Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 24^th August 2015 and the special meeting held on the 03^rd September 2015.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2015 and the special meeting held on the 3 September 2015 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

3 September 2015, Item 9, NPC5/14, Page 13, Second Paragraph, final sentence to read:

“Councillor Swift-Hook confirmed that he had not taken part in the management of that procedure although he gave evidence to the Grievance Sub-Committees when asked.  Councillor Swift-Hook also confirmed that Councillor Uduwerage-Perera had declined to be interviewed by either Grievance Sub-Committee.”

As neither Councillor Anthony Pick  nor Councillor Alan Macro was present at the 24 August 2015 meeting they did not vote on these minutes.

As Councillors Jeff Beck, Graham Bridgman, Barry Dickens Anthony Pick and Alan Macro were not present at the 3 September Special meeting and therefore did not vote on these minutes.

(Councillor Sheila Ellison arrived at 5.05pm)

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To consider the Forward Plan for the next 6 months.

The Committee considered the Governance and Ethics Committee Forward Plan (Agenda Item 4). The Chairman re-iterated his request to ensure that in addition to the title of the Portfolio Holder their names also be included on the Forward Plan.

The Chairman requested that in view of the fact that the Code of Conduct had been in place since December 2013 a small Task Group be set up to review it to ensure that it was still fit for purpose. He proposed that the following Members be invited to sit on the Task Group: Councillor Quentin Webb, Councillor Graham Bridgman, Councillor Lee Dillon, Parish Councillor Barry Dickens and Independent Person James Rees. The Task Group would report back to a future meeting of the Governance and Ethics Committee.

RESOLVED that the Governance and Ethics Committee Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To present the Monitoring Officer’s quarterly report.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) which provided an update on local and national issues relating to ethical standards and brought to Members’ attention complaints received during the second quarter of 2015/16.

Moira Fraser explained that during quarter 2 fifteen formal complaints were received by the Monitoring Officer. Fourteen of these complaints related to district councillors and one to a parish councillor.

Following the initial assessment by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person it was decided that no further action should be taken on  the complaints pertaining to district councillors. All of the district council complaints pertained to planning matters. The Monitoring Officer had subsequently written to a number of the Members involved outlining the procedures surrounding declarations of interest at meetings and where appropriate about the conduct that was expected of Members at site visits.

The complaint against a parish councillor was currently being investigated. A small number of gifts and hospitality had been declared by district councillors.

At the time of writing the report 24 parish councils had not as yet returned their Register of Interests Forms post the May 2015 elections. Work on collecting the information was ongoing. A further reminder had been sent to the parishes on the 01^st November 2015.

Since June 2015 all parts of the Constitution had been updated to reflect that the Standards Committee and Governance and Audit Committee had been merged. The Monitoring Officer, under delegated authority had authorised changes to Parts 3 and 7 of the Constitution.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that there were a number of typographical and formatting issues in the report including the fact that paragraph 6.6 of Appendix A on page 26 should refer to NPC1/15 and not NPC1/1f.

In relation to the declaration of gifts and hospitality Councillor Jeff Beck stated that it was important for Members to note that they should declare gifts or hospitality even if they were declined.

Councillor Anthony Pick noted that all the complaints against District Councillors related to planning committees and asked if further information could be provided to the Committee. Moira Fraser explained that as no further action was taken on the complaints it was not possible to provide detailed information.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

(As all matters pertaining to Standards had been concluded Barry Dickens left the meeting at 5.22pm.)

Purpose: To provide a refresh of the Council’s Risk Management processes

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which provided commentary on the process for the management of risk.

Ian Priestley provided a refresh of the Council’s Risk Management processes with the aim of:

·         Ensuring risks associated with the delivery of the Council Strategy were identified and mitigated

·         Clarifying the respective roles of the Risk Management Group and Corporate Board. The RMG would oversee risk allowing CB to focus on responding to critical/key issues. The aim being to delegate the bulk of the work on Risk Management to the RMG.

·         Confirm the role of RMG in carrying out a rolling review of service and project risk registers. 

·         Review the Council’s Risk Appetite to ensure it was still appropriate.

Risk Management was a part of any activity undertaken by the Council. The process outlined in the report was not essential to the management of risk but it sought to provide a framework which:

·         Was applied consistently;

·         Provided clarity and transparency in relation to the risks the Council was managing;

·         Provided assurance to Members that risk management was effective in ensuring appropriate actions were taken to minimise risk to the delivery of the Council’s objectives.

The proposed roles for Corporate Board and the Risk Management Group, chaired by John Ashworth, had been set out in detail in the report.

