Agenda and minutes

Special Meeting, Corporate Governance and Standards Committee - Thursday, 11th April, 2024 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: John Armstrong, Democratic Services and Elections Manager  Tel: (01483) 444102

Media

Items
No. Item

CGS79

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bob Hughes, for whom Councillor Richard Mills OBE substituted, Councillor Stephen Hives, for whom Councillor Vanessa King substituted, and from Councillor James Walsh, for whom Councillor Howard Smith substituted.

 

CGS80

Local code of conduct - disclosure of interests

In accordance with the 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.

 

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest.

CGS81

Minutes pdf icon PDF 101 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee held on 13 March 2024.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.  The chairman signed the minutes.

 

CGS82

Action Tracker pdf icon PDF 71 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted that the decision and action tracker had been introduced to monitor progress against the decisions and actions that the Committee had agreed, which would be kept up to date for each meeting.  When decisions/actions were reported as being ‘completed’, the Committee would be asked to agree to remove these items from the tracker.  

The Committee

RESOLVED: That the decision and action tracker, including the update on the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated at the meeting, be noted and that the actions reported as being completed be removed from the table.

 

CGS83

Anti-Fraud & Corruption Policy and Strategy pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted that the Council encouraged staff and others to report any cases of suspected wrongdoing or misconduct, illegal acts, or failure to act within the Council, as part of its commitment to act with integrity and openness in the best interests of its residents and communities. To govern any such disclosures, the Council had an Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy.

That Policy had recently been reviewed and updated and had been submitted to this Committee for comments, prior to submission to the Executive for approval. A copy of the revised Policy was appended to the report submitted to the Committee.  Once adopted, the revised Policy would be made available to councillors, officers, and the public via the website.

During the debate on this matter, the following points were made:

·      Clarification was requested in respect of paragraph 5.1 of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy, which stated that the Policy and the various policies referred to in the annexes would be monitored and reviewed biennially, but the Anti Bribery Policy (Annex 1) had stated that that Policy would be reviewed annually. 

·      As the draft Anti-Bribery Policy did not actually define “bribery”, it was suggested that it should refer to the statutory definition set out in the Bribery Act 2010.

·      There was an apparent discrepancy in para 3 (b) of the Fraud Prosecution Policy (Annex 3) where it was stated that the Council must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a prospect of conviction, but in para 3 (f) it was stated that the decision to prosecute ultimately rested with the Police and Crown Prosecution Service.  It was suggested that the Policy might be clarified so as to state that the Council would make that decision in civil matters, or merely to state in para 3 (b) “notwithstanding para 3 (f)”.

·      Noting that paragraph 1.4 of the Anti-Fraud Policy Statement within the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy included councillors, clarification was sought as to whether paragraph 1.3 should also specifically include councillors to make it clear that the Policy also applied to them.

 

·      In response to a request to highlight any material changes between the existing Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy and the proposed revised policy, it was noted that the existing policy had been produced in 2016-17, so the revised policy was well overdue.  The revised policy had incorporated more recent changes in the law.

·      Request that the Fraud Response Plan referred to in the Counter Fraud Policy (Annex 2) be included as an appendix to that policy.

·      Suggestion that section 6 of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy (Training) should make it explicit that training would be offered not only to employees but also to temporary workers to ensure that everyone was aware of their obligations. In response, the offer of appropriate training would be communicated to staff and temporary workers.

·      In response to a request, in relation to the strategic approach to fraud, as to whether there was any good practice that that we had managed to share  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS83

CGS84

Review of the Constitution: Proposed New Council Procedure Rules pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted that, as part of the current work programme to update the constitutions of both Guildford Borough Council (GBC) and Waverley Borough Council (WBC), the Joint Strategic Director of Legal and Democratic Services had prioritised the Council Procedure Rules as a high priority, requiring urgent attention. 

 

After reviewing both sets of Council Procedure Rules, it was apparent that there would be little benefit in amending both sets of the current rules.  Officers had therefore recommended the introduction of a set of new Council Procedure Rules for both councils, using examples of good practice, based on the statutory framework. 

 

The work to review the Council Procedure Rules for both GBC and WBC had been extensive, and had been presented initially to the Guildford and Waverley Joint Constitutions Review Group (JCRG) for consideration.

