Contact your Parish Council

Count

26 Responses

Range

0-15

Mode

9

Mean

9.3

Comments

Firstly I always think Committees should be an odd number. Secondly 9 or 11 gives a size that allows most Members and Groups to be able to sit on Committees without them becoming unwieldy

Need to be large enough to allow representation by smaller groups but not unwieldy like P&R.

I think there needs to be a relationship between the total number of members less the executive so most backbench members would sit on two “policy overview and scrutiny committees”

It should be large enough to represent a variety of views but not too large to be unwieldy

All members need to be involved

The PAC need to be as representative as possible, a number of people has to be such that groups of 3 or more can be represented on all the PAC's

IN LINE WITH CURRENT SERVICE COMMITTEES. MUST AVOID PACS BEING TOO LARGE.

Anymore and it will become unmanageable and meaningless.

A reasonable number to have frank discussion.

Consideration should be made to be politically balanced

It needs a reasonable number of members on each PAC but not too many which could make them ‘unwieldy’

You need to be able to discuss, ultimately vote but a much larger committee than 9 becomes unwieldy.

It currently works reasonably well. Any more would need more subbing in practicalities and less consistency and insight in certain Members

A larger membership may prove to be cumbersome and difficult to manage (chair)

to allow as much input as possible

similar numbers as per current service committees

to ensure a spread of views and to avoid unnecessary discussion.

Enough to be politically balanced, and for any Member not to be burdened by membership of too many Committees.

Comments

Its not always easy to define a key decision and in any case what is important to a Councillor or Community may not be considered key (technically)

We don't want certain Officers nobbling the cabinet.

To only do one would be to limit the voice of the ordinary member - the committees should empower that voice not mute it.

the committee should not second-guess everything irrespective of how small the issue, this would slow down the administration

To enable the greatest accountability all member decisions should be considered by a PAC

They are advisory committees to the Cabinet so should be as flexible as possible.

I believe both, but the agenda and time weighting focussing on both, with the emphasis on the key decision for timings.

Only key decisions should be considered before they are taken, however other decisions can be decided retrospectively.

But members must be able to bring decisions and issues to the pacs

All decisions unless a very urgent decision is required

Concentrate on key decisions but in order for the PAC to function within its remit it should be able to discuss and advise on both key and non-key decisions with the cabinet member ultimately deciding and being held accountable for the decisions made.

All members need to be encouraged to be involved in MOST decisions and thus this gives wider opportunity for dialogue before final decisions.

I think we should Retain the committee system

key decisions to define a strategic direction based on democratic majorities of the council, non-key to ensure all members being suitably informed

Essential to maintain a democratic mandate

What limits do you think there should be on the ability of Full Council to refer matters directly to the Cabinet without involving the relevant PAC?

The only necessary limits should be where a PAC is already considering or has recently considered (say within 6 months) the matter in question

The policy framework and a requirement for the referral to be sufficient specific should suffice.

If full council seeks to refer matters directly to a cabinet member for decision then all members would have had the opportunity to make representations as part of that full council referral. The decision taken by the cabinet member would still be subject to call in for scrutiny which would have the power to refer the decision back to Full Council. In practical terms I see very limited reason for full council to refer matters directly to a cabinet member as Full Council would take precedence over a cabinet member or cabinet and could decide what it wanted to do without any need to refer or delegate.

No limit

the full council should always be able to refer directly to the cabinet member

All referrals should automatically go to a PAC, to ensure full democratic accountability

I think this is correct, the Cabinet through the leader have to take direct accountability for the direction and focus of the council. The key decisions will have already been through PAC, so i believe this is correct

I don’t think cabinet system is the best way to go

There should be no limits in this regard in an executive arrangement.

Full council should be able to refer to cabinet directly

Matters should be discussed before going to cabinet

Only matters requiring an urgent decision should be referred directly to Cabinet

Only key strategic time limited decisions.

Emergency measures and urgent key decisions must be dealt with quickly and thus the quickest way to get a decision in such matters is a priority, however certain "judgement calls" will have to be made, where presumably Leader/Cabinet/Chairs will be given opportunity with Officers to make such calls.

lack of consultation or cross party debate on some issues.

