Agenda and draft minutes

1.       It was proposed by Ms Linden Kemkaran and seconded by Mr Richard Palmer that Mr Martin Paul be elected as the Chair of the Selection and Member Services Committee.

2.       RESOLVED Mr Martin Paul was elected as the Chair of the Selection and Member Services Committee.

1.        It was proposed by Mr Jamie Henderson and seconded by Mr Mulvihill that Mr Spencer Dixon be elected as the Vice Chair of the Selection and Member Services Committee.

2.       RESOLVED Mr Spencer Dixon was elected as the Vice Chair of the Selection and Member Services Committee.

Apologies were received from Mr Lehmann with Mr Hood attending as his  

substitute, Mr Moreland, with Mr Hook as his substitute, Mr Chapman with Dr

Sturley as his substitute, Ms Foster with Mr Mulvihill as her substitute, Mr

Harrison with Mr Palmer as his substitute and Mr Dixon with Mr Henderson

attending as his substitute.

RESOLVED there were no Member declarations of interest in any items of the Agenda.

RESOLVED the minutes of the meeting held on the 5 March 2026 were a correct and accurate record and a paper copy to be signed by the Chair.

1.     The Report was presented by Lizzy Adam, the Deputy County Returning Officer.  The following key points were highlighted:

        a)     Following a previous request for a status report on incomplete or outstanding election spending returns, it was reported that, after the last meeting, correspondence had been sent to all candidates and agents with incomplete or outstanding returns. As at the date of the meeting, there remained ten incomplete or outstanding spending returns, noting that one further return had been received since the agenda had been published.

        b)     Members were advised that, following the 2017 and 2021 Kent County Council elections, the Electoral Commission had previously been notified of outstanding returns and no further action had been taken at that time. However, updated advice from the Electoral Commission now stated that suspected breaches of the rules should be referred directly to the police. This decision ultimately rested with the Monitoring Officer

2.     The Committee discussed the matter at length. Several Members expressed the view that outstanding election expenses constituted a potential criminal offence and that failure to disclose such matters to the police could place the authority in a difficult position. It was highlighted to the Committee that the vast majority of candidates and agents had complied fully with their legal obligations and that the requirements should be upheld consistently. Members emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the electoral process and ensuring that legal requirements were treated seriously and enforced appropriately.

3.     In answer to Member comments and questions, the following was said:

        a)     It was explained that the individuals involved had been written to and that, from a procedural perspective, feedback was now being requested from the Committee, while recognising that the Monitoring Officer would take her own professional view. It was confirmed that the update had been returned to the Committee in line with its earlier request that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure candidates were aware of their obligations.

        b)     Further comments highlighted that there were known consequences for failing to submit election expense returns correctly and that a reasonable period had elapsed since the election. It was therefore considered appropriate that the matter should be referred onwards in accordance with the updated guidance.

4.     It was proposed and seconded that the Committee recommend that the Monitoring Officer consider referring the outstanding election expenses, and the individuals concerned, to the police.

5.     It was agreed that, given the seriousness of the matter, the decision should be recorded formally. The Committee voted unanimously for the recommendation.

6.     RESOLVED that the Committee noted the report and requested that the Monitoring Officer consider follow-up actions to include referral to the police, in relation to the outstanding election spending returns

1.       The report was presented by Joel Cook, Manager of Democratic Services.  The following key points were highlighted:

a)       It was reported that, following discussion at the previous meeting, all Members had again been written to in order to seek further nominations for the 17 outside bodies covered by the agreed protocol. An updated position statement had been published in the agenda papers, reflecting ongoing engagement with Members and political groups.

b)       Members were advised that, as at the date of the meeting, 12 of the 17 outside bodies had received a single nomination. Engagement with those nominated Members was progressing and these appointments were being taken forward under the delegated authority previously agreed by the Committee. It was further reported that three bodies continued to have multiple expressions of interest and that discussions were ongoing with the relevant political groups, with the aim of resolving these under the agreed delegation.

