Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Canterbury
Structure
City
Council
Future
Committee
Director/Head of Service:
Decision Issues:
Decision type:
Non-key
.
Classification:
CCC Ward(s):
All
Summary:
To Resolve:
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1.
Introduction
All local authorities operated under a committee system until the Local Government
Act 2000 came into force which required most councils to adopt an Executive
system. Most of those adopted a Leader and Cabinet. The Localism Act 2011 has
since given councils the option of reintroducing a committee system if they choose to
do so. The city council has committed to adopting a committee system for
implementation at the Annual Council meeting in 2015. The resolution binds the
council to a committee system for five years from the date of the resolution.
This report sets out a proposed committee structure for implementation at the Annual
Council meeting in 2015, which has been developed by a Governance Commission.
2.
Methodology
At its meeting on 24 July 2014, the Council resolved to change its governance
arrangements to a committee system. It was also agreed that the councils Political
Management Member Panel should act as a Commission, with an entirely
independent Chairman to develop the detailed design of how the Committee system
would operate practically.
Mr Chris Gay, who was Chief Executive for 24 years until his retirement in 1996, was
appointed to the role of Chairman by the current Chief Executive, Colin Carmichael.
The Commission Members were Councillors: Neil Baker, Simon Cook, Harry Cragg,
Michael Dixey, Rosemary Doyle, Ben Fitter, John Gilbey, Joe Howes, Alex Perkins
and John Wratten.
The tasks of the Commission for developing the new structure were agreed at the
first meeting on 8 September 2014 as follows:
-
To identify the number and names of individual committees and how will they
relate to the other committees of the council.
To identify the broad roles, responsibilities of those committees.
To identify whether, and to what extent, each committee will have power to take
decisions on matters within their area of responsibility.
To identify whether there will be an overview and scrutiny committee, and if not,
how the councils limited statutory scrutiny duties will be met.
To identify whether there will be a mechanism for matters decided by a
committee to be referred to the Full Council or any other committee for
reconsideration.
To consider where there are perceived difficulties with public consultation and
engagement, how, if at all, this can be addressed within the new committee
system arrangements.
To consider the schemes of delegations both from council to committees and
from committees to officers.
2
The Commission subsequently held five meetings in public to develop the Committee
System structure set out in this report. To inform its recommendations, the
Commission invited participation from members of the public at its meeting, received
written representations and considered evidence from council officers and an expert
witness from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. The Commission also considered the
structures adopted by other councils that had moved to the Committee System since
2012.
3. Features of a committee system
Under a committee system, decision making flows from the full council meeting as a
body. The council can delegate (and sometimes must delegate) its functions to
politically balanced committees or officers except where regulations prescribe that a
function cannot be delegated. Committees can appoint and delegate to subcommittees and a committee or a sub-committee can delegate further to an officer.
The committee structures of councils that have chosen to return to the committee
system vary but there are some common themes. Most have a Policy Committee
(some are called Policy and Resources or Policy and Finance) in addition to service
area committees such as housing, community and environment which take decisions
on all aspects of their subject area. There do not tend to be geographic area
committees at a district council level. Very few have adopted separate overview and
scrutiny committees and none at a district level.
There are different approaches adopted by councils in that some operate a traditional
system with multiple service committees. This approach requires careful coordination between the committees to ensure strategic oversight is not lost.
Most councils have instead adopted a streamlined system which consists of two or
three service committees plus regulatory committees. This council had moved
towards the latter approach by the time the Executive system was introduced as a
result of the Local Government Act 2000.
4. Context to the proposed committee structure
The committee system that the Commission recommends must address the
democratic needs of the council. It must also oversee a substantial economic and
administrative entity. The council is an organisation which employs over 700 people
and spends approximately 120 million each year serving a population of around
150,000. It effectively runs 75 separate businesses under its umbrella covering a
diverse range of services from waste and recycling, through to food hygiene,
planning, building control and licensing pubs and taxis. These services are entirely
3
unconnected to each other yet each of them requires decisions to be taken either by
councillors or officers on a daily basis for them to function effectively.
This council is quite unique in its diverse nature of coast, country and towns. It
serves three distinct major urban areas Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable all
of similar population sizes but each with different needs and 26 parish and town
councils in the rural areas. The council owns over three per cent of the geographical
area of the district. This means the number and types of decisions taken are quite
different in scale to most other district councils.