This is an important function, where Council can set an annual program for an administration, akin to the Queen's speech in parliament

Strict limits as it would side step the committees

Comments

They're great.

The Chairmen should be nominated and voted into position by the non executive members of the council and all members should have the right to attend and speak at any meeting they wish (not vote!)

PAC's will be a weak replacement for Service Committees. They need to have the ability to commission detailed review work into topics within their remit

Probably work best if politically balanced.

I am content with the process as described above. It is correct for the cabinet member to chair, listen and fully engage with the range of politicians in the discussion and resulting points of reference

Matters should be discussed by a PAC and then referred to Cabinet and not ‘bounced’ to and fro between PACs as currently happens between committees

Not in favour

The Cabinet system disadvantages smaller groups and gives too much power to an individual cabinet member

Count

30 Responses

Range

0-10

Mode

9

Mean

6.13

Comments

My figure above would be a Leader plus 4 Members and 4 Deputies (potentially)

District Cllrs often lack the skills to handle a portfolio on their own.

However - deputy cabinet members should not be considered part of the executive and their role is merely to deputise in the event of the cabinet member being unavailable

Long term illness

it would be the jobs for the boys option

All cabinet members should be able to cover

This is not a committee system, the Cabinet members are accountable for their actions

This would help the Cabinet Member and provide a plan for the future.

If Cabinet Members are absent for whatever reason, the deputy will be from the same party and will act as a foil and support for the Cabinet member

Deputy cabinet members can focus on the details

Allowing other councillors to develop and provide direct scrutiny and assistance to the cabinet members.

Deputies should be an optional choice of the leader. They may not be needed but the option should be there, not every cabinet member may need a deputy. Reasoning is that council must remain open for those with jobs and full-time work. Deputies could possibly help burden share.

Cabinet has an important function there should always be back up for members

There should be sufficient cabinet members to allow constructive debate within Cabinet. Deputy members should only be used when the cabinet member is not available, ie for an urgent decision rather than being involved in regular meetings as deputy chairs are

Only to be used in a time sensitive decision that is required ie if the cabinet member is ill or away but a decision is needed.

Most MBC elected Members are VOLUNTEERS. They may work, or have active lives or have care/parenting roles. If you are more involved/more active in MBC issues then you CANNOT stretch across all avenues of interest effectively and take on key roles AND responsibility.

To ensure continuity of decision making

not democratic

This should be a decision for the leader, depending on the actual work-load

To 'stand-in' as necessary

From a different party

Comments

If there is a Leader and 4 Principal Cabinet Members the Portfolios would be broad enough to warrant it

If we are to have deputy cabinet members then yes.

Being open to all

Not necessarily, one should remain flexible.

As above a discretionary choice of the leader.

So that as much knowledge regards subject can be obtained

Policy areas/roles of work will probably be bets served by deputy Members but NOT Corporate business and legal roles...perhaps? Some would say its more important though!

To ensure continuity of decision making

To 'stand-in' as necessary

From a different party

Comments

There is some discussion to be had as to whether the Leader has their own Portfolio as well as being Executive Chairman. The obvious areas are Planning/Regeneration/Economic Development, Corporate/Finance, Housing/Community/Safety, Environmental Services (inc waste collection crematorium etc)

Similar to the current committee terms of reference would be sensible.

I think the exact number of cabinet members and the portfolios is a matter for the Leader to decide.

They should follow the current committees except that responsibility for Parks, Allotments and Bereavement services should transfer to ERL, as they were with ERL's predecessors prior to 2019.

For ease of transition the terms of reference should remain close to the current service committees. In addition there should be cabinet representation covering statutory committees such as Planning, Licensing and Audit.

I think the terms of reference should be reviewed, as they currently are, but broadly reflect the current ones, as they 'appear' to work. There is little point in wasting time in reinventing the wheel, equally, to revisit will secure greater understanding for the Cabinet member and PAC

Leader, Deputy Leader/probably a key Corporate "governance" role (Audit/Standards/Democracy/Gen Purposes); Parks/Leisure/Culture/Heritage; Housing/Environment/Licensing; Planning; Econ Dev, Community and Tourism; Crime and Disorder.

as per Strategic Plan / per advisory committees

Cabinet member should accept the democrat decision making of a politically balanced committee

Comments

I have no objection to tis provided decisions are made in public

Don't want individual cabinet members getting nobbled.

