(To receive the notes of the meeting of the Constitution Advisory Group held on 25 August 2009)

The Advisory Group considered the notes of the meeting held on 25 August 2009.

AGREED:

That the notes of the meeting held on 25 August 2009 be confirmed as a correct record.

(To review the current provisions relating to approval and amendment of the Capital Programme.

Report of the Director of Corporate Resources enclosed)

The Advisory Group considered a report from the Director of Resources proposing a variation of the procedures relating to the Capital Programme. The Advisory Group noted that the report had arisen following a meeting between the Leader of the Council, Portfolio holders for Corporate Resources and for Culture and Skills, the Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Children, Families and Learning and the Director of Corporate Resources to discuss problems that had arisen regarding the operation of the provisions within the Constitution relating to the Capital Programme.

Members were advised that since the establishment of the authority, a number of operational issues have emerged regarding the processes for incurring Capital Programme expenditure as set out in the Council’s Constitution (primarily through the Code of Financial Governance) and the Capital Handbook. These included

·              the nature of both the Constitution and Handbook processes which are more relevant for specific, higher-value, projects (rather than rolling programmes and low value schemes)

·              the potentially restrictive nature of the Constitution re: approvals variances, and virements;

·              confusion and uncertainty regarding the application of processes to legacy authority schemes and the status of the CBC Capital Programme.

To address these issues Members were presented with suggested amendments to the Code of Financial Governance (Part I2 – Section 4.9) proposing the grouping of Capital Schemes into four main categories (Rolling Programmes, Major Capital Schemes over £500k whole life cost, Intermediate Capital Schemes between £60k - £500k whole life cost and Minor Capital Schemes under £59.999k whole life cost) together with a suggested approval process for each category and the level of project documentation to be produced through Outline and Detailed Business Case requirements. The current requirement in the Code of Financial Governance for Executive approval of a Project Initiation Document in all cases before a capital project could proceed would be removed.

These proposed amendments would impact upon other Constitution and Capital Handbook issues as follows:

·              approval of new projects during the course of the year

·              approval of variations in scheme costs

·              virements

Members proposed lifting restrictions on capital programme variations and took the view that this action would obviate the need for virements.

It was noted that the new procedures would apply equally to capital projects that were wholly externally funded, where the Council was responsible for exercising proper governance arrangements.

Members also proposed amendments throughout the Code of Financial Governance to reflect that authority for approvals should be given by the relevant Portfolio Holder in consultation with the relevant Director rather than vice versa. In the interests of greater transparency and to facilitate further Executive delegation, this should be adopted as a general principle in future, although it was not proposed at this stage to amend existing delegations to Directors elsewhere in the Constitution.

Members also noted that all references to the ‘Assistant Director Audit, Risk and Health and Safety Management’ would be amended to read ‘Assistant Director Audit and Risk’.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND:

1.            That Section 4.9 of the Code of Financial Governance (Part I2) be replaced by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

(a)               Clarification of Definition of a Key Decision

The key decision definition currently provides that savings or expenditure are significant if they exceed £200,000 per annum or 10% of the budget concerned, whichever is the smaller (this figure would need to be reviewed if the proposals in the preceding report are approved in relation to capital projects).

There is also some uncertainty as to whether, in relation to other delegated functions such as land acquisitions and disposals (Part H3, para 4.6.71) and (procurement Part I3, para 5.1) where a limit of £200,000 is set, this should be interpreted as meaning the annual cost of the expenditure or the whole life cost.

(b)               Key Decisions Threshold

(Cllr Maurice Jones has asked for this item to be included on the agenda)

The Advisory Group discussed the Definition of a Key Decision as set out in Part C2, paragraph 1 of the Constitution in the light of some uncertainty of interpretation as to the meaning of the financial threshold as between annual and whole life costs.

Members also sought to clarify uncertainty in relation to other delegated functions such as land acquisitions and disposals (Part H3, paragraph 4.6.71) and procurement (Part I3, paragraph 5.1) where a limit of £200,000 is set on officers’ powers.

