Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ruth Brothwell, George Potter, and James Walsh.

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.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee held on 14 November 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2024 were confirmed as a correct record. 

The chair signed the minutes.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11. The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Friday 10 January 2025.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Friday 10 January 2025.

There were no questions from members.

The Committee considered a report from the Monitoring Officer which noted that compliance with good governance in respect of officer decision making could be improved by the Council.

The report had set out a protocol which sought to ensure clarity around the Council’s expectations as to officer decision making and their adopted procedures.  The protocol also provided a governance framework that promoted transparency, accountability, scrutiny, consultation, and decision making at an appropriate level with member engagement.

At its meeting held on 21 November 2024, the Joint Constitutions Review Group had considered this matter and had recommended to this Committee that it recommends adoption of the Protocol by full Council.

During the Committee’s debate on this matter, it was suggested that the penultimate bullet-point in paragraph 3.3 of the Protocol could be amended to read:

“Any relevant professional advice from other Officers such as legal and/or finance colleagues, including third party advice, where appropriate;”

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED:  To recommend to the Council, at its extraordinary meeting on 22 January 2025, the adoption into the Constitution of the Officer Decision Making Protocol, attached as Appendix 1 to the report to the Committee, subject to the above amendment.

Reasons:

·      To ensure clarity around Officer Decision Making.

·      To provide a governance framework for officer decision making that ensures compliance with statutory requirements and promotes transparency, accountability, scrutiny, consultation and member engagement.

The Committee noted that both Guildford and Waverley currently operated with a different Code of Conduct for Councillors and co-opted members and had different arrangements in place for the Monitoring Officer to deal with complaints of misconduct by councillors.  The Committee considered a report which proposed one set of arrangements for both Councils to adopt.

At its meeting held on 16 December 2024, the Joint Constitutions Review Group had considered this report and had recommended to both this Committee and Waverley’s Standards Committee that they recommend the adoption of the revised arrangements by their respective councils.

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

·       It was suggested, in respect of section 12 of the proposed arrangements (Informal Resolution), that requesting the subject member to apologise as a form of informal resolution was actually an admission by the subject member that they had erred and therefore a breach of the code, albeit at a very low level, had taken place.  In response, the Senior Governance Officer indicated that it was possible that a subject member could apologise to a complainant even if there had not been an investigation into whether there was a breach of the code. Similarly, the monitoring officer could still identify a training need and recommend that the subject member should attend appropriate training even though there had been no determination as to a breach of the code.  The Senior Governance Officer also reminded the Committee that the draft revised Arrangements were based on the LGA’s model guidance.

·      The Committee’s attention was drawn to the wording in paragraph 12 .1 which stated that informal resolution did not mean that a subject member had been found to have breached the Code of Conduct, because the matter had not been investigated at that stage.

·      When this matter had previously been reviewed by a former task group of this Committee, it was felt that keeping timescales slightly longer was important to enable the subject member to seek their own independent legal advice. Concern was expressed about the shortening of those timescales.  In response, the Senior Governance Officer commented that the shortening of timescales was intended to improve officer deadlines, and that members would still be able to seek advice.

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED: That Full Council, at its extraordinary meeting on 22 January 2025, be recommended to adopt into the Constitution the revised Arrangements for dealing with Allegations of Misconduct by Councillors and Co-Opted Members, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee.

Reason:

Having one set of Standards Arrangements would make the process clearer for residents and members, as well as officers who managed standards complaints. 

The Committee noted that all councils had a responsibility to set a balanced budget (including council tax) before 11 March in every year.  The Committee considered a report which set out a proposed set of procedure rules for setting the budget, including timescales for amendments to be considered by Finance.

At its meeting held on 16 December 2024, the Joint Constitutions Review Group had considered this matter and had recommended to this Committee that it recommends adoption of the proposed Budget Procedure Rules by full Council.

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

·      The Joint Constitutions Review Group, when it considered this matter on 16 December, requested that the draft Budget Procedure Rules include provision for members to table non-financial amendments, which had no impact on the Executive’s draft budget.

·      It was suggested that the following be added to the end of paragraph 7.13 of the draft Budget Procedure Rules:

“Any minor amendment which does not have a material effect on the Executive’s draft budget may be proposed at the Budget Meeting.”  

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED: That Full Council, at its extraordinary meeting on 22 January 2025, be recommended:

(1)         To adopt into the Constitution the Budget Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee, subject to the amendment of paragraph 7.13 of the draft Budget Procedure Rules by the addition of the following at the end of that paragraph:

“Any minor amendment which does not have a material effect on the Executive’s draft budget may be proposed at the Budget Meeting.”  

(2)         That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any consequential amendments to the Constitution.

Reasons:

·      A procedure for holding a Budget Setting Council meeting would ensure that there are appropriate timescales for the scrutiny of any proposed amendments to the Budget, and that the legal requirements are met.  

·      It would also ensure that any amendments have been considered by the Joint Strategic Director – Finance & Resources and that members were aware of the financial implications of any amendments without the need for adjournments.