Should not be down to one elected member

Where decisions have cross portfolio implications or are strategically important to the whole council it makes sense to broaden the decision making forum

simply good sense

Decision making by an individual is subject to abuse and a lack of transparency. Also individuals only see things from one side a Cabinet will see a wider perspective.

The Cabinet needs to work as effectively and efficiently as possible. Sometimes it will need to be able to act fast and be accountable.

Discussion is key to effective management, especially at local government level; Cabinet member to recommend, with cabinet agreeing or amending proposals

it shouldnt be one person

Dependent on the urgency and scope of the decision.

Transparency

No one member should have complete control of a decision

If you have cabinet members they need to be able to be held accountable and as a result must be able to make individual decisions, however an ideal arrangement is that the PAC advises before a decision is made.

The key will be SPEEDY responsiveness and effective management, yet still with answerability/transparency.

"loose canon" ad-hoc decisions are dangerous and can reflect on the reputation of the administration

Depends on the scale of the spending and impact of the decisions to be taken

Comments

It allowed for significantly better Councillor and Public engagement and will reduce Member call-ins.

Facilitates constructive challenge.

There should be public register of decisions which shows when the decision was presented to committee for consideration - my view being the public engagement is conducted via the committees.

Matters of confidentiality

I think some minor issues don't need this

We need maximum openness

Transparency is a vital part of the democratic decision making process.

Yes, for transparency and also the work before that would be undertaken politically so they are correct at that time.

Cabinet members should be judged on their overall work, not constrained by individual decisions.

Yes where possible for transparency. No for commercial sensitivity and taxpayer value (some tenders, procurement, land issues)

It is important that transparency of discussions is always open to all

There is always a need for frank discussion to take place which may not be appropriate for a public meeting and time constraints on the calling of a public meeting may prevent an urgent decision bring Madame if beeded

Not all decisions should be public and may not be in the public interest ..and may then delay decisions if they were.

To ensure transparency for all decisions made

although attendance by members could be small

subject to the current yellow paper rules

Decision-making must be seen to be open, honest and transparent.

Comments

The maximum predecision discussion helps. It is so hard to change minds after decisions are made

They’re great.

When urgent decisions have to be taken precluding prescrutiny and advise from the relevant committee, these still need to be reported to committee to be noted and commented upon at the first opportunity.

Cabinets are undemocratic by nature and are an exclusive rather than an inclusive way of decision making

Overview and scrutiny should have teeth and not be a talking shop

Cabinet gives a much clearer chain of responsibility

The use of Yellow Papers now needs discussion!

I believe cabinet system reduces engagement and transparency

not democratic and believe the committee system has served the council well

to ensure a quality administration, adequate remuneration must be provided to cabinet and committee members.

The cabinet arrangement would be less democratic than a committee system

Comments

PACS and other measures should reduce call ins allowing a focus on overview and policy review

The PACs will do a lot of the work. Other councils adopting a similar approach have just the one O&S.

Scrutiny for each cabinet area would involve more members in scrutiny

it meets the test of reasonableness

To much work for 1

The PAC could also act as overview and scrutiny committees for areas in their remit, with the 'top' one being to look at Council wide issues.

We would also have the PACs so one Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be sufficient.

PACs will openly discuss; therefore, all political parties have an input. No need for more

Yes if it is sufficiently empowered

It is too bigger a responsibility for just one committee

I think workload may require two OSC’s, each overseeing two PAC’s

Full Council if able to refer back to PACs will also therefore act as scrutiny so one would be enough.

Less is best, or more Members need to do more work, or the same "old ones" frequently seen frequently DO!

If the proposed format for PAC's is effective there should only be a requirement for one Overview and Scrutiny Committee

There should be one O&S Committee for each PAC

Comments

This will ensure greater involvement and act as a public guarantee of independence

Facilitates constructive challenge

More democratic

While it is recommended it is not mandatory and the Vice Chairman should be a member of the opposition. It needs to be remembered that most if not all decisions will have been subjected to prescrutiny and call in should require a minimum of two members from different member groups.

