Issue - decisions

RESOLVED:

1.     That the LGA’s feedback report be noted;

2.     That the action plan be approved at Appendix 2 in response to the recommendations and observations contained within the feedback report;

3.     That the revised key deliverables be approved at Appendix 3; and

4.     That having considered the views of the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel, with regard to the motion, Cabinet agreed to recommend to Full Council that the process for selecting Chairmen and Vice-Chairman of Committees and Panels remain unchanged.

KEY DECISION:

Report to Cabinet and Council

PORTFOLIO:

Leader

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Leader reported that the LGA had been invited to the Council in December to undertake a Comprehensive Peer Challenge (CPC).  This took place over three days and included over 40 meetings and the engagement of over 130 people, which involved staff, members and external stakeholders.  It was long and comprehensive but was a rewarding process.  It gave the opportunity to be open about what we think we do well and the areas for improvement.  The feedback report received was positive and there were a number of observations.  These had been reviewed and an Action Plan had been developed to embrace the observations as a learning opportunity, and this had been considered in light of LGR.

The Assistant Director – Transformation reported that the CPC gave the council an opportunity to learn.  Those involved in the CPC had a wide reaching depth of experience from other authorities.  The report identified opportunities for improvement with 10 recommendations as well as observations and these were set out in the report.   A draft Action Plan had been prepared to respond to the recommendations and observations in a tangible way.  It was highlighted that the Devolution White Paper had been published after the Peer Challenge and therefore the Action Plan had been framed with this in mind.  One area which had been identified was the capacity to deliver the Corporate Plan priorities, in a timely way and the level of resources required over the next few years.  Appendix 3 set out a review of the Corporate Plan key deliverables in the new context and these would be kept under review.  The next step would be to publish the report by 12 May and a follow up review would be set up for one year after the view, expected in early November.

Finally, the report detailed a motion received by Full Council which had been considered by the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel and this was detailed in paragraphs 18-21 of the report. 

A number of non-Cabinet members made the following comments:

·       It was disappointing that the chairmanship role to opposition members for overview and scrutiny panels was not one of the recommendations within the Action Plan, despite it being recognised within the CPC review;

·       That scrutiny could be strengthened and improved with an opposition chairman;

·       That a requirement for the position of chairman and vice-chairman to be nominated by members not from the ruling party was less democratic.  It was not democratic for rules would be placed, so that only certain members would be eligible for these positions;

·       That improvements were being made to strengthen scrutiny in a positive way ensuring that important topics were discussed and that they were presented in a comprehensive way.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate highlighted that the CPC had identified potential areas for improvement, including some new and interesting ideas which had not previously been considered.  However, consideration needed to be given regarding whether those suggestions were right for the District Council.

The Leader reported that she felt there had been good engagement and discussion at the Panel meeting regarding the motion.  This view was supported by the Chairman of the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel who reported there had been a detailed discussion and that all members at the meeting had been able to express their views and have a fair say during the debate and vote.