-TEXT-PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW AND                             20 December 2001

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT SUB-COMMITTEE                        (7.00 – 7.25pm)

                                                                                                                                                      

 

PRESENT:   Councillors Howarth (Chair), Durrant, James, C Rosenstiel and Taylor

 

ALSO PRESENT:  Councillor Stuart (speaking with the Chair’s permission)

 

 

FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE COUNCIL

-END-

 

-TYPE-MINUTE

-COMMITTEE-Licensing 16th December 1999

-DATE-19991216

-PRESENT-Councillors Cowell (Chair), Dixon, Knowles, Lucas, Schofield.

 

 

-DOCUMENT- C<C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPWIN.EXE G:\CMMTTEE\MINUTES\2000\FEB\991216M%.WPD>

01/q/31           MINUTES

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2001 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

01/q/32           APOLOGIES

 

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Bagnall.

 

01/q/33           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

01/q/34           PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

 

No members of the public wished to address the Sub-Committee.

 

01/q/35           PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW:  DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

 

The Sub-Committee considered the recommendations of the Periodic Electoral Review Working Party meeting held immediately before the Sub-Committee meeting, and

 

Resolved (with no votes against) that

 

1)      The LGCE be urged to pay heed to the principle of co-terminosity when subsequently considering the boundaries of the city divisions within the County Council area.

 

2)      The officer recommendations on the boundary proposals listed at sections 5 and 6 of the report be endorsed, subject to the amendments made by the Working Party.

 

3)      Local consultation be undertaken with the residents affected in Bateson Road and Garden Walk, as outlined in paragraph 5.1.2 of the report, to gauge their views of the LGCE proposals to place this area in West Chesterton.

4)      The officers work on alternatives for the triangle formed by Victoria Road, Chesterton Road/Lane and Castle Hill in consultation with the Chair and Councillor Bradnack.

 

5)      Councillor Bradnack consult the residents of New Street on his proposals for the area and the Council inform the LGCE that this is being done and indicate that it feels there are arguments in favour of both alternatives, so has no firm views itself.

 

6)      The City Council’s response to the draft recommendations be based on the officer recommendations, as amended by the Working Party and the Sub-Committee.

 

7)      The Chief Executive approve the final response after consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of the Sub-Committee.

 

Action by:  Chief Executive, Director of Environment and Planning, and Electoral Services Manager

 

01/q/36           ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT PANEL FOR MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES

 

The Director of Central Services presented a report which sought to establish a process to set up an Independent Panel that would make recommendations on the future allowances payable to members and co-optees.

 

Councillor Taylor expressed concern at recommendation 2.1 in the report which stated that the Council should place a bar on politically active persons being recruited to the Independent Panel, as she believed that this might exclude people with a good knowledge of local government who had only a limited involvement with a political party. Other members felt, however, that the bar should be imposed along the lines suggested in the report, as this would avoid the possibility that people with a strong political connection to a particular party sat on the Independent Panel.

 

Councillor Durrant asked that the word “pay” be avoided in the advert shown at Appendix 1 to the report.  He said that councillors were not “paid”; “recompense” might be a better word.

 

On recommendation 2.2, the Sub-Committee felt that more than three people should be appointed to the Independent Panel, as this would give a wider spread of experience and would be preferable if someone was unable to attend at the last minute.  It was suggested that there should be up to five people on the Independent Panel.

 

Councillor C Rosenstiel pointed out that the allowances scheme would need to have flexibility to reflect changes of responsibilities of individual councillors during the course of a municipal year, and suggested that an addition be made to the terms of reference (at Appendix 2 to the report) accordingly.

 

 

Resolved (with no votes against) that

 

1)      In addition to the regulatory requirements, the Council place a bar on politically active persons being recruited to the Independent Panel, and the recruitment process be along the lines described in paragraph 4.2 of the report.

2)      A selection panel be appointed to agree any final details of the recruitment process, and then interviews and appoints up to five persons to the Council’s Independent Panel.

 

3)      The composition of the selection panel be made up from the Council’s Standards Committee (1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Labour, 1 Conservative, and 1 “lay” member).

 

4)      The Independent Panel’s terms of reference be agreed as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, subject to the following addition:

 

“1g)     Has flexibility to reflect changes of responsibilities of individual councillors during the course of a municipal year”.

 

5)      The Independent Panel’s work be based on the commentary in paragraphs 6.1 – 6.3 of the report, with the final detail to be agreed by the Director of Central Services in consultation with Independent Panel members.

 

6)      The Independent Panel be paid commensurate with the hourly rate currently available to members, together with travel and subsistence expenses.

 

01/q/37           DATE OF NEXT MEETING

 

Resolved (with no votes against) that the next meeting be held on Friday 8 February 2002 at 4.00pm.

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 7.25pm.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIR