to confirm who the Conservative Member would be after the meeting, Mr Christie confirmed that he would serve on the IMG and the Chairman confirmed that she would serve on the IMG.  Mr Lees declined the offer to become a Member of the IMG on Budgetary Issues at this stage.

The Committee approved the notes of the IMG on Budgetary Issues held on 9 July 2009. 

Mr A J King, Cabinet Member for Localism and Partnerships; Mr P D Wickenden, Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager; and Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, will attend the meeting from 9.30 am to 10.30 am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

The Chairman explained that she had asked for a report on options for Overview and Scrutiny and best practice across the country because there was a need to improve scrutiny and its effectiveness.  Mr A King explained that it was important to get the views of Members on the options for Overview and Scrutiny, the Leader had agreed to submit a proposal, which would be worked up and shared with the political groups, to the County Council meeting in the Autumn. Transparency was vitally important in local authorities, particularly given the composition of Kent County Council. 

Mr Wickenden explained that the paper examined other ways in which Overview and Scrutiny was structured in other authorities.

The KCC model was based on directorate and portfolio responsibilities; there were a number of statutory requirements: a call-in mechanism, a Committee which scrutinised crime and disorder reduction (the Communities POC), a Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee and scrutiny of the Local Area Agreement was emerging through the Government’s agenda.  

Hertfordshire was quite radical in terms of the ways in which it commissioned and undertook council business.  It didn’t have any formal standing arrangements apart from an Overview and Scrutiny Committee that had call-in within it’s remit as well as the responsibilities of the Policy Overview Co-ordinating Committee, in that it co-ordinated and delegated work to Task and Finish Groups.  Hertfordshire’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee has invited a representative from each of the ten district and borough Councils to serve of the Committee.

Essex County Council was based on a Local Area Agreement themed approach – which was arguably more effective for looking at cross cutting issues but it did not necessarily effectively pick up all the business of the County Council.  Essex has a joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and Mr Wickenden explained that Kent had an arrangement with Medway Council to form a joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee if there was a need on a geographical basis.  The Scrutiny Board at Essex County Council was effective at commissioning work and even commissioned a piece of work to the area forum to look at an issue at  a local level on measles, mumps and rubella, which was an effective way of involving all relevant agencies as close to the community as possible. 

Telford and Wrekin’s model was based on a Local Area Agreement with limited co-option via open advertisement. 

Durham County Council’s model was based on a thematic approach and extensive co-option. 

There seemed to be a lot of work being done on involving co-optees but at this time it was difficult to judge how effective this was proving to be.  The report also looked at rapporteurs, which the POCC had considered but a scheme had not come to fruition.  The London Assembly recommended a rapporteur system and in some cases a ballot was used to decide which issues to take forward. 

The HOSC would be looking at refocusing and restructuring that Committee to see where it could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Chairman explained that every year the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee looked in detail at three or four of the Directorate Unit Business Plans. A shortlist had been prepared by the Committee before the elections but it was for the current Committee to decide whether they wanted to add, delete or amend any of the suggestions.

Mr Parry stated that he thought Kent Highways Service would be a good Business Plan to look at in detail, particularly with the arrival of a new Cabinet Member.  Each spokesperson was asked to provide Mr Sass with nominations for Informal Member Groups on four or five of the business plans. 

The Cabinet Scrutiny Committee noted the report on the Annual Unit Business Plans and each group’s spokesperson would provide Mr Sass with a list of priorities and nominations for the Business Plan Informal Member Groups. 

Mrs P A V Stockell, Chairman of Selection and Member Services Committee, and Mr P Sass, Head of Democratic Services and Local Leadership, will attend the meeting from 11.00 am to 11.30 am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr Cope declared a personal interest as Chairman of Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority.

Mr Christie had originally requested that this item be called for scrutiny by the Committee. 

