Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Smith. Councillor Catherine Smart attended as the alternate.

Councillor	Item	Interest
Benstead	14/84/SR	Personal: Member of GMB
C. Smart	14/84/SR	Personal: Member of a trade union

 

 

 

 

To follow

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair proposed that these be taken at the start of the relevant agenda item.

To note decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources since the last meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.  

This urgent decision was noted.

The public is likely to be excluded during any discussion on the confidential appendix by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Matter for Decision: Write off of irrecoverable debts.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Agree the debt write-offs deemed irrecoverable.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the report.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendation and endorsed it unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The public is likely to be excluded during any discussion on the confidential appendix by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Matter for Decision: Write off of debts.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Write-off 2 debts totalling £10,722.88 as summarised in the exempt ‘Appendix A’ of the officer’s report.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the report.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendation and endorsed it unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The Council is required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce a half yearly strategy treasury report reviewing treasury management activities.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Recommend to Council amendments to the Counterparty list, which highlight changes in Capita’s (Council’s Treasury Adviser) credit criteria, within Appendix B of the officer’s report. These are summarised below:-

 

-        Name ‘smaller’ building societies with an asset value greater than £5billion; and;

 

-        Show the limits for ‘smaller’ building societies meeting these criteria.

 

ii.     Recommend to Council to add equity investment in the Local Capital Finance Company, the legal entity of the UK Municipal Bonds Agency, to non-specified investments within the Council’s investment strategy.

 

iii.   Recommend to Council changes to the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2014/15 to 2017/18, inclusive, as set out in Appendix G of the officer’s report.

 

iv.   Recommend to Council:-

 

-        approval of a capital investment of up to £50,000 in the equity share capital of the Local Capital Finance Company; and;

 

-        delegation of the final decision on investment to the Head of Finance in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Finance and the Director of Customer and Community Services said the following:

 

i.                 The current HRA treasury strategy is to set aside 25% of the value of the loan portfolio by the point at which the first of 20 loans reaches maturity. This will allow the authority to decide whether to redeem a proportion of the loans, or instead to refinance then, dependent upon its prevailing rates of interest at this time.

ii.               The City Council would have limited liability on any Municipal Bonds issued. These would be added to the counterparty list when approved.

iii.             Agreed to circulate the definition used for cash durations applicable to Appendix C of the officer’s report.

 

Councillor Catherine Smart proposed the following minor amendment to recommendation 2.4 of the officer’s report (amendment underlined):

 

-        delegation of the final decision on investment to the Head of Finance in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

 

On a show of hands this was agreed unanimously.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the amended recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: The report identified considerable balances held within the Council’s accounts, earmarked for specific uses in the future. In the current challenging financial environment, they are a valuable resource that could be used to support the Council’s budget in the short term, and enable transformational projects to deliver savings in the longer term. 

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Approve the principles to be applied to the detailed review of General Fund earmarked reserves and specific funds (para 3.6 of the officer’s report).

 

ii.     Agree that the results of the review be reported and actioned in the budget setting report in February 2015.

 

iii.   Agree in principle to the setting up of an Invest to Save fund, subject to the development of terms of reference and operating procedures (para 3.7 of the officer’s report).

 

iv.   Note that the requirement for a contingency budget to act as a safety net will be considered (para 3.9 of the officer’s report).

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Finance said the following:

 

i.       The report proposed fundamental changes to the Council’s financial processes and the way funding was managed.

ii.     The report proposed moving from the ongoing availability of funds to an annualised budget setting process. 

iii.   It was important to prepare the Council for a time when less funding was available.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:

 

i.       The level of earmarked and specific funds stood at £24m. This was significantly higher than other local authorities of similar size in the East of England.

ii.     These funds could be used to support the Council’s current budget challenges and be bid for only when required.

iii.   Acknowledged that there was a need to retain funds for ‘a rainy day’ but felt that over the years there had been a lack of transparency on how these funds were spent and allocated.

iv.   Agreed that earmarked funds did provide space and time for services to develop bid proposals, but felt that this could be retained with the new system.

 

It was agreed that the recommendations would be voted on separately.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the following recommendation and endorsed it by 4 votes 3:

 

-        Approve the principles to be applied to the detailed review of General Fund earmarked reserves and specific funds (para 3.6 of the officer’s report).

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the following recommendations and endorsed them unanimously:

 

-        Agree that the results of the review be reported and actioned in the budget setting report in February 2015.

 

-        Agree in principle to the setting up of an Invest to Save fund, subject to the development of terms of reference and operating procedures (para 3.7 of the officer’s report).

 

-        Note that the requirement for a contingency budget to act as a safety net will be considered (para 3.9 of the officer’s report).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The report provided an update on the progress with Welfare Reforms.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Note the areas of welfare reform and their continued impact on residents of Cambridge.