The council is seeking to be inclusive in its decision making where that can be done
and is appropriate, whilst operating within the financial and legal framework set by
central government which can restrict the decision making options available to it.
This context has informed the following design principles which have provided the
framework for developing the outline structure set out in this report:
-
Economy, efficiency and effectiveness are the statutory Best Value duties which the
council, as a Best Value authority, has a duty to secure. Engagement is an
additional principle that seeks to ensure that the committee structure allows for both
councillors and members of the public to engage in the councils democratic
processes in appropriate ways, whilst delivering the key Best Value requirements as
the overriding objective.
Representations received also suggested that the Commission should consider the
design principles of empowerment, transparency and accountability. Transparency
and accountability are already embedded in the councils working practices and
certain standards are required in both government regulation and guidance. Such
standards will continue to apply. How far the new council is perceived to meet these
requirements will be a matter of public scrutiny when the new council reviews how
the new committee system has functioned and met expectations.
The adoption of the committee system is intended to foster empowerment by
involving more councillors directly in decision making. The Localism Act 2011 has
provided mechanisms by which community bodies of various design can seek
greater control over matters such as services, community assets and neighbourhood
4
planning. The council has adopted a policy of engaging with these processes and
the new council may wish to review how that policy is working.
5. Full Council
The role of the Full Council would remain unchanged. Full Council would continue to
have responsibility for approving the budget and policy framework and decisions
outside that. The minutes of the councils committees would be submitted to Full
Council and could be debated, but resolved decisions could not be overturned, as is
currently the case.
At the meeting on 20 October, Ed Hammond, Head of Programmes, Local
Accountability at the Centre for Public Scrutiny advised that the role of Full Council
could be developed to include a review of the policy framework at the outset of the
council year ahead to identify any upcoming matters that could benefit from a Full
Council debate. A mechanism which enabled Full Council to identify topics it wanted
to debate during the course of the year could be introduced. However, the
Commission considered that under a Committee system, motions to council which
could raise topics for debate were likely to regain their former importance as
councillors could influence decisions in a way not possible under the present
Executive system.
6. Service Committees
Under the committee system, decisions will need to be taken by a series of
committees covering the councils different functions and made up of councillors from
all political parties reflecting the political balance of the council. Previously, it was
usual for the councils officer and committee structure to align. However, the current
council officer structure is designed around cost, performance and customer
satisfaction rather than groupings of related functions. Since the Committee System
last operated, local government has changed and it will continue to change as
economic austerity extends into the future. In whatever structure is adopted, it is not
perceived there would be an immediate need to change the officer structure. It is
suggested that it would be more appropriate for the committees to represent the
functions relating to the councils key policy priorities. These would also reflect
functions which may relate to one another.
At the meeting of the Commission on 20 October, the Commission considered an
assessment of the number of reports made to the councils committees over the past
four years and the topic areas they covered. The analysis showed that there would
be a reasonably even spread of business if three service committees were
introduced as set out below. The committee names provide an indication of the
types of functional areas it is proposed they cover. Please note that the list of
functions for each committee is not intended to be exhaustive. The structure is also
set out on a chart at Appendix A.
A Policy Committee existed in the councils previous committee system and is a key
feature of the committee structures of those councils that have reintroduced the
system since 2012.
The Policy and Resources Committees role could include:
-
Under the present Executive system, Licensing and General Purposes functions are
combined into one General Purposes and Licensing Committee. It is suggested that
matters within the remit of General Purposes which include electoral registration
functions, health and safety at work, pensions, staffing matters and Contracts
Standing Orders be incorporated into the Terms of Reference of the proposed Policy
and Resources Committee.
The council also has an Appointment Sub-Committee and Regulatory Appeals SubCommittee that report into the General Purposes and Licensing Committee. These
Sub-Committees deal with senior council officer appointments and appeals and meet
very infrequently. Such bodies would in future report to the Policy and Resources
Committee.
The Commission also considered whether or not the proposed Policy and Resources
Committee should have a co-ordinating role with greater financial and policy making
powers than the other service committees. It was considered that there was a need
for such a committee to provide strategic oversight of policy development and
decision making. The Committees co-ordinating role is intended to meet the
efficiency principle as it would ensure that work programming makes the best use of
the councils resources.
