Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Naghi.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Robertson was substituting for Councillor Naghi.

There were no Visiting Members.

The Chairman stated that, in her opinion, the references from the General Purposes Group requesting that the Standards Committee evaluate proposed changes to the Constitution should be dealt with as urgent items to enable the Committee’s views to be reported to the Council at its meeting on 22 September 2010.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed subject to the amendment of the first sentence of Minute 8 to read:-

With the exception of Councillor Parvin, all Members and Co-opted Members present stated that they had been lobbied by the Clerk to Tovil Parish Council concerning the arrangements now in place for updating Parish Councils on the position with regard to planning enforcement cases (Minute 90 of the meeting held on 7 April 2010 refers).

The Head of Legal Services advised the Committee that its recommendations relating to the amendment of the subsistence allowance provisions of the Members’ Allowances Scheme and the amendment of the Constitution to increase the number of Parish representatives from three to four had been agreed by the Council.  He was confident that the Maidstone Area Committee of the Kent Association of Local Councils would be in a position to recommend two Parish Councillors to fill the current vacancies in time for consideration at the next meeting of the Council.

The Committee considered a proposed Forward Plan for 2010/11 which had been prepared by the four Independent Members of the Committee in consultation with the Vice-Chairman and the Monitoring Officer as a mechanism to record future work plans and matters for discussion and to set target dates for completion.  It was noted that it was not a requirement to have a Forward Plan, but it was considered to be good practice.  The Committee made a number of amendments to the proposed Forward Plan and these are highlighted in bold in the version attached as an Appendix to these Minutes. 

RESOLVED:

1.  That the proposed Forward Plan 2010/11, as amended, be endorsed as the framework for further discussions at this and subsequent meetings of the Committee.

2.  That before any consultation process is announced on what, if anything, will replace the current standards framework, the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman, should send a letter to the Secretary of State urging an effective consultation process.

3.  That it be noted that other local authorities in Kent have indicated informally that they will respond if and when any consultation process is announced.

4.  That after any consultation process is announced, the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman, should draft a response for consideration by the Committee at a special meeting if necessary.

5.  That, in terms of complaints of Member misconduct, the Monitoring Officer should agree a work plan for each investigation in consultation with the Chairman of the Sub-Committee taking account of guidance issued by Standards for England.

6.  That the Training Officer be requested to make arrangements to survey all Borough and Parish Councillors and Parish Clerks on the effectiveness of their training on the Code of Conduct.

7.  That the following topics be included on the agenda for the Chairman’s meeting with the Leader of the Council, other Group Leaders and the Chief Executive together with the Monitoring Officer:-

·  Does the Cabinet wish to be involved in the response to any consultation on changes to the ethical standards regime?

·  How might the new legal services partnership arrangements provide effective, continuous support to the Committee?

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny and the Head of Legal Services reviewing the Council’s performance in dealing with complaints during the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.  It was noted that the report had been delayed in order to incorporate the Local Government Ombudsman’s annual review of the complaints his office had dealt with about the Council during the year ended 31 March 2010.

The Committee felt that the Council should be congratulated on its performance in dealing with complaints over this period.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the COUNCIL: That the issues outlined in the Annual Review of Complaints 2009/10 be noted and endorsed.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny reviewing the Council’s performance in dealing with complaints during the period April to June 2010.  It was noted that:-

·  During the period under review, 68 Stage 1 complaints had been processed.  Most of the complaints related to parking enforcement (16), council tax or business rates (12) and development control (8).  99% of Stage 1 complaints were processed within target time.  Eleven Stage 2 complaints had been received all of which were processed within target time. 

·  A review of the Council’s complaints policy and the complaints handling system had been initiated.  It was the intention that the new policy would be more outcome focused to enable the Council to learn from the complaints that had been made.  There would be increased emphasis on customer satisfaction and lessons learned and a quality assurance regime would be introduced.  Complaints would be grouped thematically as well as by service so that it was easy to identify trends.

·  A review of the complaints monitoring system was being undertaken in conjunction with the Council’s requirements for managing Freedom of Information requests, Environmental Impact requests, Data Protection Subject Access requests, MPs’ letters and compliments.  The review would consider the options for combining all of these requests into a single system.

In response to questions, the Officers explained that the increase in the number of complaints about parking enforcement related to a change in policy on residential parking restrictions.  The new system for managing correspondence would assist in the identification of serial complainants.  Arrangements were in place to recognise members of staff who received compliments on the service they provided.

RESOLVED:  That Council’s performance in responding to complaints during the period April to June 2010 and the action being taken to improve complaints handling be noted.