 

ii.     Agree that the additional 2014/15 DWP New Burdens funding of £20,307, which was paid towards the costs of implementing welfare reform changes (and any subsequent New Burdens welfare reform payments), be ring-fenced to the Revenues and Benefits service in order to be fully utilised for the intended purpose.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Revenues and Benefits.

 

In response to members’ questions, the Head of Revenues and Benefits and the Director of Customer and Community Services said the following:

 

i.       A report in relation to Council Tax Reduction scheme will be brought to Strategy and Resources in January 2015, with the recommendation that the current scheme continues for the 2015/16 financial year. (Technical changes to council tax are anticipated to continue to meet the shortfall in funding for 2015/16, but as the grant element is not broken down it is difficult to quantify this).

ii.     Nearly every household affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy have been visited by officers. As a result of the Housing Benefit RSRS changes, it is understood that 30 households had moved and 32 had agreed to mutual exchanges.

iii.   The DWP interim report refers to rent arrears rising between October 2013 and April 2014 by 16%. This is total arrears (for all reasons) held by social landlords and the report emphasises that the cause is uncertain and cannot be directly attributed to RSRS.

iv.   City Homes arrears as a percentage of the collectable debt were as follows: 2.35% (2012/13), 2.08% (2013/14) and 1.89% at week 16 (2014/15).

v.    The current level of City Homes rent arrears attributed to RSRS is approximately 5% of the total rental arrears.

vi.   Details on the number of households with children of an age soon to be requiring separate bedrooms was held by Housing Benefit officers and is a consideration when awarding Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP).

vii. £97,819 of DHP was paid during 2014/15 compared to £66,000 in 2013/14. However it was difficult to compare these figures as there are long-term more awards being made during 2014/15, which has front loaded expenditure.

viii.                   It is not anticipated that the Council would exceed its DHP funds for 2014/15.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The reports set out an analysis of the Council’s training budgets and spend in recent years and highlighted potential barriers to participation in training.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Note the Councils training spend and budgets.

 

ii.     Note the potential barriers to training participation.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Human Resources.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Human Resources said the following:

 

i.                 There had been a top slice of 25% from training budgets across the Council. However a further readjustment was taking place to refine budgets based on need across services. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The report provided an update on progress during 2013/14 on actions to deliver the three strategic objectives of the City Council’s current Climate Change Strategy, which covered a five year period from 2012-2016.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Note the progress achieved during 2013/14 in implementing the Climate Change Strategy and the Carbon Management Plan.

 

ii.     Note the Climate Change Fund Status Report.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy and the Climate Change Officer.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Corporate Strategy and the Climate Change Officer said the following:

 

i.       A report on the Energy Partnership would be brought to a future meeting of the committee.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Matter for Decision: Following a review of available evidence and initial consultation with stakeholders, the City Council had developed a draft Anti-Poverty Strategy. The aim of the strategy was to improve the standard of living and daily lives of those residents in Cambridge who were currently experiencing poverty, but also to alleviate issues that could lead households on low incomes to experience financial pressures.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i.       Approve the draft Cambridge City Council Anti-Poverty Strategy for public consultation and bring a report back to a future meeting.

 

ii.     Endorse the four objectives for the draft Cambridgeshire Child Poverty Strategy.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor said the following:

 

i.       Performance measures and indicators were in place to monitor the impact of the Strategy.

ii.     The Strategy would help residents to cope with changes being made by central government.

iii.   Partnership working was a big part of the Strategy.

iv.   Work was continuing with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

 

It was confirmed that a further report would be brought to the committee regarding the outcome of the public consultation. The recommendations were amended accordingly.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the amended recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: Transfer to the Cultural Trust of the Council responsibilities as set out in the officer’s report.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Approve the transfer to the Cultural Trust (“Cambridge Live”) of the Council responsibilities set out in the officer’s report.

 

ii.     Approve the funding, property, staffing and relationship management arrangements proposed in the officer’s report.

 

iii.   Authorise the Director of Customer and Community Services to take all decisions and actions needed to implement the proposals set out in the officer’s report.

 

iv.   Recommend Council to approve the budget and finance proposals set out in the officer’s report.

 

v.    Note the recommendations made by the Executive Councillor for Arts & Recreation and approve two Councillor Trustees to be appointed to     the board of Cambridge Live as set out in the officer’s report.