An example of how this oversight role will work in practice can be demonstrated in
the way that budget and performance monitoring will take place. Individual service
committees will consider budget and performance reports for those functions within
their terms of reference. All reports will then be submitted to the Policy and
Resources Committee together with any comments from the services committees so
that one body would have complete oversight of the budget and performance of the
council as a whole. The councillors of the Committee will be able to effectively
scrutinise the reports in a way that the way of working and the size of Full Council
would not allow.
The functions that would be included within the remit of the Regeneration and
Property Committee include:
-
Community Committee
The functions that could be included within the remit of the Community Committee
include:
-
If the committee system were aligned to the officer structure, there would
potentially be greater duplication with reports needing to go to several
committees.
The officer divisions are not as easily understandable to members of the public
as are areas of the councils activity. The majority of responses to the
Commissions questionnaire suggested committees that addressed council
functions.
Linking the committee structure so closely to the officer structure would not allow
for individual functions to move easily between officer services.
Significant change to the officer structure could not take place without change to
the committee structure.
If the officer structure was changed, the Member expertise developed would
either be located within the wrong committee or would also need to be moved.
7
Conflict could arise between individual committees due to some services being
represented on more than one committee with, for example, policy issues being
decided by one committee and operational issues by another.
There would be an increase in workload as certain reports (e.g. parking, property
and housing) would need to be considered by more than one committee.
The Commission also noted the strong representation s that the council adopts a
more inclusive system of decision making, whilst recognising the political recognising
the political realities which will follow from the election. A way in which cross party
working could be fostered without disturbing those political realities, is to invite
representatives from all parties to committee briefings. They may decide whether or
not they wish to attend.
Recommendations:
1) That the councils services committees be aligned to the councils
functions rather than the present officer structure.
2) That three new service committees be introduced to reflect the business of
the council: Policy and Resources, Regeneration and Property and
Community.
3) That matters relating to General Purposes (see above) be included in the
Terms of Reference of the proposed Policy and Resources Committee.
4) It is suggested to the new council that representatives from all parties be
invited into committee briefing meetings.
7. Licensing Committee
A Licensing Committee is statutory and is required primarily to determine individual
licensing applications. Beyond that it should discharge all of the authorities licensing
functions except those of licensing policy. It has also specifically been given functions
in the Gambling Act 2005.
Presently the work of the Licensing Committee is combined with that of the General
Purposes Committee.1 However, once the authority moves into a committee system
that amalgamation of functions into one committee is more difficult to justify under the
terms of the legislation. In a committee system it will be important to distinguish
between the different roles of different committees. There will be no executive body
with the task of taking the leading role within the council. The focus of the Licensing
Committee would be on its licensing functions. On policy issues the Licensing
Committee will have to give its views to the Community Committee if time allows,
ensuring there is both a technical consideration of the policy by one committee and
the broader community perspective and recommendation to Council by another.
A new Licensing Committee will, apart from its annual meeting, not have a scheduled
rota of meetings but will meet as and when it is needed. At the outset of the year, it
will appoint panels to make decisions on licensing applications. Those functions
1
It is suggested elsewhere in this report that the former General Purposes Committee Functions are
incorporated into the work of the Policy and Resources Committee.
Audit: Currently, the council has a Scrutiny and Audit Committee whose Members
receive training and is non-decision making. It makes recommendations to the
Executive or other committees as appropriate.
As the work of the Audit Committee was combined with that of the Scrutiny
Committee in 2012 to become a non-decision making body, it became necessary to
establish a separate Accounts Committee which meets once a year to approve the
accounts and is decision making in that respect. Under a new committee system
there would be no requirement for a scrutiny function so the Audit Committee could
stand alone as a decision making body with the power to sign off the Accounts, thus
negating the need for a separate Accounts Committee.
Performance: the Scrutiny and Audit Committee currently has a performance
monitoring role. Under a committee system it is suggested that quarterly service
performance monitoring is reported to the relevant committee. The Policy and
Resources Committee would have a corporate performance monitoring role and
consider the annual performance report.
9
Standards: the Standards Committee comprises both city councillors and co-opted
parish councillors. When the statutory code of conduct was abolished in 2012, it was
suggested that Standards could be combined with Audit as a committee solely of city
council Members. However, the parish councils strongly supported a council
committee on which they were represented, as the city councils Monitoring Officer
also has responsibility for the parish councils. The role of Parish Councillors on the
Standards Committee suggests that it should remain as a standalone committee.