 

A key theme in the proposed new Council Procedure Rules was to clearly identify who had the authority and responsibility to discharge functions at council meetings, including proper officers, and the correct procedures to be followed, including appropriate communication channels.

 

Members of the group welcomed the proposed new Council Procedure Rules.  The group suggested minor grammatical amendments and amended rule 15.5 (Rules of Debate for Council: Content and Length of Speeches) to allow the proposer of a motion 6 minutes for a speech and 4 minutes for the right of reply and all other speeches in the debate. 

 

Subject to the suggested amendments, the JCRG approved the recommendation to refer the new Council Procedure Rules,to both this Committee and Waverley’s Standards & General Purposes Committee on 8 April with a further recommendation to refer the new Council Procedure Rules to full council for adoption into the Constitution.

 

At its meeting on 8 April 2024, Waverley’s Standards & General Purposes Committee had recommended the adoption of the proposed new Council Procedure Rules to Waverley’s full Council meeting subject to a number of minor amendments details of which were set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated at the meeting.  Although there were some slight differences between the GBC and the WBC Council Procedure Rules to incorporate nuances, for the most part the rules for both councils were proposed to be aligned.

During its debate on this matter, the following points were raised by the Committee:

·      It was noted that the Council’s petition scheme was currently included separately in the Public Speaking Procedure Rules.  Given that the proposed new Council Procedure Rules included procedures for public participation, concern was expressed as to whether it was intended to continue with a petition scheme.   The Joint Strategic Director of Legal & Democratic Services confirmed that the petition scheme would still be included within the Council’s Constitution, albeit separate from the Council Procedure Rules.  The councils’ petition schemes were also scheduled for review by the Joint Constitutions Review Group (JCRG) in due course.

·      It was noted that Appendix 1 to the report had indicated that Waverley currently permitted the public to ask “informal questions”, and that it was proposed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS84

CGS85

Review of Executive Advisory Boards and Overview & Scrutiny pdf icon PDF 113 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the review of Executive Advisory Boards (EABs) and Overview & Scrutiny (O&S).  It was noted that the EABs and the single O&S Committee had been established at Guildford in 2016, following a review of the Council’s internal governance arrangements in 2015. 

The EABs were based on a model adopted at that time by two district councils in Kent.  In essence, their purpose was to increase backbench member involvement in significant Executive decisions, by advising the Executive at an early stage on the formulation and development of policies and major projects that would help to deliver the Council’s strategic priorities within its Corporate Plan. 

When the new arrangements were introduced, much of the work of the then existing two O&S Committees (including policy development) transferred to the EABs and the new O&S Committee was responsible primarily for post-decision review of Executive decisions and wider external scrutiny, including task and finish group investigations. 

The remits of the EABs had originally been aligned to the themes of the Corporate Plan in place at the time of their establishment.  Latterly, they had been linked to the corporate management structure of the Council (Resources EAB and Community EAB). 

The EABs also met jointly to consider matters of significant mutual interest, including consideration of draft budget papers each year.  They had no substantive decision-making powers. 

The Committee was informed that, since May 2023, the EABs had met on just three occasions (two of which were joint meetings of the two EABs) with most scheduled meetings being cancelled due to lack of business, or due to the business that had been scheduled on their work programme being postponed for a number of reasons. 

At its informal briefing on 14 February 2024, the Executive had considered a briefing note on the future of the EABs and their role within the Council’s democratic governance processes, particularly in the context of the O&S function.  The chairs and vice-chairs of the EABs and the O&S Committee had been invited to the briefing meeting to participate in the discussion and to offer their views.  The chair and vice-chair of the O&S Committee and one of the EAB vice-chairs attended and were generally supportive of a proposal to disband the EABs and the single O&S Committee and to replace them with two O&S Committees.

This matter was also discussed at the meeting of the Joint Constitutions Review Group (JCRG) held on 28 March 2024.  The JCRG had also supported the proposal.

During its debate on this matter, the following points were raised by the Committee:

·      The reason for introducing the EABs had been a politically driven decision as there had been a public debate around the time of the 2015 local elections as to whether the Council should move from the Leader and Cabinet Executive arrangements to a committee system, which was followed thereafter by a governance referendum in 2016 as to whether the Council should  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS85

CGS86

Work programme pdf icon PDF 71 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered its updated 12 month rolling work programme. 