 

vi.   Note the decision by the Executive Councillor for Communities Arts & Recreation taken on 16th October 2014 in respect of the review of outdoor events.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Arts and Recreation. The following minor change to recommendation 2.2 of the officer’s report was highlight (deletion struck through):

 

-        Recommend Council to approve through the budget setting report 2015 the budget and finance proposals set out in the officer’s report.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Arts and Recreation and the Director of Customer and Community Services said the following:

 

i.                 Whilst periodic contractual review points would be built in every five years to look at performance, direction of travel and funding arrangements, the first of these would take place in autumn 2017.

ii.               The Cultural Trust would have their own Reserves Policy.

iii.             There would be an option to review the ‘peppercorn’ rates if the Cultural Trust exceeded targets.

iv.             The use of Council property and assets did not currently feature on the balance sheet. This approach will be reflected in the legal agreement and leases and licenses.

v.              The purpose of the project was to reduce the subsidy required to these services; to provide a sustainable financial and operational basis on which they could thrive; and to mitigate the risks of the Council continuing to run the services directly.

vi.             Potential damage to the reputation of the Council had been highlighted within the risk assessment and would be addressed through the legal documentation.

vii.           The business plan provides for the payment of the living wage to staff and have access to a closed LGPS pension scheme.

viii.         Whilst review clauses were in place, a 25 year contract would allow time for the Cultural Trust time to develop a sustainable model in order to develop the cultural offer in the City. Security of continuity was also important with regards to fundraising.

ix.             Budget contributions for outdoor events were separated within the business plan.   

x.              The minutes of Cultural Trust Board meetings would be available to the public and there would be an open aspect to their Annual General Meeting. The public could also apply to be Trustees through an open process.

xi.             The Cultural Trust would decide if their meetings were fully open to the public.

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader said the following:

 

i.       Normal proportionality rules would apply with regards to the appointment of Councillor Trustees. A Councillor from each of the two largest groups would be appointed, on the basis of current proportionality. 

ii.     The purpose of the project was to both maintain and enhance the cultural offer within the City. The Council had a long history of supporting the Corn Exchange, the Folk Festival and the outdoor events programme and this should continue.

iii.   Scrutiny of the Cultural Trust would be undertaken by the proposed reports to the Council, assisted by the role of the two Councillor Trustees.

iv.   An annual report would be brought to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee, six monthly in the first year, as well as a detailed report to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee as part of the budget setting process.

v.    The Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation would be responsible for policy and the specific budget would form part of his portfolio. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources would be responsible for the overall budget implications as part of the budget setting process. The Leader would be responsible for overall governance and the transformation agenda.

vi.   Work was ongoing across the City with regards to the Living Wage and discussions would continue with the Cultural Trust with its paid staff receiving at least the Living Wage.

 

In response to member’s questions the Chief Executive said the following:

 

i.       The Chief Executive held responsibility for reducing the Council’s corporate overheads. These were dispersed across services and Executive Councillor portfolios and the detailed transformation agenda (including Trusts, shared services and arm’s length bodies) developed by the Director of Business Transformation would address this. 

 

At the request of Councillor Bick the Leader agreed to add the following to bullet point 2 of the draft Articles of Association (addition underlined): 

 

-        …the advancement of education and participation, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to music, arts and performing arts;

 

Councillor Bick proposed the following amendment to recommendation 2.2(c) of the officer’s report (addition underlined):

 

-        Authorise the Director of Customer and Community Services to take all decisions and actions needed to implement the proposals set out in the officer’s report in consultation with the Leader and Opposition Spokes.

 

On a show of hands this proposal was lost by 3 votes to 5.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them by 5 votes to 0.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: Legislative changes and in particular the Regulators Code which is a statutory code came into force in April 2014 making it necessary to review and update the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Adopt the proposed Corporate Enforcement Policy attached as Appendix A of the officer’s report.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Refuse and Environment.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

 

ii.     Central Government was keen on a statutory code to ensure consistency of approach by Local Authorities across the Country.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendation and endorsed it unanimously.

 

The Leader approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Kevin Roberts addressed the committee and made the following points on behalf of GMB and Unison:

 

i.       A proposed location for the shared services was not mentioned in the report. A detailed Travel Plan was required, including compensation for longer journeys, for those staff required to relocate and/or unable to drive.

ii.     Cambridge City Council had a more successful recruitment due in no small part to the City location. This advantage would be lost if Cambourne or Huntingdon became the new headquarters. There was no evidence of high staff turnover in Cambridge but this may be the case for the other authorities.

iii.   Regular joint meetings between the three authorities and the trade unions were required.  

iv.   Additional technology such as IT systems, software and video conferencing was required in order to make shared services work.

 

The Chief Executive confirmed that regular joint meetings would take place between the three authorities and the trade unions. It was noted that options were being looked at with regards to service location.

 

Councillor Catherine Smart confirmed that the issues would also be discussed in full at the Joint Staff Employer Forum (JSEF).

 

Matter for Decision: Cambridge City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council all made decisions in July to work in partnership to deliver shared services.  A significant amount of work had taken place since then and the report set out progress together with proposed next steps to ensure momentum was maintained.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Note the good progress to date by all three Councils working together to deliver shared services.

