Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Coley.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda, and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

Members were requested to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applied to them.

No declarations were made.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 June 2007 have been circulated and the Committee is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record.

Item 8

It was reported that following the decision to increase the number of independent members applications had been submitted.  It was predicted that there was a possibility that the number of meetings would increase due to the Standards Board reducing their workload, which would put unnecessary pressure on the independent member who was required to attend.  It was also predicted that the amount of elected members at the meeting could increase and as the minimum number of independent members was a quarter this would be a problem without the increase.  Members agreed that two reserve Independent Members would be necessary.

Item 9

The Service Director for Democratic Services reported that there were still a large number of Members who had not undertaken the code of conduct training.  There had been four sessions and more had been planned.  The importance of member attendance was to be processed through the group whips.  It was noted that there was a video available from the code of conduct and possible reference information could be created for group leaders and whips.

The Service Director (Democratic Services) will circulate an up to date list of the nature of complaints against Elected Members.

The Service Director for Democratic Services stated that there had been no new complaints.  It was noted that a number of complaints that had been lodged before the 2007 election had been addressed through internal and external resources.  The next stage was a report to be submitted to the Standards Committee who would either agree or disagree with the recommendation on how the case would proceed.  It was felt that these would come up in the next month and that an additional meeting would be arranged.

The Corporate Director of Resources submits a report which aims to enable compliance with the requirements of the Council’s Corporate Governance Code, inform members about new national guidance and proposals for updating the Authority’s Corporate Governance Code; and report the position regarding Local Government Ombudsman complaints.  The Committee is asked to review the position as summarised in this annual report and to forward any comments to Cabinet for consideration.

The Corporate Director of Resources submitted a report, Annual Corporate Governance Review for 2006/7.  Peter Nicholls, Service Director for Legal Services, outlined the report explaining that the Council had adopted a Corporate Governance Framework five years previously based on The Chartered Institutes of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA) contemporary guidance.  An annual review had to be carried out each year in accord with the Framework; this was the fifth Annual Review.   It was explained that Corporate Governance, in essence, was the way in which the Council managed and controlled the way in which it delivered services, it was essentially a process system, a framework which covered all the Council's operations, and had a direct impact on service delivery.  It was important for Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) purposes.   The District Auditor had also commented favourably on the Council's Framework, Leicester's being well developed compared to most other Authorities. 

The Council's Framework consisted of a range of key policies and procedures, identifying a lead officer for each.  The lead officers needed to provide an assurance in respect of their responsibilities, these were included in the report.  If this could not be given they were required to provide an action plan to ensure necessary improvements within a reasonable timescale.  It was confirmed that each lead officer had signed a hard copy, as recommended by Internal Audit.   Appendix 1 of the report summarised the assurances given showing that in respect of most the position is "green" or "green/amber", although for a couple the position is "red/amber".

The overall position was positive, although the Committee's attention was also drawn to the report's reference to a draft DA reporting regarding the Housing Department. 

The Chair asked how risk was identified; in response it was suggested that she meet with the lead officer responsible, i.e. Laurie Goldberg, Head of Audit and Governance.  Peter Nicholls agreed to arrange this meeting.

Concern was expressed that lead officers should take into account public perception when completing assurance statements. 

It was noted that the report included the full detail together with a summary in Appendix 1.  The Committee welcomed proposals to further develop presentation so as to highlight key issues.  The Chair requested that lead officer responsibilities be grouped together to make the appendices easier to read and Peter agreed to do this.

CIPFA had published new guidance, as explained in the report.  Now was an appropriate time for the Council to review and improve its Corporate Governance Framework. It was explained that CIPFA had recommended that the outcome of the proposed review of Corporate Governance arrangements ought to be presented to full Council for approval.

The Chair expressed concern that the six "core principles" for good governance would have been difficult to measure against and asked how these were incorporated.  Peter explained that the principles were at "high level" and that the Council would be required to set measurable standards and targets.

It was mentioned how the Council would go about introducing a new Framework.  Peter explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Corporate Director of Resources submits a report which provides a background to reviewing key elements of ethical governance within the City Council and identifies the actions necessary to ensure the maintenance of the highest standards.  The Committee is asked to discuss the actions contained in paragraph 3.5 and agree whether they wish to pursue these.

The Corporate Director of Resources submits a report which considers the issue of predisposition, predetermination or Bias and the Code of Conduct.  The Committee is asked to note and comment on the advice contained in the paper and agree how best to inform members of the issues.

The Corporate Director of Resources submitted a report that considered the issue of predisposition, predetermination or bias and the Code of Conduct.  Members of the Committee expressed concern that it was difficult to enter a meeting with absolutely no pre-determination on how they were to vote.  It was felt that many members were cautious in what they said outside of meetings so not to jeopardise their participation in the meeting.

It was suggested that a short talk at Full Council could be useful when all the Members would be present.  Members discussed where the potential item would be placed and it was felt that the item might be more productive at the group meetings.

RESOLVED:

1.      that the report be noted.

2.      that the Standards Board for England Advice predisposition, predetermination or Bias and the Code of Conduct be discussed with members at their political group meetings.

The meeting closed at 6.41pm.