The Committee were reminded that an independent review of governance across the Council had been commissioned by the former Chief Executive. The review had been conducted by SOLACE and the Committee was asked to note that, following consultation with the chairman, a report on the outcome of the review, including findings and recommendations, would be submitted to this Committee at a special meeting on Wednesday 15 May 2024 at 7pm.  

The Committee

RESOLVED:

(1)              That the updated 12 month rolling work programme, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee, be approved.

 

(2)              That a special meeting of the Committee be convened on Wednesday 15 May 2024 at 7pm for the purpose of considering the independent review of governance across the Council.

 

Reason:

To allow the Committee to maintain and update its work programme.

 

Action

Officer to Action

To convene the special meeting of the Committee on 15 May 2024.

Democratic Services & Elections Manager

 

 

 

CGS87

Exclusion of the Public

The Committee is invited to consider passing the following resolution:

 

“That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee agrees:

 

(1)  That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following matters (agenda items 10 and 11) on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during consideration of the items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in paragraph 2 of the revised Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972: Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

 

(2)  That the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972:

(1)    the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of agenda items 10 and 11 on the grounds that it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during consideration of these items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in paragraph 2 of the revised Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, which was  Information which was likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

 

(2)    the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

CGS88

Whistleblowing: Guildford Borough Council - The Woking Road Depot

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer in respect of various allegations raised formally under the Council’s Whistleblowing Policy regarding the behaviour/conduct by certain staff based at Woking Road Depot.  The incidents in question covered a five-year period.

In October 2023, an investigation into the Whistleblowing complaint was commenced.  Following the investigation, recommendations were made to the Council’s Corporate Management Board, which led to an action plan being implemented.  Details of the outcome of the investigation and the action plan were set out in the report submitted to the Committee.

During the debate on this matter, the Committee raised a number of questions and concerns including:

·      Whether the first of the alleged incidents referred to in the report should have been reported to the Police. In response the Monitoring Officer reiterated that the alleged incident had taken place around five years ago and was therefore very difficult to investigate and substantiate. 

·      The reason why it was not felt necessary to inform the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in relation to the second allegation.  In response the Monitoring Officer indicated that advice had been taken from the Information Governance Officer who had advised that due to the historical nature of the allegation and that there had been no evidence of any data having left the control of the Council it was not in the remit of what would be required to report an incident to the ICO.

·      In response to a suggestion that the data referred to never was in the Council’s control, the Monitoring Officer explained that there was actually no evidence of any data having been recorded and, if it was, the Council did not know where it was now and so could not be sure that it had left the Council’s control.  It would therefore be very difficult to make a referral to the ICO without any knowledge of what data may or may not have been breached.   The Monitoring Officer acknowledged that more work should have been done to determine whether the matter should have been referred to the ICO and would ask the Information Governance Officer to conduct an audit of the ICO recommendations to determine why the conclusions in the report had been reached.

·      In relation to the recently adopted Whistleblowing Policy, it was suggested that the Leader, relevant Executive member, and the chair and vice-chair of this Committee should be informed at the outset when a Whistleblowing matter was received.

·      In response to a query as to whether the Whistleblowing Policy covered a councillor making a whistleblowing complaint against another councillor, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that if the complaint was an issue of conduct, the matter would be dealt with through code of conduct processes, but if the matter alleged wrongdoing or misdemeanour in some other way then it would be covered by the Whistleblowing Policy. It was also suggested that it should be made clear in the Policy that whistleblowing can be about a councillor’s wrongdoings too.

 

·      It was also suggested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS88

CGS89

Whistleblowing: Guildford Borough Council - Building Control Services

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer in respect of various anonymous allegations raised formally under the Council’s Whistleblowing Policy regarding the behaviour/conduct by certain Building Control staff including an allegation of criminal activity. 

The report had set out details of the action that had been taken in response to the allegations including a referral of the alleged criminal activity to the Police.

The Monitoring Officer had concluded that there was no further action for the Council to take in respect of the matter.

The Committee

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted.

Reasons:

·      The Committee was a key component of the authority’s corporate governance regime, and provided an independent and high-level focus on the assurance and reporting arrangements that underpin good governance.

·      The Committee had, within its terms of reference in Part 3 paragraph 14: “To consider an annual report of the operation of the whistle-blowing policy, including incidents reported”.