 

ii.     Agree the general principles set out in Paragraph 4 of the officer’s report, namely:

 

-        The lead authority model in the first instance (para 4.2)

-        Proposed lead and location arrangements (para 4.3)

-        Proposed cost sharing proposals (para 4.4)

 

iii.   Agree to a phased approach to the development of ICT and Legal Shared Services, with interim project support appointed to assist with the process and develop full business cases.

 

iv.   Establish a Business and Legal Practice Manager in advance of the proposed shared legal service to assist with the transformation programme and development of the shared service. 

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Director of Business Transformation.

 

In response to member’s questions the Director of Business Transformation, the Director of Environment and the Chief Executive said the following:

 

i.       It was proposed that a single team manage the shared Waste Service and South Cambridgeshire had offered to lead on this.

ii.     The Environment Scrutiny Committee on 17 October 2014 had requested that the option of a local delivery vehicle be investigated by officers.

iii.   The joint support costs for the Waste Service amounted to over £1m and this needed to be reduced.

iv.   There was a need to develop support services that were fit for the future direction of the City Council. 

v.    Whilst it would not happen overnight processes were being developed to help manage the reduction of recharges.

vi.   The current level of central recharge costs was £7.5m and a reduction of £1.9m was required. A 15% reduction would be distributed across the three authorities.

vii. The detail on the role of the ‘lead authority’ was yet to be fully agreed.

viii.                   Any policy changes with regards to the shared services needed to be agreed by all three authorities. This would be done through their normal decision making processes.

ix.   A shared CCTV Service was already in place and this was being led by Huntingdonshire District Council. The first governance meeting had taken place and operational plans and an annual report were being produced.

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader said the following:

 

i.       All decisions regarding the future of shared services would be brought to the relevant Scrutiny Committee for discussion.

ii.     The decision on ‘lead authority’ would be based on factors such as location and expertise.

iii.   The shared Waste Service would require close working between the City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

iv.   Portfolio holders from each authority would be involved in overseeing performance of the shared service.

v.    A strong relationship existed with Huntingdonshire District Council regarding the shared CCTV Service.  

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The report set out interim progress made in relation to the development of the Neighbourhood Resolution Panel Scheme (NRPS) following a report to the committee on 17 March 2014.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Note the amended report attached as Appendix 1 of the officer’s report which set out progress since March 2014.

 

ii.     Endorse progress made and the proposals for continued development of the scheme.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Neighbourhood Resolution Panel Coordinator. An amended Appendix 1 was tabled.

 

In response to member’s questions the Neighbourhood Resolution Panel Coordinator said the following:

 

i.       None of the referrals to date were connected to domestic violence.

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader said the following:

 

i.                 Discussions were ongoing with the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding his proposal for the Community Remedy.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed the unanimously.

 

The Leader approved the recommendation.

 

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: The Greater Cambridge City Deal document was signed on 19 June 2014 on behalf of all five local partners (Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership and the University of Cambridge) and Government.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Agree the following and to recommend them to Full Council for endorsement:

 

-        The Terms of Reference for the Executive Board;

-        The Leader of the Council be appointed to represent the Council on the Executive Board;

-        Councillor Blencowe be appointed as the Council’s substitute representative on the Executive Board;

-        The Terms of Reference for the Assembly;

-        The delegation of the executive functions of the City Council referred to in the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board.

 

ii.     Invite Full Council to appoint Council’s three representatives on the Assembly, on a politically proportionate basis.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader said the following:

 

iii.   The City Deal Assembly was an advisory board made up of 15 representatives from across the five partner organisations. As this included non-Councillors and was not a full Scrutiny Committee in relation to Local Government legislation it was deemed inappropriate to have alternate or substitute members. This would encourage the same people to turn up and work effectively as the Assembly.

iv.   It was hoped that the Assembly Members would meet informally soon after appointments were completed, ahead of its first formal meeting in January.

v.    Cross membership of Executive Councillors and Spokes and the Assembly was possible.

vi.   The City Deal Board meetings would be held in public, as would the Assembly. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

The Chief Executive is due to be away from work for a period from mid-October for medical reasons. The Leader is asked to recommend, and Council is asked to approve, arrangements for the Director of Customer and Community Services to deputise for the Chief Executive during her absence.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council authorises the Director of Customer and Community Services to deputise for the Chief Executive and to act as Head of Paid Service during the Chief Executive’s absence.

 

 

Matter for Decision: The Chief Executive was due to be away from work for a period from mid-October for medical reasons. The Leader was asked to recommend, and Council was asked to approve, arrangements for the Director of Customer and Community Services to deputise for the Chief Executive during her absence.

 

Decision of the Leader

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

i.       Recommend that Council authorises the Director of Customer and Community Services to deputise for the Chief Executive and to act as Head of Paid Service during the Chief Executive’s absence.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the recommendation.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendation and endorsed it unanimously.

 

The Leader approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.