Decision details

Public Speaker

Clive Rees - Crabtree BC X-press BC, Chairman CRA boathouse committee, addressed the committee and raised the following points:

• Speaking on behalf of rowers and other interested parties.
• History of Conservators goes back to an ancient Act of Parliament.
• Charges were made for using the locks.
• Advent of the railways changed river usage to mainly recreational use.
• 1922 majority of appointments were City Councillors.
• Current situation: River users pay but have little say in regulations.
• New structure of Cam Conservators would be welcomed.

 

Matter for Decision:

 The terms of office for the seven Conservators of the River Cam appointed by the City Council end on 31 December 2012.  The report explained how the City Council had previously gone about appointing to the Conservators and how that should change following a review requested by the Executive Councillor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Agreed to instruct officers to arrange an open and public process for seeking applications for some of the City Council appointments to the Conservators of the River Cam (para 4.1 of the Officer’s report)

            ii.      Agreed that the composition of the seven appointees is three city councillors and four members of the public (para 4.2 of the Officer’s report).

          iii.      Agreed that the criteria which applies and the application process is as set out in (para 4.4/4.5 of the Officer’s report).

         iv.      Agreed Council appointees will be required to sign up to the Council’s Code of Conduct (para 4.6 of the Officer’s report)

           v.      Agreed that the maximum term of office is normally for 3 x three year terms with thereafter a break period of three years before a re-application can be made.  This rule should apply retrospectively. (para 4.7 of the Officer’s report)

         vi.      Agreed that a four member panel would consider applications make recommendations to the  Environment Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2012. Details of the panel would be agreed b the Chair and Spokes.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change introduced the report.

 

Members discussed the status of former Councillor, Ian Nimmo-Smith, who was appointed to the Cam Conservators as a Councillor and was not required to resign this post.

 

An active recruitment process, using the Cam Conservators contact list was welcomed. Complaints had been received in the past about the perceived secret nature of the selection process and any future selection process should be as open and transparent as possible.

 

Members debated the number of Councillor appointments proposed. Councillor Merchant-Daisley stated that appointments should be proportional and therefore, either 2 or 4. She proposed the following amendment to the recommendations:

 

To agreed that the composition of the seven appointees is two city councillors and five members of the public.

 

The committee rejected the amended recommendation by 4 votes to 4 and the Chair’s casting vote.

 

The committee was reminded that other public bodies, such as the Environment Agency and the County Council had representatives on the Conservators . However, public members, while drawn from interest groups, were not there to represent those groups but rather to protect the interests of all parties.

 

The selection process of public members was discussed. A suggested additional recommendation to allow a selection panel to short list potential applicants was abandoned. Members were concerned that rejecting applicants in public would be uncomfortable and would discourage potential applicants.  

 

Members agreed that a selection panel of 4 members should be formed to meet in private and review all applications received. The panel would then make recommendations to the committee for final decision. The Executive Councillor requested that the process at the Scrutiny Committee be sufficiently open and transparent, but respected the Scrutiny Committee's view that if their was a need to debate any applicant's merits that it is done in closed session. It was agreed that the Scrutiny Committee would not be bound by the recommendations of the selection panel.

The final details on the composition of the selection panel to be agreed by the Chair and Spokes.

 

Councillor Ward proposed the following amendments to the recommendations:

 

v) To agree that the maximum term of office is normally for 3 x three year terms with thereafter a break period of three years before a re-application can be made. This rule to apply retrospectively.

vi) A four member panel would consider applications make recommendations to the  Environment Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2012. Details of the panel would be agreed b the Chair and Spokes.

 

The committee agreed the amendments by 4 votes to 0.

 

The committee resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable. 

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.