They should be politically balanced with the ruling party choosing chair

scrutiny should be separate from the executive

It will enable the public to have more confidence in the arrangements

This would maintain its independence. Possibly the Leader of the Opposition would be appropriate.

Excellent, for clear transparency

An opposition group member (presumably an appointee of the leader of the largest opposition group) is best placed to give direct scrutiny.

A casting vote could be used for tactical political voting against the political control position within the council.

The chair of the O&S Committee should be a non-exec chair from outside of politics. The deputy chair should be a member from the opposition but otherwise there is a danger that the O&S committee will just become a political game piece rather than actual fair scrutiny.

Overview and Scrutiny! The words say it. Its ideally better when no direct group interest is involved.

O&S have the inherent danger to turn into talking shops. Safeguards must be provided that cabinet decisions can be scrutinised adequately, without undue delay

To introduce impartiality and proper scrutiny

Count

28 Responses

Range

3-15

Mode

9

Mean

9.35

Comments

With one Committee a slightly larger number is justified, especially if scope is needed for co-options on a longer term basis is a Parish Rep. Shorter term co-options for specific tasks should not count towards the number as they are temporary.

Parish Council representatives, as per the AGS Committee.

This should be discretionary subject to the agreement of the Chairman with a view to non members being invited to attend to present information that they may have specialist knowledge of.

Matters of audit and in particular standards

I don't approve of this option

From each party

Topic specialists, will depend on the topic eg Allotment, Arts, Transport etc

This could be a very good idea. We currently have Parish representatives on our Audit, Governance and Standards Committee.

Of the 5, we could invite 2 non councillors, yet experienced individuals from the locality

reps from parish councils, disability groups, faith groups voluntary organisations

I do not think that it is wise to co-opt outside focus groups - this should be the reserve of elected councillors.

Only for the addition expert knowledge required for the function

It might be needful to co-opt in regards to gaining best knowledge and understanding of particular situations

A good idea to increase public involvement. Either Parish councillors or representatives of recognised neighbourhood forums.

I agree this is a good idea - I think that that person should be the chair to stop the O&S Committee from just becoming an "alternative to the decision made committee".

Definitely support this and representatives should be considered for expert advice on particular matters.

Make the most of Parish Councils AND local interest groups/organisations like BID and Community Groups.

enhances objectiveness which is a good idea.

It is accepted that members of the O&S Committee are required. to have in depth knowledge of subjects under scrutiny. By co-opting individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills to provide expert input/experience in essential given the diverse subjects this Committee will cover

Yes co-opting of experts e.g those with environmental expertise

While broader democratic involvement is desirable and this option is positive in principle, selection of non elected members shall be considered with great care

Could be useful when specific and specialised expertise is required.

County Councillors, Parish Councillors, Transport, Health, Charities as appropriate.

Any participants who are not elected members should not have the ability to vote on items

Comments

They're great

it should only be able to raise items directly relevant to the council's actual work and legal obligations and should not be able to raise party political issues or motions out with the council's remit

It is inferior to the current arrangements

I think the number balance is important; so with Cons in control, we should still have a majority on the committee. Otherwise there will be too much wasted time from other political parties.

I would like a O&S with real powers to hold the cabinet to account. The ability to pause a decision if deemed necessary, but not with the ability to frustrate and abuse its role. So it can request a pause, refine and a delay but not stop a cabinet action. Perhaps O&S can have power to refer to full council for a vote on a key decision.

O & S arrangements should allow good, open, cross party discussion of a proposed decision prior to recommendations to Cabinet for the final decision

Comments

The Council and public both benefit from this and reducing it will only limit the Council's interactionwith the wider community

There are more than adequate ways for members of the public to lobby support for their views

i think it's ok but sometimes the number of these items takes over too much of the council's official meetings

Let more public write in

accountability

Public engagement is very important.

I think we could or should improve this, but I'm not sure how.

Public engagement should be expanded and existing methods maintained.

It is very important that public and MBC resident have a chance to offer their views

Questions are currently being used for tactical reasons and do not really generate a good discussion. Questions should be made in writing and then referred to the committee for consideration

should always look to improve this.