Governance: the Political Management Member Panel (PMMP) serves to discuss
and develop governance issues, particularly technical ones, with officers in an
informal way before making recommendations to Full Council or relevant committee.
The Commission considered establishing a governance working party which would
meet in private but representation received during the course of the review
suggested there was a preference to debating governance matters in a public. In
particular, it was felt that the Commission format had worked well where issues which
would normally have been debated in private were done so in public instead. The
Commission therefore recommends that a Governance Sub-Committee is
established so these matters can in future be considered in a public forum.
Recommendations to Full Council:
7) That the Standards Committee be retained under the Committee System.
8) That an Audit and Governance Committee be introduced.
9) That a Governance Sub-Committee which makes recommendations to its
parent Audit and Governance Committee be introduced.
10. Overview and Scrutiny
Overview and Scrutiny is a feature of the Leader and Executive system, designed to
provide checks and balances to more centralised decision making. The councils
overview and scrutiny function has evolved since its introduction. Presently there is
an Overview Committee which considers matters in advance of the Executive and a
Scrutiny and Audit Committee, the scrutiny element of which focuses on scrutinising
decisions that have been taken by the Executive. The Scrutiny and Audit Committee
also manages a rolling programme of scrutiny reviews.
Whilst scrutiny is a feature of the Executive system, it can operate in a committee
system in broadly three ways:
1) A standalone scrutiny committee. This would have the responsibility for
examining the work of other committees and undertaking the councils statutory
scrutiny requirements with similar powers such a committee has under the
Executive system.
2) Scrutiny is embedded into the work of individual committees with each committee
responsible for monitoring budgets and performance relating to its functions. In
addition, members of the committee could highlight areas of concern and request
reports on issues relating to their functions in much the same way as the present
Scrutiny and Audit Committee does.
10
12) Recommendation to Full Council: that the work of the Area Member Panels
is supported and should continue under the committee system subject to
the next recommendation.
A further consideration for this Commission in relation to area working is that in April
2013, Full Council considered a report looking at whether a Community
Governance Review should be carried out to look at the option of creating town
councils in the district. It resolved: That the interest in initiating a Community
Governance Review be reassessed following any Electoral Review in 2013. A
Community Governance Review in the near future would be timely as guidance
suggests that local authorities should be encouraged to review their electoral
representational arrangements every 10-15 years2. The last full review of the
Canterbury district was carried out in the late 1980s.
The Electoral Review is due to complete in December 2014 for implementation at the
local elections in May 2015. It is therefore suggested this council recommend a
Community Governance Review for the district to the new council.
If town councils were created as a result of the review, it would clearly affect the
councils own arrangements for area working and local engagement. It would
therefore be sensible to review the role of the AMPs in parallel with any Community
Governance Review. The review would also consider the current structure of parish
councils across the whole of the district.
13) Recommendation to Full Council: That the new council in 2015 be asked to
commence a district-wide Community Governance Review, and that the
role of the Area Member Panels be reviewed in parallel.
12. Other meetings
Joint Transportation Board
The Joint Transportation Board (JTB) is primarily a consultative body of Kent County
Council. So, the principle of the JTBs future is for the County Council to decide,
although the city council could also choose to withdraw. The JTB usefully provides a
forum for city and parish councillors to discuss highways functions which are mainly a
county function but which have local public interest. As a body primarily of the
County Council, the work of the JTB could not be incorporated into the work of a
service committee.
14) Recommendation to Full Council: that the Joint Transportation Board
continue under the committee system.
Whitstable Harbour Board
Department for Communities and Local Government and Local Boundary Commission for England Guidance,
March 2010.
12
Prior to 2002, Whitstable Harbour activities fell within the remit of the Property and
Engineering Committee. Following a Best Value Review recommendation, the
Harbour Board was introduced in 2002/03 to give strategic direction to the
management of the harbour and its property portfolio. It has the status of a dedicated
council committee with delegated authority from the Council to make certain
decisions relating to the Harbour. The Board comprises both elected councillors and
independent members with relevant expertise.
15) Recommendation to Full Council: that the Whitstable Harbour Board
continue under the committee system.
Working parties, sub-committees
Working parties were a feature of the previous committee system which have also
been used by this council under the Leader and Executive system.
