Agenda and minutes

Resolved: that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2010, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Mr Sass reported apologies from Mr Chard (substituted by Mr Brazier); Mrs Hohler (substituted by Mr Cooke) and Mr Marsh.

There were no declarations of interest by Members in any item on the agenda.

(1)               The Committee considered a report from the Head of Democratic Services, which proposed a number of amendments to the Constitution.

(2)               The Committee was supportive of the proposed change to the Constitution in respect of the appointment of interim senior managers.

(3)               Mr Christie did not support the request to increase the length of the Leader’s reply at the end of the debate on his oral report to the County Council.

(4)               In relation to the absence of a Member through illness, Mr Sass advised that he would be submitting a decision paper to Mr King in relation to the reallocation/redistribution of individual Member grants. In relation to the Members’ highways grants money, Mr Sass advised that the 2-year trial period was coming to an end in March 2011 and that Mr Hall (EHW) would be submitting a report to the County Council for a decision as to whether the scheme should continue. If it did, the revised scheme would be amended to deal with the issue of the reallocation/redistribution of highways grants money in the absence of a Member through illness or other reason. In relation to both of these grants streams, the Committee were of the view that any reallocation/redistribution should be contained within the relevant District/Borough Council area.

(5)               The Committee supported the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference of the Personnel Committee and the Personnel Management Rules, subject to a minor amendment. The Committee were also of the view that any Members serving on Personnel Appointments or Appeals Panels should be appropriately trained.

(6)               Resolved: that the County Council be recommended to approve the following amendments to the Constitution:

(i)         Paragraph 11 (c) of Contract and Tenders Standing Orders (page 126 of the Constitution) be amended in order to deal with the reporting of interim manager appointments to Members of the Scrutiny Board as follows:

"being a named individual a 'Consultant' must, by definition, have been sourced via a non-competitive process. All contracts for a Consultant for £20,000 or more must be reported, as a non-competitive procurement, to the Head of Democratic Services within 14 days of the contract being awarded so that s/he may notify Members of the Scrutiny Board. Similarly, the appointment of an interim senior manager (defined in the Personnel Management Rules as Grade M or above) or equivalent for £20,000 or more for the period of the contract (whether undertaken as a non-competitive procurement or not) must also be reported to the Head of Democratic Services within 14 days of the appointment being made so that s/he may notify Members of the Scrutiny Board.”;

(ii)               Paragraph 1.20 (5) of the Rules applying to Council meetings (page 63 of the Constitution) be amended so that the length of the Leader’s reply to the opposition Leaders’ speeches on his oral report be extended to 5 minutes;

(Mr Christie asked for his vote against this decision to be recorded)

(iii)       Article 2 (2.3)(2)(m) (page 5 of the Constitution) be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

(1)    The Committee considered a report of the Head of Democratic Services and Local Leadership in relation to the Petition Scheme Review. Members were invited to express their views and make recommendations to the County Council with regard to aspects of the scheme that would benefit from being altered in the light of experience.

Website

(2)    Mrs Dean commented that the link from the kent.gov.uk home page to the e-petitions screen was still not as obvious as the Committee had asked for. Mr Sass stated that the e-petitions scheme was one click away from the home page, but accepted that this could be improved further and undertook to liaise with the web team to resolve this. In response to comments from Mrs Dean, Mr Sass also undertook to re-examine the wording of the e-petitions web page to ensure that this wasn’t too daunting for the general public.

Thresholds

(3)    The Committee was of a majority view that the petition thresholds should remain the same, i.e. 12,000 for a countywide matter and 1,000 for each District/Borough Council area. Mrs Dean reiterated her previous comments that the petition thresholds should be halved.

Repeat Petitions

(4)    The Committee asked officers to give further thought to what constituted “a petition on the same subject within 6 months of a County Council petition debate” and consult Members accordingly prior to the review report being submitted to the County Council.

Variable thresholds for Petition debates

(5)    The Committee was of the view that the County Council remained the most appropriate forum for petition debates, but that in the future, Locality Boards might be the more appropriate forum for dealing with petitions relating to single District/Borough Council areas.

Guidance to Petitioners

(6)    Committee Members asked to be provided with a copy of any written guidance provided to petitioners over and above that set out in the petition scheme. Mr Sass undertook to do this.

Process for a County Council debate

(7)    The Committee accepted the proposals in relation to the proposed deadlines for the receipt of petitions and written statements from petitioners in relation to a County Council debate. Members were of the view that Group Leaders should be consulted before the Chairman makes a decision as to whether to consider a petition that reached the threshold for a County Council debate, but was received after the deadline. The Committee noted that the practise of a briefing note/position statement being circulated from the relevant Directorate in respect of each petition debate should continue.

(8)    The Committee agreed that the length of the petition debate at County Council should remain at 45 minutes and was inclusive of the Lead Petitioner, the local Member and the relevant Cabinet Member (in the event of the petition relating to an executive matter) all having a maximum of 5 minutes each, with all other speakers having a maximum of 3 minutes each. The Committee was also of the view that the petition debates should take place immediately after the lunch break and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

(1)       The Chairman stated that there were no urgent items. However, Mr Christie asked for clarification of the application of the proportionality rules during a period where there were vacancies on the County Council and whether there was any provision in law for a temporary adjustment to proportionality when not all seats on the Council are filled. Mr Sass stated that he would seek an opinion from Mr Wild and advise all Members accordingly.