Agenda item

A number of recommendations were presented by the Democratic Services Manager, which the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) proposed and would be submitted to Full Council at its meeting in February 2015.

The CRWG consisted of four Members; Councillors Holland (Chair), Wallace, Jones and Mrs Braithwaite.

Revised Member Code of Conduct

It was reported by the Audit Manager that research was undertaken via the Standards Exchange and examples of other codes of conduct were obtained.  Taking these into account a new code had been re-written to reflect best practice.

The main principles, in terms of standards of conduct, remained the same – these had been re-written to give more clarity.

The major change related to gifts and hospitality.  Currently the value at which Members are required to record the receipt of any gift, benefit or hospitality was £100 this had been reduced to £10.00.

A Member advised it was a much improved document and agreed to the value of gifts and hospitality being reduced and welcomed the introduction of bullet points that had a point of reference.

Resolved:-

(a)   Members agreed to the redrafted Member Code of Conduct

(b)   That the Member Code of Conduct be submitted to Full Council at its meeting in February 2015 following consideration by the Standards Committee

Protocol for Conferring the title of Honorary Alderman

It had been suggested from the CRWG that an Honorary Alderman should at least:-

·      Not be a serving Member of the Council

·      Be a person of distinction who has rendered eminent services to the Council and the community

·      Have served a period of not less than twelve years on the Council which may be continuous or discontinuous

·      Have held a substantive office on the Council such as; Mayor, Committee Chair, Group Leader or Cabinet Member

There was presumption that where the criteria are met by a nominated individual the appointment at Full Council would be agreed without debate.  Due process would be undertaken with the aim of ensuring that this would happen.

A Member commented that bullet points two and four were vague.

The Chair of the CRWG advised that the process had been discussed and it was important to make it non-political.  It would have to go to a special meeting of the Council called for this purpose.  In relation to bullet point two this wording was used by other Councils and was within the legislation.

It was commented that services to the community could be taken into account and for bullet point four to be amended to read “Have normally held a substantive office on the Council such as; Mayor, Committee Chair, Group Leader or Cabinet Member” to give flexibility.

Members voted in favour to include the word “normally”.

Resolved:-   To include the word “normally” in bullet four and for a review to be carried out after twelve months

Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs Group

Most of the work was carried out electronically and the overall feeling was that diarised meetings of the new informal committee was not required.  Should any concern arise regarding duplication or overlap of a subject matter the Scrutiny Officer or Democratic Services Manager would liaise with the relevant Chairs to arrange an ad hoc meeting with the relevant Chairs or, in extreme circumstances, a meeting of all the Chairs and Vice Chairs.

A Member advised that when Scrutiny Chairs report back to Full Council, to be presented with the report two days prior was not enough time to analyse the content.  It was asked if guidance could be produced on how Scrutiny Chairs were to present a report to Full Council.

The Chair of the CRWG informed that the Mayor was considering different options on presenting a report to Full Council, with possibly a working group being established.

Resolved:-   That it be recommended to Full Council diarised meetings of the Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs Group are not required.

Urgency Provision

Presently in the Constitution there are two duplicate sections relating to matters of urgency and it was recommended that both sections are replaced with one new urgency clause.

A Member asked for the words “or Committee” to be added in the first sentence to read “When a decision regarding a Cabinet or Committee function requires ……”

The Chair agreed that the new provision was easier to interpret than the existing.

The Audit Manager was thanked by the Chair of the CRWG for her work in producing the above recommendations of the Working Group.

Resolved:-   That the recommendation be presented to Full Council.

Contract Procedural Rules (Appendix 12)

This was submitted as a late Supplementary item.

Resolved:-   That this item is presented to the next meeting of Finance, Resources and Partnerships Scrutiny to be held on Tuesday 16^th December 2014.