Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Gordon Jackson, and Mrs Maria Angel.

In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee held on 4 June 2015.

The minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee held on 4 June 2015 were confirmed and signed.

The Committee considered a report from the Council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, covering the progress of the 2014-15 external audit up to July 2015.

It was brought to the Committee’s attention that there was a correction to paragraph 3.4 where it stated that a provision in the 2014-15 financial statements had not been included in the calculation of holiday pay, whereas we had actually made a provision of £243,000.

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED to note the contents of the External Auditor’s report.

The Council considered the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2014-15. The treasury management function involved the control and management of all the Council’s cash, regardless of its source, including investments and borrowing.  The Council’s cash balances had built up over a number of years, and reflected a strong balance sheet, with considerable revenue and capital reserves.  Officers carried out this function within the parameters set by the Council each year in the treasury management strategy statement.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) treasury management Code of Practice and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities required the Council to set Prudential and Treasury Indicators.  CIPFA also requires an annual report on treasury management activity and compliance with Prudential Indicators.

The objectives of the Prudential Code, and the indicators calculated in accordance with it, were to provide a framework for local authority capital finance that would ensure:

·         capital expenditure plans were affordable

·         all external borrowing was within prudent and sustainable levels

·         treasury management decisions were taken in accordance with professional good practice and

·         in taking the above decisions, the Council was accountable by providing a clear transparent framework.

The annual report confirmed that the Council complied with its Prudential Indicators, treasury management policy statement and treasury management practices for 2014-15.

The report summarised the Council’s treasury management performance over the past year, compared to estimate and discussed the factors affecting this performance.  It also contained detailed information on the return on investments and interest paid on external debt.

The officer’s report was accompanied by a presentation of  how we performed against the Strategy set in Feb 2014 (appended to these minutes). Further to a query from the Committee, the officer clarified that we were able to achieve an increased rate of return with decreased  risk by diversifying our portfolio into high performing, good security covered bonds and high quality and secure investments.

In response to another query from the Committee, the officer confirmed that the treasury strategy anticipated a 0.25% rise in the Bank of England’s interest rate, possibly rising to 0.5% by the end of the financial year.

Having considered the report and the presentation, the Committee

RESOLVED that:

(1)        the treasury management annual report for 2014-15; and

(2)        the actual Prudential Indicators reported for 2014-15, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council

be noted.

Reason for Decision:

To comply with the Council’s Treasury Management Policy Statement, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on treasury management and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

The Committee considered the draft annual Statement of Accounts 2014-15. The Council’s Chief Financial Officer had certified the Statement and it was now available for public inspection until 3 August 2015. The external audit of the accounts would take place between 4 August and 30 September 2015.

The Head of Financial Services gave a presentation outlining the key points of the accounts (slides attached).

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED: to note the draft Statement of Accounts 2014-15 in advance of the audit.

Reason for the decision:

To comply with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2011.

Note: By reason of the special circumstances described below, the chairman considers that this item should be dealt with at this meeting as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B 4 (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Special Circumstances: To enable the Monitoring Officer as a matter of urgency to make the appropriate arrangements to establish a joint appointments panel and agree appropriate representation on the panel with participating councils before the Council approves the appointments on 6 October 2015.

The Committee considered a report requesting authorisation for the Monitoring Officer to establish a joint appointments panel for the appointment of Independent Persons under Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011.

Under the Localism Act 2011, the Council was required to seek the views of an Independent Person before it took a decision on an allegation of misconduct by a councillor which it has decided to investigate. At Guildford, the Monitoring Officer also decided, after consultation with the Independent Person, whether a complaint merited a formal investigation. The Independent Person’s views could also be sought by the Council at any other stage in a misconduct complaint, or by a councillor against whom an allegation had been made.

Following a joint appointments process with other Surrey districts, the Council appointed three Independent Persons initially until May 2015. Mole Valley District Council, Spelthorne Borough Council and Reigate & Banstead Council had indicated they would be happy to undertake a joint selection process for the purpose of appointing Independent Persons.

The report recommended that the Monitoring Officer be authorised to establish a joint appointments panel with participating Surrey councils so that the panel may short-list and interview candidates and make recommendations to the respective councils for the appointment of Independent Persons. The report also recommended that the Monitoring Officer be authorised to agree appropriate representations on the panel with participating councils. However, it would be left to each participating council to formally approve their Independent Persons following the selection process.

Having considered the report, the Committee RESOLVED to authorise the Monitoring Officer to:

1.    establish a joint appointments panel with participating Surrey councils so that the panel may short-list and interview candidates and make recommendations to the respective councils for the appointment of Independent Persons; and

2.    agree appropriate representation on the panel with participating councils.

Reason for the decision:

To comply with Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of the appointment of Independent Persons.

The Committee considered a report outlining its draft work programme for the rest of the municipal year.

The Committee Manager gave a verbal update to the programme outlining the following:

·         At the Committee’s last meeting on 4 June, it resolved to receive a report from the Member Development Steering Group to consider matters relating the councillor training programme. Members of the Steering Group had been nominated earlier in the week with the expectation that they would have their first meeting in September 2015.

·         Budget monitoring had been erroneously excluded from the work programme appended to the report.

·         It had been brought to the Monitoring Officer’s attention that Councillor Graham Ellwood may need a dispensation to enable him to participate in Council business pertaining to Surrey County Council’s Local Committee “cluster meetings”. The application would be considered by the Committee at its next meeting.

·         At its meeting on 26 March 2015, the Committee considered a report regarding councillors’ eligibility to have criminal record checks, and resolved that further consideration of the matter would be deferred until after the local elections in May 2015. Officers suggested the report be considered by the Committee at either its next meeting in September, or its meeting on 26 November 2015.

Having considered the draft work programme and the officer’s verbal update, the Committee RESOLVED to approve the work programme subject to the following amendments to be appended to the minutes:

·         the Member Development Steering Group report and the report revisiting councillor criminal record checks would be added to the work programme under “unscheduled”;

·         the budget monitoring reports would be included in the work programme; and

·         consideration of an application for a dispensation for Councillor Graham Ellwood would be considered by the Committee at its next meeting.