But the constant onslaught of the same questions -worded differently-by the same people every Council/P&R/SPI etc may be democracy but its irritating. Members should be reminded and prompted to engage in meetings with their residents and then engage with appropriate Officers and Chairs/Cabinet Members.

MBC currently has a good reputation of being accessible to our residents whether by raising questions at Full Council or other Committee meetings. This should continue

public engagement is vital, maintained & improved

Councillors must be publicly accountable.

Comments

This helps demonstrate that the Council is accountable and transparent

Petitions should be presented at Full Council and then dependent upon the size of petition brought to committee or back to Council to be debated

i don't think a free-for-all is suitable for our meetings

democratic

Gives the widest possible options for the public

To facilitate the running of meetings in a democratic way only members of the council should be able to direct questions to cabinet members and the leader.

Referendum request on the basis of a significant number of signatures from exclusively the maidstone popluation

Members of the public should be able to make a statement but not ask questions in the live meeting.

We must find ways of making a Full Council meeting more engaging and interesting.

By continuing to have full public interaction with our residents MBC will reinforce it's reputation of being both transparent and approachable in it's decision making process

democratic

Making councillors and the Council publicly accountable.

Comments

This helps convince the public that their views are listened to

it's a working meeting and shouldn't be full of public intervention

democratic

Keep it simple and straightforward

Cabinet meetings should not be overtly political and therefore none of the above should apply.

Written presentation only

Transparency is key.

All engagement = wider and better democracy

To be seen as both transparent and approachable in its decision making process.

Making councillors and the Council publicly accountable.

Comment

It does help to show that views are listened to before and joining the making of important decisions

Depending upon the size of a petition the subject matter of a petition can be discussed and recommendations formed at committee in response to petitions meeting the criteria for discussion and response

this is the proper place for public comment and intervention

But can still be in writing

democratic

May be necessary to address the Committee.

Keeps it straight forward

Only members of the council should be able to ask questions, albeit in consultation with their residents.

To enable a proper discussion on the residents concerns to be had at the preliminary stage.

To be seen as transparent in our decision making process

Request for evidence may lead to undue delays if spurious requests are being made

Making councillors and the Council publicly accountable.

Comments

An Overview and Scrutiny Committee needs to be especially open to hearing from multiple viewpoints and collecting data from a wide range of respondents

To ensure the appropriate knowledge base is available to support member discussion and decision making

suitable,

Both go together

democratic

May be necessary to address the Committee.

Only members of the council should be able to ask questions, albeit in consultation with their residents.

Residents should be allowed to raise their concerns and ask the committee to consider them but not be allowed to ask a question requiring an immediate answer

To be seen as transparent in our decision making process

Making councillors and the Council publicly accountable.

Comments

In relation to Overview and Scrutiny if it establishes a Working group to look at a certain subject the possibility of outside contributors joining in some or all of the discussion should be looked at. Probably needs thinking about beforehand to prevent being caught out later by not knowing how we handle that.

Very important that the public are *seen* to have access.

It is important that the Scrutiny committee has the power to refer decisions back to a) the cabinet member for reconsideration or b) to cabinet to reconsideration, even if the decision was one of an individual cabinet member or c) refer the decision to Full Council

to be accepted, it must be relevant to the council's work and legal obligations

Unless there is full ability of the public to address all levels of MBC, the system will not be accountable or transparent

Happy to consider other options, if there are any.

Statements during a live meeting but no questions. Questions should be submitted in writing in advance and the committee can decide whether or not to discuss and answer them in a subsequent meeting.

It is imperative that we remain approachable to the residents of MBC

Engagement needs to be increased to raise MBC to a beacon of transparency

everything should remain open for all

Comments

Much more inclusive than older models

I cme up with it.

Scrutiny needs to be more aligned with the full council than the leader and cabinet.

Could come back to affect us has a group

An Executive model is inferior to a Committee system

Represents a good compromise to achieve maximum support from Members.

