DEMOCRACY COMMITTEE |
6 September 2017 |
||||
Is the final decision on the recommendations in this report to be made at this meeting? |
No |
||||
|
|||||
REVIEW OF OUTSIDE BODIES |
|||||
|
|||||
Final Decision-Maker |
Council |
||||
Lead Head of Service |
Angela Woodhouse, Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
||||
Lead Officer and Report Author |
Caroline Matthews, Democratic Services Officer |
||||
Classification |
Public |
||||
Wards affected |
All |
||||
|
|
||||
This
report makes the following recommendations to this Committee: That it be recommended to Council that:- |
|||||
1.
The
following outside bodies be retained and appointed by the Democracy
Committee:- 2.
The
following outside bodies be retained but appointed by the relevant Committees
as listed:- Age UK – CHE Committee
Bentlif Wing Trust – HCL Committee 3.
Each
outside body representative reports to the appointing Committee at least on
an annual basis. 4.
The
following organisations be deleted from the Council’s list of outside
bodies:- 5. That the Constitution be amended to reflect the changes in delegations. |
|||||
|
|
||||
This report relates to the following corporate priorities: |
|||||
Securing a successful economy for Maidstone Borough – A lot of the work that the outside bodies carry out links to the Council’s priorities and it is therefore beneficial for the Council to have representation on these organisation’s boards or committees. |
|||||
|
|
||||
Timetable |
|||||
Meeting |
Date |
||||
Democracy Committee |
6 September 2017 |
||||
Council |
27 September 2017 |
||||
REVIEW OF
REVIEW OF OUTSIDE BODIES |
|
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The report sets out the results of the Review of Outside Bodies carried out by the Outside Bodies Working Group and makes recommendations for the Council’s future representation on them.
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 At its meeting held
on 16 November 2016 the Committee agreed that an Outside Bodies Working Group
be set up to review the appointments in detail.
2.2 Members felt that
Outside Bodies should be aligned to Service Committees where possible and this
has been taken into account during the review. It was also felt important that
a mechanism should be put in for the representatives of the outside bodies to
report back to their relevant Committee on at least an annual basis.
2.3 Members of the
Outside Bodies Working Group met on 24 July 2017 to consider all the current
outside bodies and made suggested recommendations for future representation by
the Council on these organisations.
2.4 The Working Group
put the organisations into four categories which are as follows:-
· Outside bodies to be retained and appointed by Democracy Committee
· Outside bodies to be retained and offered to Ward Members by Democracy Committee
· Outside bodies to be retained and appointed by the relevant Committee
· Outside bodies not to be retained and deleted
2.5 The list of outside
bodies that were recommended for deletion and the reasoning behind their
deletion are as follows:-
KCC Youth and Community Charity – this group has not met all the time
the current appointee has been in post.
Kent County Playing
Fields Association – the
Council has not had any representation on this organisation for a year. The
role is purely observational.
KCC Youth and Community Management Committee – this Committee became the
KCC Youth and Community Charity
Maidstone YMCA – the previous representatives do not believe that there
is any beneficial interest to the Council to continue representation on this
organisation.
Mid Kent Downs
Steering Group
– the Council has administered this Group for a number of years and in recent
times it has had poor attendance with the average number of attendees being
eight persons out of 50 invitees. There is no formally adopted Constitution or
Terms of Reference for this Group. The Group receives updates from the Mid
Kent Downs Countryside Project and discusses issues within the parishes of the
Mid Kent Downs area. Often there are no actions arising for the Council or
other Authorities as a result of the meetings.
The Council withdrew its discretionary funding of £10,000 for this project after
16/17. Other funding partners were Kent County Council and Swale Borough
Council. The Group has not met for a year and there has not been any reaction
from those that attended in the past. It is therefore suggested that this
Group is formally disbanded or if other Members wish to continue then the
Council’s representation and administrative support be withdrawn. It is
suggested that the North Downs Ward Member continues to attend the AONB Joint
Advisory Group to feedback to relevant Officers within the Council.
3. AVAILABLE OPTIONS
3.1 The Committee is asked to consider and agree the recommendations made for submission to Council. Appendix A to this report sets out information about each outside body, whether there is a legal requirement to appoint to an organisation, if the Council provides funding and whether there is a community interest.
3.2 The Committee could decide that no action be taken but this could be considered a backward step in view of the Committee’s commitment to review the Council’s representation on all the outside bodies.
4. PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The recommendations reflect the views of the Outside Bodies Working Group and it is therefore considered appropriate that the Committee should give consideration to the recommendations.
5. CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK
5.1 Appendix ‘A’ to this report has been circulated to the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the relevant Committees for consideration where it has been indicated that those particular outside bodies should be appointed by them. The comments received will be provided at the Committee meeting.
6. NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION
6.1 After the Committee has considered and approved Appendix ‘A’, a report will be taken to Council for final decision.
Issue |
Implications |
Sign-off |
Impact on Corporate Priorities |
The link to corporate priorities should be considered as part of reviewing the nominations. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Risk Management |
There is a reputational risk associated with any decision to cease support of an outside body. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Financial |
There are no financial implications arising out of this report. |
[Section 151 Officer & Finance Team] |
Staffing |
There are no staffing implications arising out of this report |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Legal |
A Councillor who is appointed to an Outside Body acts as a representative of the Council. However, dependent on the nature of the arrangement, it is likely that their main responsibility would be to the organisation to which they have been appointed. |
|
Equality Impact Needs Assessment |
No detrimental impact on the protected characteristics of individuals identified. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Environmental/Sustainable Development |
Some of the appointments will be to organisations who have an impact in the borough. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Community Safety |
Some of the appointments will be to organisations who have an impact in the borough. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Human Rights Act |
No issues arising. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Procurement |
No issues arising. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
Asset Management |
Some of the appointments will be to organisations who have an impact in the borough. |
Head of Policy, Communications and Governance |
8. REPORT APPENDICES
The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:
· Appendix A: List of the Proposals of the Outside Bodies Working Group
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
None