Agenda item

The Head of Policy and Governance presented a report to provide an overview of proposed staffing changes in the local democracy and scrutiny functions to increase scrutiny capacity, provide more direct support for members and improve the robustness of forward planners which will enable the council to involve more people in local democracy.

Members considered the report ahead of a single member decision on 12th June 2019.

During discussion the following points were raised:

Members agreed with the importance of additional support for the scrutiny function, and questioned if there would be any training implications.  It was confirmed this would be an open recruitment process, with what would be hoped to be an attractive salary.

Members requested positive assurance that this structure was not being used as a way to remove staff.  There were concerns around possible hidden budget cuts around the removal of staff.

There were concerns around the idea of looking to move 3 posts to create 2 and a question was asked if staff have been told they, or the post is being made redundant.  The Officer explained that there are HR issues and sensitivity around the matter.  There is no specific individual involved but there will be a human element.  The structure means 2.5 posts will become 2, and those involved would be placed at risk and asked to register an interest for the new positions.

Concerns were raised that this was being discussed today yet the report is currently on the agenda for Individual Cabinet Member Decision.  Members questioned the democratic process, and highlighted that this restructure will affect the services provided to councillors yet Members have not been consulted.

It was explained that the Senior Democracy Officer will take responsibility for Business Support and the intention would be that those officers would take on roles within the Democratic Services area.  Members questioned this as Business Support Officers already have their own workload and this would increase pressures.

Members felt the process had been mishandled.

The Head of Policy and Government explained that in terms of process structural changes, under the responsibility of departmental budgets are ICMDs.  This report was brought to Democratic Services Committee as it relates to the Committee.  However this level of change could be made under the delegated responsibility of officers.

The Chair questioned the intention to make Select minutes shorter and concise, relying on the live stream, with no minutes being taken in the meeting.  She questioned the intention that Committee Officers would be watching the live stream following the meeting to record the minutes.  She highlighted the possibility of live stream issues and the need for officer action within the meeting.  In response we heard that the Democratic Services team will continue to set up the live stream technology and be on hand via skype to resolve issues.

Members urged that the model is reconsidered and brought back with no reduction to staff.  Also that the suggestion to create notes rather than minutes at Select Committee meetings is reconsidered.

On being asked, the Head of Policy and Governance stated that he believed that the proposal would improve democratic accountability.

In terms of the minutes, it was suggested that a trial be undertaken in the new format.  It was agreed that the legal department should be consulted with regards to legal requirements around minutes of meetings.

A Member questioned the robustness of the live streaming system, as this would be relied upon to provide an accurate record of a meeting.

To conclude, the Chair confirmed that:

·       The Committee were in favour of more provision within Scrutiny,

·       The Committee were not in support of a reduction within the Democratic Services function.

·       The Committee requested that the new minute format be trialled for a six month period, subject to confirmation on the legal aspect of minute/note taking.

·       The Committee would be more comfortable with the decision going to Cabinet rather than ICMD, and suggested the decision may be called-in.