Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (copy enclosed) on Member representatives on outside bodies.

 

A copy of a report by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (HLDS) had been circulated with the papers for the meeting.

 

The HLDS explained that elected Members could be involved in a wide range of outside bodies (OB’s) which included community organisations, charitable trusts, sports and recreation clubs, housing associations and companies.  A Member could be appointed to sit on these organisations by the Council or in other cases, could be appointed independently of any Council involvement.

 

Members appointed to sit on OB’s by the Council were treated differently under the Code of Conduct to those appointed independently of any Council involvement insofar as declarations of interest were concerned, particular reference being made to the definition of prejudicial interests and exemptions.  Any Member appointed to an OB by the Council may have the benefit of an indemnity in certain circumstances by the Council which would not apply if appointed independently of any Council involvement.  Members’ attendance at a meeting of an OB, if appointed by the Council, could be recognised as an attendance by the Member for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972, in determining whether a Member was disqualified for non-attendance.  Mr P. Whitham felt that the appointment of a Member by the LA, or independently, to an OB may not be perceived by the public as consequential.

 

A Members role in relation to an OB would vary depending on the body.  Some Members would become directors of companies, trustees of charitable trusts, members of management committees in a decision making capacity or may merely be non decision observers or representatives.  Each of the different roles carried different legal obligations and may attract different levels of indemnity cover. 

 

Members had an important role in representing the Council on OB’s and the Council could acquire the following benefits from Members involvement:-

 

·                     To provide knowledge, skills and expertise, which may not otherwise be available.

·                     To provide local accountability or democratic legitimacy to the appointment of an elected representative.

·                     To ensure that good relationships can be maintained with the body.

·                     To deliver a partnership project that requires the input of other organisations or community groups.

·                     To protect the Council’s investment or asset, i.e. if the Council provided grant funding or provides funding for service delivery.

·                     To lever in external funding which would not be available to the Council on its own.

 

To ensure Council representation on OB’s remained relevant and provided the benefits outlined, appointees should provide information and reports periodically to the Council on the activities of the organisation.  It would also be important to ensure the Council were aware of the use being made of funding they had provided.

 

A number of ways of reporting back had been outlined.  Some Members reported back through regular briefing notes and Members’ newsletters, others reported back through more formal means either by reports to Cabinet, Scrutiny, Council or Informal Council.  The report suggested that a one size fits all approach would not be appropriate, as some OB’s had a more significant impact on the Council than others.  In reply to questions from Councillor M.Ll. Davies, the HLDS explained that where more than one Member had been appointed to an OB, agreement could be reached where one Members reports back to the Council, and copies of minutes of meetings of OB’s could be forwarded by e-mail. 

 

A list of Members appointed to OB’s had been included in Appendix 1.  Some OB’s had a greater impact on the Council’s priorities and communities than others, with some being in receipt of substantial financial support from the Council and others having less or none.  It was explained that when considering reporting requirements Members may consider the most appropriate frequency and forum for reports. 

 

The practice of other LA’s varied.  Many LA’s had no formal mechanism for Members to report on their activities, while others required Members to complete template proforma reports which were circulated for information to fellow Councillors or placed in a single location to which Councillors had access.  In some cases LA’s categorised OB’s to which Members were appointed and had various reporting requirements depending on the category in which an OB had been placed.

 

Examples of categories utilised elsewhere included:-

 

·                    Bodies which set a precept that the Council collects

·                    Bodies to which the Council pays a subscription to be a member

·                    Bodies which receive a grant or other financial assistance from the Council

·                    All other outside bodies

 

Representatives on OB’s may be required to complete annual proforma reports which could be the subject of a corporate report to Cabinet when it considers appointments to OB’s.  If the Council had more than one representative on a body a single agreed report could be made.  An LA may wish request additional, more detailed reports for some bodies or categories of bodies and identify a forum for such reports to meetings of the Council.

 

In response to a question from Councillor M.L. Holland, the HLDS confirmed that there was a requirement for LA’s to have arrangements for Members to submit Annual Reports on their activities, but it was not mandatory for such reports to be completed.  A proforma report had been provided for those reports and the annual report on OB’s proforma could be circulated with the Councillors' Annual Reports to allow for completion simultaneously.  Mr P. Whitham confirmed that he would forward suggestions for consideration for inclusion in the proforma.

 

The HLDS explained that representatives on OB’s were not necessarily appointed to act solely in the interests of the Council.  Trustees and Directors would owe duties in law to the body to which they were appointed.  Members appointed to such bodies could be bound by obligations of confidentiality to the respective OB, which could result in some aspects of the body’s business not being included in a report.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, the HLDS provided details of the Draft Local Government Measure, which stipulated that LA’s had a duty to incorporate into their executive arrangements a process for the scrutiny of designated bodies, and he outlined the consultation process being undertaken to identify designated bodies.  

 

Mr P. Whitham made reference to the categorisation of reporting and the governance risk perspective which could include issues pertaining to financial and reputational aspects of the Authority.  He also referred to the relevance of the partnership toolkit and partnership governance generally

 

The Committee had been requested to consider the issues set out in the report and indicate their preferences in order that a fuller consultation be undertaken with all elected Members.  During the ensuing discussion it was agreed that the HLDS be requested to categorise the respective Outside Bodies and submit a further report to the January, 2014 meeting of the Corporate Governance Committee.

 

RESOLVED – that the Corporate Governance Committee:-

 

(a)           receives and notes the contents of the Members’ reports on their activities with outside bodies, and

(b)           requests that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services provides a further report, categorising the respective Outside Bodies, to the January, 2014 meeting of the Committee.

   (GW to Action)