c)       It was noted that one outside body, the Gabriel Richards Charity, had not received any expressions of interest. The Committee was advised that further correspondence would be issued to Members to invite expressions of interest, together with background and contact information about the charity.

d)       The Committee was advised that two further bodies, the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee and the Rochester Bridge Trust, each had 1 seat available, but had received multiple expressions of interest. The Democratic Services Manager therefore asked whether the Committee wished to determine the appointments at the meeting or whether he should continue engagement with the Political Groups to seek an agreed outcome and report back. It was explained that, while it had been hoped that these matters could be resolved prior to the meeting, this had not proved possible, and details of all nominations would be circulated to Members following the meeting to support further discussions.

2.       In response to Member comments and questions, the following was said:

a)       There was no single set of formal criteria applied where multiple expressions of interest were received. Appointments were usually resolved through discussion between individual Members and political groups, taking into account factors such as relevant skills, experience, locality and the specific requirements of the outside body concerned.

b)       Where Members were appointed as trustees, additional considerations applied, including personal liability and that appropriate support, training and advice would be provided, including legal advice and guidance on insurance and indemnity arrangements.

c)       On this occasion, appointments were being made only from among elected Members and that no non-Members were being appointed through the process. The Committee agreed that those non-Members who had previously served on outside bodies should be formally thanked for their contribution as they stood down from their roles.

3.       RESOLVED the Committee noted the Outside Bodies Update and to agree that the Democratic Services Manager be authorised to determine the approach for resolving and progressing the remaining outstanding appointments through continued engagement and, where necessary, to bring any unresolved matters back to a future meeting.

1.     The report was presented by Monitoring Officer, Petra Der Man. As the report contained 12 recommendations, it was agreed that the Monitoring Officer would introduce the recommendations one at a time, in order, then allow the Committee to discuss and vote before moving on.

2.     The Committee was asked to consider the report which contained a series of proposals from the Monitoring Officer, concerning proposed amendments to the Constitution. Members were advised that the Constitution was a living document and that agreed recommendations would be referred to County Council on 21 May 2026.

        The Committee considered each proposal in turn as follows:

Recommendation A: The Committee is asked whether to recommend to County Council that the Constitution be amended to require that the Chairman of the Council be drawn from the ruling Group and opposition Groups in alternate years.

a)       The Committee considered a proposal that the Chairman of the Council alternate between the administration and opposition groups. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there was no legal barrier to such an arrangement, but practical implications would need to be considered.

b)       During debate, a Member argued that the administration, as the democratically elected majority, should retain the right to elect the Chairman. It was stated that the Chairman should be chosen by the majority of the Council, and that introducing a rotation system risked creating a quota?based approach that could undermine democratic principles. Concerns were raised that smaller groups might form tactical alliances to secure the position.

c)       Other Members expressed the opposite view, arguing that alternating the Chairman would reinforce the political neutrality of the role. It was noted that the Chairman represented all Members equally and that the role was civic rather than political.  It was argued that experienced Members outside the administration should not be permanently excluded from serving.

d)       It was highlighted that the Chairman’s casting vote was rarely used and that the role’s impartiality was more important than its political alignment. It was suggested that alternating the Chairman position between Groups could strengthen public confidence in the neutrality of Council proceedings.

RESOLVED the proposal to alternate the Chairman of the Council between Political Groups was not agreed.

Recommendation B: The Committee is asked to determine which, if any, of suggestions i-iii in 3d above, are to be recommended to County Council for their approval (see section 3d).

i)

a)       The Committee considered a proposal to increase the deadline for submitting County Council questions to ten days. Supporters argued that the additional time would allow Cabinet Members and officers to prepare more detailed and accurate responses, reducing pressure on staff and improving the quality of information provided.

b)       Opposing views were expressed that extending the deadline would significantly reduce Members’ ability to raise timely or urgent matters. It was noted that the Council had no mechanism for emergency questions, meaning that issues arising shortly before a meeting could not be raised if the deadline were extended. Examples were given of local incidents,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.