The Committee was asked to discuss whether or not the measures that had been put in place were adequate and appropriate. Ian Priestley explained that the proposed approach was graphically represented in Appendix C to the report.

The process would include a number of elements:

Key Issues List - risks being triggered and action or active monitoring was required and are reported at Corporate Board on a quarterly basis’

Council Strategy Risk Register  - which was proving difficult to produce due to the wide ranging nature of the Strategy,

The Corporate Risk Register  - had replaced the Strategic Risk Register, identified issues that affected the Council as a whole and it was reviewed annually by the Risk Management Group,

Service Risk Registers – which were managed by Heads of Service and this was an effective process. Each Head of Service was required to sign off an Assurance Statement at the end of each year which highlighted any issues identified during the year.

Project Risk Registers – for all major projects. Corporate Board identified which projects required these registers which were then monitored by the Risk Management Group.

Chief Executive’s Key Risks – these were risks that if triggered would have a significant impact on the Council, generally they had high gross and low net score. The current list included safeguarding of children and adults which were the subject of quarterly reports to Corporate Board. 

The Council’s Risk Appetite (Appendix D)  set out the Council’s view as to what level of risk was deemed acceptable and helped to ensure consistency across the Council.

Ian Priestley explained that the new approach needed time to bed in. He also explained that the Council’s liability insurers, Zurich,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Purpose: To review and if appropriate amend part 5 (Executive Rules of Procedure) following a request from the Liberal Democrat Group.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which asked Members to consider a request from the Liberal Democrat Group to review Part 5 (Executive Rules of Procedure) specifically around the number of Members required to affect a call-in.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution almost all decisions of the Executive, Committees of the Executive, individual Members of the Executive and ‘key decisions’ taken under delegated powers of Officers were subject to call-in.

Where items were marked as being subject to call-in currently five Members were required to sign the notice asking for the decision to be reviewed. Following the May 2015 elections the make up of the Council comprised 48 Conservative Members and 4 Liberal Democrat Members. This meant that in order to affect a call-in the Liberal Democrat Group had to gain cross party support. They had therefore asked that that section of the Constitution be reviewed to reflect the political balance of the Council. Moira Fraser stated that it should be noted that one item had been called-in in 2014 and four items in 2013. The call-in requirements for the other Berkshire unitaries ranged from three to five Members and it was therefore proposed that to promote greater accountability paragraphs 5.3, 2.7,5 and 6.4.4 should be amended to require three Members to affect a call-in.

Councillor Alan Macro commented that not all decisions taken at the Council were transparent (Individual Decisions and Delegated Officer Decisions) and even at Executive items were not often thoroughly debated. He therefore felt that it was important to reduce the threshold in order for Opposition Members to be able to affect a call-in without garnering cross party support.

Councillor Jeff beck proposed that the amendments be accepted. Councillor Alan Macro seconded the proposal.

Councillor Graham Bridgman did not see the need to introduce the change. He explained that he had recently been asked to support a call-in but had declined to do so on the basis that the call-in was badly written not on the basis of politics.

Councillor Rick Jones stated that he did not see the issue with needing to garner cross party support to affect a call-in. He was uncomfortable with the implication that decisions made at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) were made on a political basis. He had always thought that the Commission operated on a politically neutral basis.

Councillor Macro stated that there was only one Members of the Opposition on the OSMC. He stated that it was not only about the politics but also that Opposition did not know the members of the Administration very well and it was therefore difficult to ascertain if they might support a call-in.

The Chairman noted that a proposal had been mooted to undertake more pre-scrutiny activity in the Council. Should this be introduced it would be preferable to let that system operate for a year to see what impact it would have and then decide if there was a need to amend the call-in procedures.  Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Purpose: To review and if appropriate amend part 11 (Contract Rules of Procedure) following a request from the Procurement Board to do so.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which requested a review of Part 11  (Contract Rules of Procedure)  following a request from the Procurement Board to do so.

A number of changes had been made to Part 11 of the Council’s Constitution (Contract Rules of Procedure) in May 2015 to ensure that the Council was acting in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The changes included the setting of thresholds for delegated decision making. The revised rules had been in place since May 2015 and Officers had now been asked to amend the thresholds by both Corporate Board and Procurement Board to reduce the number of contracts which required Executive approval. Under paragraph 11.4.4 transactions falling outside of the Capital Programme (i.e. revenue) and where the relevant Head of Service did not have delegated authority to award the contract an approval or a resolution of the Executive was required.

The changes set out in the report mainly affected those contracts over the £500k threshold, however, some minor changes to the other thresholds were required to provide clarity. The proposed amendments (in red text) were as follows: