Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION 1: That Members’ Allocations be moved from the remit of local committees to individual Members, enabling Members to agree the spend within their own division or to pool their allocation with other Members for specific projects. Decisions on approval of the funds are delegated to Officers in consultation with the relevant individual Members or the relevant local committee Chairman where it is not possible to obtain the individual Member’s views.

RECOMMENDATION 2: That Local Committee Capital Allocations are pooled at Committee level and decisions on approval of funds are delegated to officers in consultation with all County Members on the relevant Local Committee.

AND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL:

RECOMMENDATION 3: That the guidance for the allocation of Members Allocations and Local Committee Capital Allocations should be strengthened and the language simplified with the introduction of an updated Financial Framework for these allocations as attached in Annex A.

RECOMMENDATION 4: That Local Chairmen should be given greater discretion in relation to public participation at formal Local Committee meetings to make these meetings more engaging for residents. The relevant amendments to Standing Orders are included at Annex B.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That Local Committee Vice-Chairmen be given a greater role in Committee business and that consideration be given to Vice-Chairmen taking on a specific role as Highways Spokesperson for their Local Committee.

RECOMMENDATION 6: That one consistent set of protocols governing public participation in Local Committees is introduced to make processes clearer for residents and more efficient to administer. The relevant amendments to Standing Orders are included at Annex B.

RECOMMENDATION 7: That Local Committees allow equal voting rights for District and Borough Members unless restricted by law. The relevant amendments are included at Annex B.

RECOMMENDATION 8: That each Local Committees decides on whether it wishes to employ the rule of District or Borough Member substitutes or not. The relevant amendments are included at Annex B.

Reasons for Decisions

1.      The Community Partnership PVR presented to Cabinet in November 2012 reviewed the role of Surrey County Council’s Local Committees and the Community Partnership Team “to improve outcomes for residents by strengthening local democracy and placing much greater emphasis on partnership working.” (David Hodge, Leader of SCC). 

2.      The recommendations are designed to embrace the spirit of Localism and empower local councillors to make a real difference in their local community.  This report outlines the decisions that are required to implement the recommendations of the PVR in relation to:

·       Supporting Members in their role as community leaders and champions

·       Preparing Local Committees for a greater scrutiny and accountability role

·       Simplifying the financial and administrative processes for Members’ Allocations to increase efficiency and to speed up decision making

·       Making formal Local Committee Meetings more engaging for residents

·       Changing  the participation rules of Local Committees to aid partnership working

3.     These require a number of changes to the current Constitution of the County Council, for which Full Council approval is required, specifically, standing orders, financial  ...  view the full decision text for item 31

In November 2012 the Cabinet considered the Public Value Review (PVR) of Community Partnership which reviewed the role of Surrey County Council’s Local Committees and the Community Partnership Team with the aim of delivering improved outcomes and value for money for the residents of Surrey.

The recommendations built on the Localism agenda and the aim to provide a greater role for local Members as Community Leaders.  The Leader has expressed his belief that, over the next cycle, there was a strong case to increase accountability and scrutiny at Local Committees and that further responsibilities should be passed to Local Committees.

The Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games said that, following engagement with Local Committee Members and Chairmen, the Leader and the Portfolio Holder; and on completion of a Rapid Improvement Event to review financial processes, the report set out the constitutional changes that were required to implement the PVR recommendations in relation to Member Allocations and the conduct of Local Committee meetings.

She commended the recommendations to Cabinet, and brought to their attention recommendations (3) – (8) which would need the agreement of full Council at their next meeting on 19 March 2013.

Cabinet Members recognised the work undertaken so far, thanked officers for the timely report and considered that the proposals would make local councils more accountable and it was the way forward.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That Members’ Allocations be moved from the remit of local committees to individual Members, enabling Members to agree the spend within their own division or to pool their allocation with other Members for specific projects. Decisions on approval of the funds are delegated to Officers in consultation with the relevant individual Members or the relevant local committee Chairman where it is not possible to obtain the individual Member’s views.

(2)        That Local Committee Capital Allocations be pooled at Committee level and decisions on approval of funds be delegated to officers in consultation with all County Members on the relevant Local Committee.

AND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL:

(3)        That the guidance for the allocation of Members Allocations and Local Committee Capital Allocations be strengthened and the language simplified with the introduction of an updated Financial Framework for these allocations as attached in Annex A of the submitted report.

(4)        That Local Chairmen be given greater discretion in relation to public participation at formal Local Committee meetings to make these meetings more engaging for residents. (The relevant amendments to Standing Orders are included in Annex B of the submitted report).

(5)        That Local Committee Vice-Chairmen be given a greater role in Committee business and that consideration be given to Vice-Chairmen taking on a specific role as Highways Spokesperson for their Local Committee.

(6)        That one consistent set of protocols governing public participation in Local Committees be introduced to make processes clearer for residents and more efficient to administer. (The relevant amendments to Standing Orders are included in Annex B of the submitted report).

(7)        That Local Committees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31