The sub-committees that operated under the previous committee system were
specific to the business of the council as it was then. For example, the Housing
Appeals and Central Services Sub-Committees, neither of which are now likely to be
relevant following operational changes. Sub-Committees can either be selfcontained with their own decision making powers, or they may make
recommendations for their parent committee to resolve.
It will be for the individual committees to appoint sub-committees to address the
business needs of the council as necessary. Similarly it will be for the new council to
establish the working parties it needs at the beginning of the council year and
reappoint or disband them annually thereafter. In order to ensure resources are
managed appropriately, it is suggested the Policy and Resources Committee could
authorise any working parties that need to be established during the course of the
year.
It is suggested that the working parties to be recommended to the new council be
considered once the Commissions work to develop a committee structure has
concluded.
Whist co-opting external representatives onto working groups and review panels is
possible under the current Constitution, it has rarely occurred. In fact, the last
notable example was when a representative of the Kent Association of Parish
Councils was co-opted onto the 2004 Parish Contributions Scrutiny Review. The
purpose of the co-option was to improve the deliberations of the review panel and act
as a link between the review process and the parish councils in the district. Instead,
external advice has been regularly sought through expert witness sessions during
reviews. Representations received in response to the Commissions survey
described the expertise available locally and indicated there could be considerable
scope for greater co-option onto sub-committees, working parties and review panels
than had been previously.
16) Recommendation to Full Council: that the process outlined above for
appointing sub-committees and working parties be commended to the new
council.
17) Recommendation to Full Council: that the Political Management Member
Panel considers the working parties to be recommended to the new council
following the conclusion of this Commission.
13
22) Recommendation to Full Council: that the procedure and criteria for
allowing urgent decisions to be taken be introduced.
15
Committee
Planning
13
Licensing Sub
26
Licensing
Policy
Community
Governance Sub-Committee
Analysis of Green Card regular meetings. Licensing &Licensing Sub and Planning/Planning Sub, Audit &
Governance/Governance Sub counted as 1 committee. Appeals, Regulatory Appeals and Decision Review not
counted as meet rarely and not on current green card 1.9 committees
4
2.2 committees per councillor.
5
Approximate number of meetings is based on assessment of current workload and assuming service
committees will meet on six weekly basis.
16
Standards
Total:
93 meetings
The approximate number of meetings when compared to the last year of the previous
committee structure and the councils current Leader Executive system is as follows:
Year
Number of meetings
2015 onwards
2013/14
2001/02
93
109
84
The size of the future committees will be largely dictated by the political balance of
the council which will not be known until after the Local Elections next year. The
membership of committees will be subject to any necessary adjustments to achieve
political balance but when the Commission considered the issue, there was a view
that each committee should consist of at least nine members. It was important to
allow for broad representation and wide debate but this would need to be balanced
against work load on which issues it will be for the new council to take a view.
Membership of nine would mean the average number of committee places each
member held would be broadly the same as under the present Leader and Executive
system (although the workload for individual councillors under an Executive system is
not as evenly balanced as a committee system allows). More than nine could
increase Member workload so the new council will need to find a suitable balance
between workload and representation on committee.
23) Recommendation to Full Council: Each committee should comprise of nine
or more Members. If the new council considers it to be achievable, the
Policy and Resources Committee should be encouraged to have a larger
membership to allow a broad representation of political groups and
geographical areas. A size of 13 Members is suggested for the Policy and
Resources Committee by this Commission.
17. Shared Services
Since the council last had a committee system of political management it has entered
into the shared delivery of services with other authorities which will carry on under
the new system. These shared working arrangements have led to the creation of two
committees; the East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee and the East Kent
(Housing Management) Committee.
The East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee is shortly to be replaced by a new joint
committee between Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council and Thanet
District Council. Kent County Council and Shepway District Council are not actively
participating in the sharing of services and will formally leave the present
17
arrangement when the new committee comes into effect. Services delivered are
human resources, information communications technology, revenues and benefits
and the contact centre dealing with the various ways the council interacts with the
public.
With the creation of the arms-length management company, East Kent Housing, a
substantial amount of housing activity was passed to this new company controlled by
its corporate members Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway
District Council and Thanet District Council. The East Kent (Housing Management)
Committee oversees the workings of East Kent Housing and performs the important
role of deciding on certain key matters when the parties are in dispute. This has
proved to be extremely rare.
