Open Invitation: All Members Workshop (7^th October 2012):

Attendance: 15 Members (5 of which from the working group)

Key notes from the open discussions:

Is 55 Members too many?

·         Maidstone has a growing population, and has the population to support (justify) 55 members;

·         If 55 is the right number, there needs to be a structure to support getting them involved in decision making;

·         With fewer Members comes less time, and more pressures / expectations;

Paper packs:

·         Report agendas make it difficult to see exactly what decisions are being made – they should be brought to the forefront, to grab members attention;

·         Paper packs are no long circulated which discourages members to ‘hit’ key issues – members do not feel that their input has an impact;

·         Not all members read their papers!

Feedback on the systems of governance:

·         Cllr Paine – Being a Cabinet member can be isolating – a hybrid system would improve member involvement;

·         The current system allows for quick/snap decisions (that need to be made quickly) to be made;

·         Cllr Ash – The speed of the cabinet process can result in decisions being made to quickly without effective challenge;

·          Group discussion – Weakness of the current system is that not enough members are or feel like they are involved;

·         Members lack sufficient knowledge and expertise – “jack of all trades but master of none”;

·         Too much focus on scrutiny, and not enough overview – reports and recommendations are not revisited;

·         The committee system led to more decision being made a full Council;

·         The Council needs to make the right decision, not a financial decision;

·         The system must not eliminate the overview side of the decision process (such as research). Would this be lost in a Committee system?

Accountability:

·         Perception that Cabinet members are not being held to account;

·         Scrutiny chairmen are not being held to account

·         Cllr Paine: In a committee system would you get a decision made? And would there be clear accountability of that decision?

Cllr Joy: Scrutiny pre-meetings with the Chair and vice have too much influence. As a member of that Committee it is difficult to challenge, as a result members feel like they are just ‘dragged’ along. (Do members have the confidence to speak up and challenge?).

Cllr Lusty: It comes down to the competence of the Chairman. They must know their role – they are not good enough.

TWBC / KCC model:

·         Allows for cross-party pre-decisions discussion,;

·         Group is politically proportionate;

·         Cllr Mrs Wilson: There are practical barriers for collective accountability – advisory boards effective ‘eliminate the opposition’;

Communication:

·         Cllrs cross party do not talk enough;

·         Need to get away from party line in order to build up strong working relationships;

·         Cabinet members actually want constructive dialogue with Members, working together;

·         There needs to be a system in place that is the best for Maidstone, not political administration – it need sot stand the test of time;

Succession Planning:

·         Members knowledge and expertise has been eroded;

·         Under a hybrid approach (service committees) Members could ‘specialise’ or gain all round knowledge;

·         There was a much stronger cross party balance of knowledge;

·         The current cabinet scrutiny system does not provide this;

Cllr Paine: Have we just failed to adopt the current system properly?