The Advisory Group discussed whether the criterion in Part C2, paragraph 1.1.2 relating to a decision having a significant effect on communities living or working in an area comprising one or more wards in the Council’s area should be amended. After discussion it was agreed that this could be revisited at a later date.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND:

1.      That Paragraph 1.2 of Part C2 (Key Decisions and the Forward Plan) be amended to read:

         “For the purposes of 1.1.1 above, savings or expenditure are significant if they exceed £200,000 per annum (revenue) or £200,000 whole life cost (capital), or 10% of the budget for the cost centre concerned, whichever is the smaller.”

Arising from the above discussion and concerns expressed elsewhere about the need to reduce the extensive workload of the full Executive, the Group also considered the possible introduction of delegated arrangements to Portfolio Holders generally to authorise savings or expenditure (including procurement) between £200,000 and £500,000, which currently required approval by the full Executive. This would bring the delegation arrangements for revenue and capital into line with the revised Capital Programme processes the Group was now recommending.

Members were aware that such a change would require a specific delegation by the Leader.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND:

2.      That the Leader be requested to agree a general scheme of delegation to Portfolio Holders to authorise savings or expenditure between £200,000 and £500,000 inclusive (revenue per annum or capital whole life/total contract value), in order to assist in reducing the workload of the full Executive while avoiding the need to make individual delegations to the relevant Portfolio Holders.

3.      That authority for approving savings or expenditure over £500,000 (revenue per annum or capital whole life/total contract value) continue to rest with the full  Executive.

4.      That the thresholds in 1. and 2. above be applied to the Code of Procurement Governance (Part I3, paragraph 5.1) and Land Acquisitions and Disposals (Part H3 – paragraph 4.6.71).

(Cllr Steve Male has asked for this item to be included on the agenda)

The Advisory Group discussed whether to include the individual fees and charges in the Fees and Charges Policy in the Budget and Policy Framework (Part B2, paragraph 1.1.3.2).

AGREED:

That no change be made to the current provision in Part B2.

(To consider the attached analysis showing the reasons why reports submitted to the 13 October and 10 November Executive meetings required approval by the full Executive.

Report of the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic enclosed)

Arising from growing concerns among Executive Members about the number and length of items submitted to the full Executive, the Advisory Group considered a report from the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic reviewing the impact of constitutional requirements on the volume of work presented to the Executive for decision and hence the efficiency of the decision-making process. The report analysed the reasons for submitting over 30 reports to the two most recent Executive meetings and the constitutional provisions behind them.

Whilst Members concluded that all items had rightly been submitted, they were mindful that the recommendations proposed in CAG/09/22 above would help in reducing the number of reports to be referred to the Executive. Members also discussed other initiatives aimed at reducing paperwork to be presented to the Executive including more concise, streamlined reports without unnecessary history included, making a copy of appendices available in the Members’ Room rather than being included with the agenda papers and circulating website links to the papers electronically to all Executive Members. Members were reminded that Executive had recently introduced guidelines that the narrative section of its reports should not normally exceed two pages with supporting evidence and detail contained in appendices.

The Advisory Group felt it was appropriate for the new measures to be given time to bed in before assessing their impact on the Executive workload. 

AGREED:

That a further review of Executive agendas be undertaken in six months.

(To agree recommendations from the Audit and Standards Committees that (a) the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy and (b) changes to the Confidential Reporting Policy, both approved by those committees in July 2009, be included in the constitution.

Report of the Assitant Director Legal and Democratic enclosed)

The Advisory Group considered the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and Confidential Reporting (‘Whistleblowing’) Policy which had been approved by both the Audit and Standards Committees and referred to the Group for inclusion in the Constitution.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND:

1.      That the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy be included in the Constitution under Part I1 – Finance, Contracts and Legal Matters.

2.      That the Confidential Reporting (‘Whistleblowing’) Policy be included in the Ethical Framework appended to the Constitution.

(To advise the Group of changes approved by the Leader to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers in respect of Member development following a recent meeting of the Member Development Champions.

Report of the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic enclosed)

The Advisory Group was advised of a new delegation and amendments to officer delegations at Part H3, paragraphs 4.6.60 and 4.6.61, which had been referred by the Member Development Champions Group and approved by the Leaderin respect of Member development. Members noted the history of the Group, its role in acting as Champions for member development and its remit in working towards the standards required to achieve East of England Member Development Charter status.