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services outlining a proposal to establish a Joint Independent Remuneration Panel with Swale Borough Council.  It was noted that:-

• The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 required the Council to establish an Independent Remuneration Panel (“IRP”).  The Council’s IRP comprised a representative of South East Employers, a representative of the Maidstone Chamber of Commerce and an Independent Member.  The term of office of the Independent Member (Mrs Valerie Page) expired on 31 December 2009.
• Discussions had taken place with Swale Borough Council regarding the possible establishment of a Joint IRP.
• It was proposed that the Joint IRP would comprise a representative of South East Employers, an Independent Member from the Maidstone area, an Independent Member from the Swale area and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce in the Maidstone area.  The terms of office would be staggered in the first instance to maintain a degree of continuity and expertise.  Subsequent terms of office would be three years.
• It was proposed that the Panel would meet to consider the level of allowances for both Maidstone and Swale Borough Councils on the same day(s) and it would produce a separate report for each Council.  Administration of the Panel would alternate between the two Councils.

In response to questions, the Head of Democratic Services explained that the arrangements for the appointment of the Independent Members of the IRP were the same as those for the appointment of Independent Members of the Standards Committee, i.e. advertisement followed by interviews by a Selection Panel which then made recommendations to the Council.

The Committee endorsed the proposed establishment of a Joint IRP with Swale Borough Council noting that the arrangement would provide an opportunity to increase capacity and expertise whilst at the same time achieving a saving of approximately £500 per annum.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the COUNCIL:

1.  That agreement be given to the establishment of a Joint Independent Remuneration Panel with Swale Borough Council.

2.  That the membership of the Panel should comprise a representative of South East Employers, an Independent Member from the Maidstone area, an Independent Member from the Swale area and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce in the Maidstone area with the following initial terms of office (thereafter three years):-

  South East Employers – until 31 October 2010 (current expiry term)

  Maidstone local Independent Member – for the remainder of the 2010/11 Municipal Year

  Swale local Independent Member – two years

  Chamber of Commerce representative – until 30 April 2012 (current expiry term)

3.  That the arrangements for the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel should be reviewed in two years.

4.  That Mrs Valerie Page be reappointed as the Maidstone Independent Member on the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel for the remainder of the 2010/11 Municipal Year.

The Committee was asked to evaluate a proposal by the General Purposes Group that the Constitution be amended to (a) allow any Member of the Council to act as a Substitute Member on any Committee, other than the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Standards Committee, provided that they had received the appropriate training (if necessary) to enable them to sit on that Committee and (b) to provide consistency in the approach to the training required by the Members of certain Committees.

The Committee supported the proposed amendments to the Constitution believing that they would provide more capacity and flexibility and clarify and strengthen the requirement for training on the policies and procedures of certain Committees.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the COUNCIL:  That it be noted that, in accordance with Article 15.02 (a) of the Constitution, the Standards Committee has evaluated the proposed amendment of the Constitution to (a) allow any Member of the Council to act as a Substitute Member on any Committee, other than the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Standards Committee, provided that they have received the appropriate training (if necessary) to enable them to sit on that Committee and (b) to provide consistency in the approach to the training required by the Members of certain Committees, and believes that their implementation will help to ensure that the aims and principles of the Constitution are given full effect by providing more capacity and flexibility in terms of the use of Substitutes and clarifying and strengthening the requirement for training on the policies and procedures of certain Committees.

The Committee considered a reference from the General Purposes Group asking that it evaluate proposed amendments to the Council’s Petition Scheme within the Constitution arising from the Local Democracy and Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.  It was noted that the Act required every principal Council to have a Petition Scheme.  Although the Council already had an established Petition Scheme, the General Purposes Group had taken the opportunity to see whether it could be amended to allow more debate at Council meetings.

The Committee supported the proposed amendments to the Constitution which would:-

Allow, without time limit, a debate by the Council on any petition with 1,500 signatures.

Require a Senior Officer of the Council to attend a meeting of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee when requested by petitioners.

Remove the age limit on who may sign or present a petition to the Council.

However, the Committee felt that the provision to allow, without time limit, a debate by the Council on any petition with 1,500 signatures should be reviewed in two years.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the COUNCIL:  That it be noted that, in accordance with Article 15.02 (a) of the Constitution, the Standards Committee has evaluated the proposed amendments to the Council’s Petition Scheme within the Constitution and believes that, subject to the provision to allow, without time limit, a debate by the Council on any petition with 1,500 signatures being reviewed in two years, their implementation will help to ensure that the aims and principles of the Constitution are given full effect by ensuring compliance with new legislation and providing opportunities for more debate at Council meetings.

There were no applications for dispensations.

The Chairman announced that she wished to draw the Committee’s attention to a number of training sessions as follows:-

15 September 2010 – Planning training – Code of Conduct issues

4 October 2010 – Code of Conduct training for Borough and Parish Councillors and Parish Clerks

Early 2011 – Refresher training on the initial assessment of complaints

10.00 a.m. to 12.15 p.m.