Where a Member is placed on a joint committee they have a vote on that joint
committee and the decisions of that committee will bind the council and the other
participating councils.
18. Partnerships
A feature of modern local government is partnership working more generally.
Although the city council has never had individual executive member decision
making, individual members of the Executive have attended partnership meetings.
The Leader of the council, as the source of Executive power, could, if the occasion
demanded it bind the council by his decision. In the new arrangements it must be
assumed committee chairmen will take these partnership roles. An individual
member in a committee system cannot take a decision that binds the council.
Therefore, either officers will need to be empowered to make decisions if necessary
at these partnership bodies; or alternatively the chairman will have to have the
necessary skills to know how far he or she can go in indicating a decision that his
council would be likely to support; or he or she will have to make sure they have the
necessary decisions in place beforehand which can then be relayed to the
partnership.
No recommendations are required from the commission on these matters. The
change to the committee system simply presents issues which must be worked
through on a practical basis.
cases that a decision will be referred to Full Council but this is likely to be on an
exceptional basis.
A further consideration in developing a Decision Review mechanism was to ensure
that decisions are not reviewed by those that have taken them. Some decisions will
be resolved by individual service committees and others will be ratified by the Policy
and Resources Committee to ensure strategic oversight is maintained. The
membership of the committee carrying out Decision Review should therefore be
drawn from across the council with sufficient named substitutes to ensure the
Members reviewing a decision are not the same as those that took it.
It is therefore proposed that a Decision Review Committee be created which would
meet as necessary to decide whether to:
a) Refer a decision back to the committee that took the decision;
b) Refer a decision to the Full Council for consideration; or
c) That no further action was necessary.
The Decision Review Committee would be convened only when certain conditions
had been met as follows:
-
The review is requested within three working days of the day on which the
decision was published;
The request is made in writing to the Monitoring Officer that the decision be
reviewed and the request is signed by at least 14 Members of the Council.
The Commission also considered that to ensure Decision Review did not cause
unnecessary delay to decision making and was only reserved for exceptional
circumstances, a set of criteria should be introduced to assess any potential review.
A decision could be reviewed if there was evidence:
-
The decision had not met the normal requirements for decision making (for
example financial or equalities implications not being considered or
inadequate consultation).
The decision had been taken outside the Budget and Policy Framework.
The decision was not supported by a proper reason explaining why it had
been taken.
19
20
22.
23.
24.
(c) To refer the report and recommendations back to the Governance Commission
for further consideration.
21
25.
The recommendations set out in this report have been developed by the Governance
Commission who have considered the evidence, public opinion and necessary legal
requirements associated with the development of a new committee structure.
The council must have a new committee structure in place to reflect the councils
commitment to change to a committee system of governance from the Annual
Council meeting in 2015. Accepting the recommendations set out in this report will
enable the council comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 in that it
must as soon as practicable after passing the resolution to change to a committee
system of governance, make the provisions of the new governance arrangements
available for inspection; and a notice which describes the features of the new system
and timescales for implementation.
26.
Implications
Financial Implications one off transitional costs and officer resources in designing
and implementing the committee structure. The committee structure proposed in this
report does not envisage an increased Member or officer work load but the on-going
costs will be dependent on the number and frequency of meetings needed to
effectively operate the new system. This will need to be kept under review once the
new structure is in operation.
Legal Implications any committee structure must operate within the legal
framework of local government and in particular, the Local Government Act 1972, the
Local Government Act 2000 and the Localism Act 2011.
Staffing/resource an assessment of the potential workload for councillors brought
about by the proposed committee structure has been made and is incorporated into
the detail of this report. Whilst the number of meetings envisaged to deliver the
system has been identified as not being higher than the number of meetings required
for the current Leader and Executive system, it will be important to monitor whether
any significant change has been brought about once the system is in operation. The
review of the committee structure towards the end of the first calendar year of
operation will provide an opportunity to make an assessment of how both the
Member and officer resources required compare to those needed to deliver the
present system.
Equalities an assessment of the committee structure proposed against equalities
legislation and the councils current operation has been made and no specific
impacts have been identified.
27.
Conclusions
The draft structure set out in this report is intended to enable the council to function
effectively from the Annual Council meeting in 2015. It will be a new way of working
22
23