Mr Sass explained that places were allocated on the Kent and Medway Fire Authority in accordance with the proportionality principles in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.  The places should be allocated to each political group in proportion to the size of each political group on the Council.  A political group is defined in the regulations as two or more Members.  Proportionality was largely mathematical but it was impossible to give a part of a seat to a Member so inevitably there would be an element of rounding up or rounding down in order to allocate places.  KCC appointed 21 Members to the Fire Authority and the simple method explained that 21 Members was exactly one quarter of 84, one quarter of 74 was 18.5 and a quarter of 2 was a half.  At the Selection and Member Services Committee in July there was no agreement about whether the Conservative or Labour group should be given the final seat on the Fire Authority so Mr Sass was asked to take the decision in consultation with the Chairman of the Selection and Member Services Committee.  Mr Sass explained that he applied the same proportionality calculations to the Fire Authority appointments as those agreed at the Selection and Member Services Committee and reported to the County Council.  Those calculations demonstrated the Conservative group were entitled to that seat by two thousandths of one percent. 

Mrs Dean asked whether Mr Sass was aware of any further negotiations at a political level regarding this issue.  Mr Sass stated that he was not involved with any such discussions.  Mrs Stockell explained that she had asked Mr Sass to check that the proportionality figures were correct, the same proportionality rules had always applied on all Council Committees and Mr Wild also checked that the calculations were accurate.  Mr A King explained that his recollection of the meeting was that there had been no opportunity for Members to see the Fire Authority calculations in advance of the meeting and it was therefore suggested that it be delegated to the Head of Democratic Services and Local Leadership in consultation with the Chairman of the Selection and Member Services Committee.  Mr A King stated that it was entirely right that the same rules be applied in this instance as were applied for all other Committees.

Members asked Mr Sass for clarification on the figures contained within the report.  Mrs Dean confirmed to Members that the same figure was applied in the first tranche of Committee allocations as in the second tranche, which included the allocations to the Fire Authority.  Mr Christie asked what other considerations were taken into account when deciding whether the remaining seat should be allocated to the Conservative group or the Labour group.  He pointed out that the Liberal Democrat Group had been given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Concerns were expressed about the decision taken by the Chief Executive to negotiate a new contract for Kent TV with Ten Alps plc for a period of 7 months to a value of £350,000. (This is referred to as a “contract extension” because the new contract has the effect of extending the existing contract with Ten Alps plc).  Before it was decided to exercise a formal call-in procedure the Chairman and the Conservative spokesperson met with the Chief Executive, the Director of Strategic Development and Public Access and the Barrister (Contracts and Procurement) on 15 July.  The Barrister subsequently sent an email to the Chief Executive in which he set out the reasons given for his view that the Chief Executive did not have a conflict of interest. Two issues were of concern to the Chairman and the Conservative Spokesperson; the first was whether the decision had been taken properly by an Officer of the County Council (as opposed to it being a Member-level decision) and the second matter was whether Mr Gilroy was the most appropriate person to take that decision.

Discussion regarding special circumstances

Because the original contract did not contain an explicit provision for an extension, it was necessary to enter into a new contract on the same terms and conditions as the existing contract, for a period of seven months. Due to the value of the contract, special circumstances had to be deemed to apply to avoid the need to seek competitive tenders for the new contract. Questions were asked about the existence of special circumstances and the issue of perception and sensitivity.

Reference was made to the special circumstances that were deemed by the Chief Executive to exist in relation to the contract extension as set out in the notes of the informal meeting held on 15 July.

Discussion in relation to the signing of the contract by the Chief Executive

A large proportion of the discussion on 21 July related to the issue of whether it was proper and appropriate for the Chief Executive to personally sign the new contract, in view of the fact that he was also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of Kent TV.

The Chairman stated that at the informal briefing, Members had come to the conclusion that in terms of the process followed, the Chief Executive was perfectly entitled to exercise an authority that the guidelines of the County Council gave him. This was supplemented in the written advice from the Barrister (Contracts and Procurement), in which it was made clear that the Chief Executive did not have any conflict of interest in this matter. The role of the Board of Governors was clearly set out at points (a) to (e) of the Barrister’s note circulated to Committee Members. 

Members discussed the public perception of the Chief Executive both authorising the special circumstance and signing the contract extension. In particular, the following views were expressed:

• Mr Manning raised concerns about the sensitivity of the issue and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.