Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Ms Kemkaran, with Mr Collins attending as her

substitute, Miss Morton with Dr Sturley as her substitute, Mr Prater with Mr Hook as his substitute, Mr Moreland with Mr Streatfeild as his substitute, Miss Fothergill with Mr Thomas as her substitute.

Mr Paul King, Mr Paul Thomas and Mr Michael Brown declared an interest in Item 6, as they had been nominated as candidates for appointment to specific Outside Body organisations.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 7 May 2026 were a true and accurate record and a paper copy be signed by the Chair.

1.       The verbal update on Committee business was presented by the Deputy Chief Executive, Ben Watts.

a)       The Committee received an update on Member training and development following Member induction. Feedback from Member catch-up sessions held in March was being used to form an action plan and a further programme of development sessions, which would be launched in the autumn. A more detailed report would be brought to the Committee in September.

b)       An update was provided on attendance at mandatory training sessions. It was reported that 20 Members had yet to complete Cyber Security training and 15 Members had yet to attend training on the role of elected Members in an emergency. Additional training opportunities would be arranged. Members were also advised that a Tag Evac training video would shortly be circulated and completion would be monitored.

c)       The importance of completing all mandatory training was emphasised, and it was noted that a future report may be required if attendance levels did not improve.

d)       It was reported that changes to political proportionality arrangements had affected governance positions, including opposition Group leaders and certain Committee chairs. Officers would work with the Panel to review any necessary changes to the Members’ Allowances Scheme.  Members were invited to identify any additional matters for referral to the Panel. It was noted that, should local government reorganisation proceed, this may be one of the final opportunities to undertake such a review.

e)       In response to a request, it was agreed that an updated list of Members who had not yet completed the mandatory Cyber Security training would be circulated to Group leaders.

2.       RESOLVED Members noted the Verbal Update.

1.       The report was presented by the Head of Information Governance, Consultation and Member Support, Lizzy Adam.

a)       The Committee received a report setting out a review of the Combined Member Grant Scheme guidelines, undertaken in response to Member feedback and operational experience since the previous update.

b)       The proposed amendments included retaining the restriction on funding running costs, permitting funding for used vehicles, providing greater clarity on repeat and retrospective funding applications, and excluding certain costs where alternative processes were available.

c)       It was reported that the changes would help ensure the scheme continued to support community projects effectively while maintaining clear and practical guidance for applicants.

d)       During discussion, it was suggested that applicants should automatically receive a copy of their grant application upon submission, following feedback received from grant recipient. Officers acknowledged the issue and advised that this functionality had been identified during a recent review of the application form and a solution was being looked at. Members expressed support of this solution.

2.       RESOLVED that Members RECOMMENDED the revised guidelines to the Deputy Leader for adoption and implementation.

Declarations of interest were made by Mr Michael Brown, Mr Paul King and Mr Paul Thomas. The Chair requested at the start of the item, for these Members leave the Council Chamber, in the interests of fairness and correct governance.

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

a)       It was reported that further engagement had taken place with the political Groups and interested Members. While most competing expressions of interest had been resolved through discussion, two appointments remained outstanding, namely the appointments to the Rochester Bridge Trust and the Gabriel Richards Charity.

b)       The Committee was advised that the report detailed those Members who had expressed an interest in the appointments and outlined the considerations normally taken into account when making appointments, including the proportional allocation of positions across political Groups. It was noted, however, that the determination of appointments remained a matter for the Committee.

c)       The Committee was further invited to note the appointments listed in Appendix 1 of the report, which had already been made under delegated authority. It was reported that the relevant organisations had been notified of those appointments and that the appointed Members had received information regarding their roles and responsibilities.

d)       During discussion, clarification was sought as to whether either of the outstanding appointments could be shared between two Members, either through a joint appointment arrangement or by dividing the term of office between them. The Committee was advised that the governance arrangements for appointments were determined by the respective outside bodies and were therefore outside the control of the County Council. It was noted that informal discussions could take place in individual cases, although Members were reminded that any alternative arrangements could have implications for future practice.

e)       The Committee discussed the factors that might be taken into account when determining the appointments. Reference was made to the guidance on proportionality and it was acknowledged that this should be an important consideration in reaching a decision.

f)        The Committee also considered whether the geographical location of the outside bodies and the electoral divisions represented by the interested Members were relevant factors. In relation to the Gabriel Richards Charity, it was noted that the charity was located in the Dover district area, and consideration was given to the proximity of the interested Members' divisions to the charity's area of operation. In relation to the Rochester Bridge Trust, discussion took place regarding the Trust's connection with the Medway area and whether representation from a Member with links to that locality would be advantageous.

g)       It was also noted that the Rochester Bridge Trust's activities extended beyond the management of a single bridge and included responsibility for other assets and operations which supported its charitable objectives. The Committee considered whether this wider geographical and operational remit should be reflected in the appointment    

f)        Following two separate votes by Committee Members, Mr Paul

King was appointed to the Gabriel Richards Charity and Mr Michael  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.