Great open way forward

I have limited experience of other models

This process should allow full discussion at two levels prior to a decision being made by cabinet

Its an EXECUTIVE model. It will hopefully lead to more and better quicker decisions by Members

As a Councillor under the last Executive system there were many Members who simply lost interest

This model will streamline the work of both elected members and officers.

it seems that good councillor & public engagement can be achieved

I have no experience of other executive models

Comments

This one has a good chance to. Less inclusive models are no better and can be worse than Committee decision making see the previous MBC Local Plan debates

Still is going to be one elected member decision

But there are some key areas that need to be strengthened notably you can not have cabinet members chairing the committees - poacher and gamekeeper comes to mind. If that were the case I would prefer we kept a committee structure!

An Executive model is inferior to a Committee system and less democratic or inclusive

Decisions can be made more promptly and there is greater accountability.

Let's get on with it.

It would be effective to make decisions but when there is a majority and a cabinet it will always be dictatorial

As long as we don’t add in layers that don’t actually speed decision making up.

The final decision will be with still be taken by the cabinet member so little faith in this new model.

The proposed model appears complicated at first view. Effective decision making will require the ability for fast decision making

Decision-making will be more objective

Comments

I think its covered,

Access to information. Cllrs need-to-know should be ver widely scoped.

Think that’s about right but those rights apply to all members of the council and are not limited to members of a particular committee especially where agenda requests are concerned. Another reason why cabinet members should not chair committees!

Full visiting members access and opportunity should be retained through out the system

I agree with the above.

I am not sure what else there could be.

A strict and obvious line between powers of elected members and council officers should exist to improve the officer/member relationship.

none

That covers most. HOWEVER some "calls for action" may be very Ward biased or Area biased where certain Members will have no insight or understanding. This may need some further consideration.

These opportunities to participate in the proposed new format encapsulate and increase the ways in which I can represent my residents.

Remote and virtual attendance should be encouraged to allow the increased engagement fromgjd public that has been seen under the covid legislation

not much different

None

Comments

Perhaps for the exclusion of doubt formally require individual Cabinet Member decisions to be advertised as formal meetings.

Full visiting members access and opportunity should be retained through out the system

A politically balanced member committee to make decisions related to the interpretation of the constitution, rather than allowing an officer to make a decision on this.

Leave The Committee System as it is. It took months to discuss and agree the protocols and structures for Committees and is balanced and fair to the Electorate of the whole Borough of Maidstone

Keep the committee system

Shelve and keep committee system

Comments

The important matters are Agenda Requests and the right to attend all meetings and participate asset out above.

I think we need to set out in greater detail all the committees of the council to demonstrate clearly how business will be conducted

We should do away with

The new system should mirror the current system as closely as possible

There is an effort to retain political balance which does work and which the PACs can replicate. It is also important that all Members feel involved and this can be achieved through the PACs and Overview and Scrutiny.

I'll leave this to more experienced colleagues

All Members of a Committee can influence Chair and VC and other Members as much as Chair/VC, Members can influence them. In practice this should remain in any democracy and in a new model.

All protocols and procedures were extensively discussed in a fair and proper manner and were inclusive, making balanced decisions

The Regulatory and Statutory Committees, ie. Planning, Licensing, Audit Governance and Standards, work extremely well under the current system and I look forward to learn how they will be integrated into the new model

Information should be freely available to all ward councillors and parish councillors and where possible the public

committee system gives a louder voice to minority parties and independents as made up from all groups, could be excluded. we need to be accountable for the residents ,

The whole model

Comments

Nice survey.

This new system is not democratic. It will not matter what is said, the final decision will be what Cabinet member wants.

Do away with p &R committee

It is a mistake going to an Executive Model, however it can be reversed in the future with a simple majority if required

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and feedback.

The current committee system sees decisions being ‘bounced’ between committees backwards and forwards without decisive decision making. The proposed system should stop that yet still allow good and open discussion at an early stage

The committee system works well and represents all members views and those of smaller political groups. Reports have significantly improved under the committee system and decision making has been much more transparent than previous executive arrangements so I have serious doubts if full representation will be achieved under this new model. Explaining the new arrangements to residents will only create distrust and be seen as smoke and mirrors approach by the public as the final decision maker on most occasions will be by a cabinet member ?

Leave the Committee System as it is ~ it works and is fairer to all Members

Openness, transparency and communication should be priority in any system that becomes the model

The committee system model is much simpler for the public to understand and it allows better involvement of their own elected member(s)