The Advisory Group noted that in order to achieve flexibility and to streamline the decision making process, the necessary powers to take forward elected Member development initiatives had been given to the Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services who would act after consultation with the “Champions” and, where appropriate, seek the views of the political leadership and wider Council membership.

The Leader of the Council had authority under Paragraph 3 of the Executive Procedure Rules to delegate Executive functions or amend existing delegations. In compliance with the wishes of the Member Development Champions Group the Leader had therefore approved the variations to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

AGREED:

That the revisions to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers and of the consequent winding up of the Member Development Champions Group be noted.

(To note an additional delegation to the Portfolio Holder for Social Care and Health, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Resources.

Report of the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic enclosed)

The Advisory Group was advised of the resolution of the Executive on 15 September 2009 to grant an additional delegation to the Portfolio Holder for Social Care and Health, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Resources and the Director of Social Care, Health and Housing and the Director of Corporate Resources, to approve individual projects using the NHS Campus Closure capital grant allocation to accommodate people with severe learning disabilities, subject to

·              consideration of the detailed business case for each project, and

·              compliance with Rule 19 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules (i.e. decisions by individual Executive Members) in respect of any key decision.

Members noted that the Leader was being asked to sign her approval to the delegation, which would then be reported to Council.  

AGREED:

That the additional delegation be noted.

(To note additional delegations to the Director of Sustainable Communities in respect of minor variations in premises licences, in response to new government guidance.

Report of the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic enclosed)

The Advisory Group was advised of the resolution of the Licensing Committee on 14 October 2009 to delegate responsibility for all minor variations to premises licences and club premises certificates to the Director of Sustainable Communities. This proposal was in response to new regulations that came into force on 29 July 2009. In noting the delegation, the Advisory Group was anxious to ensure that Members were made aware of any minor variations to premises licences/certificates in their Ward.

AGREED:

1.            That the additional delegation to the Director of Sustainable Communities be noted.

2.            That it be recommended to the Licensing Committee that minor variations to premises licences/certificates be notified to the appropriate Ward Member(s).

(To discuss possible alternatives to reporting petitions to full Executive meetings.  In view of short notice of this item (requested following Executive Chairman’s briefing on 3 November), officers will need time to conduct research.

Members may meanwhile wish to review the arrangements recently put in place for petitions relating to Traffic Regulation Orders and other highway-related matters to continue to be submitted to the Executive for public receipt for onward referral to public meetings of the Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities.

The current petitions procedure (Part A4, Appendix A, Annex 2) is attached for members’ reference).

Subsequent to a request following the Executive Chairman’s briefing on 3 November and given the short notice, the Advisory Group held only a preliminary discussion on possible alternatives to reporting petitions to full Executive meetings.

Members received a copy of the existing petitions procedure and were also reminded of arrangements recently put in place for petitions relating to Traffic Regulation Orders and other highways-related matters to continue to be submitted to the Executive for public receipt for onward referral to public meetings of the Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities. It was suggested that the Executive’s workload could be reduced if such petitions were in future referred direct to the public meetings of the Portfolio Holder.

AGREED:

1.            That the item be considered in greater detail at the next meeting of the Group, with reference to practices in other local authorities.

2.            That in the meantime, all petitions received be referred direct to the body most appropriate to consider them and that the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic be given delegated authority to determine that body, subject to a Member who is presenting a petition having the right to require that petition is included on the agenda of a particular body.

AGREED:

That the Advisory Group would meet bi-monthly and that officers would schedule meetings in the calendar to link suitably with meetings of the full Council.

The Advisory Group identified items in connection with the development of a work programme.

AGREED:

That the following items be included in a Work Programme for the Advisory Group:

·              Overview and Scrutiny arrangements, with particular emphasis on the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordination Panel and the absence in the constitution of a single overarching Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

·              Public participation arrangements for elected Town/Parish Council representatives at Development Management Committee meetings;

·              The future of Town Centre Management Committees, where the Executive was being recommended to refer any constitutional change to the Advisory Group

·              Review of Procurement Rules particularly in relation to low- end transaction limits.