Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 17^th January 2013 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Report of the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive introduced a report on whether to change the current rules about officer advice to groups of members, by amending the constitution.

It was noted that the report was written following discussion with some members about the differences in briefing received by different political groups, depending on if and when information was requested by a political group.  Information requested by one group was not routinely passed to others unless there was a request from that group for the information to be shared with others.

Resolved:

(1)        That the Standards Committee be requested to review the Protocol on Member / Officer Relations, which had changed little over the past ten years and was out of date.

(2)        That, as part of the review, the Standards Committee be recommended to ensure that the protocol was clear about how members could request that information provided to them by officers was also provided to other political groups on the council.   This applied to both confidential and non-confidential information.

Report of the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive introduced a report to seek advice from members about which civic events required officer attendance.

It was noted that it had become custom and practice for the Chief Executive to support the Mayoralty at a number of events throughout the year, although many were not strictly civic.

During the course of discussion, members expressed a variety of views, ranging from support for the current arrangements to the scaling back of officer attendance at such events; the majority view being that the position of Chief Executive is seen as part of the civic leadership of the council.  

It was noted that the Chief Executive did not believe that the current arrangements generated a considerable resource burden.

Resolved:

(1)                 That the current arrangements be maintained for officer representation at civic events. 

(2)        That the Chief Executive be requested to bring the issue back to a subsequent meeting should the resource burden increase in the future.

Report of the Head of Community Engagement.

The Head of Community Engagement introduced a summary report on the Keeping it REAL (Responsive, Efficient, Accountable and Local) programme, in the course of which the Local Government Association had provided support to develop city councillors’ community leadership work.

The report asked members to consider whether they wished to carry out more joint work with officers on community leadership. In the course of discussing that question, a number of councillors reported that they had encountered difficulties, during the course of ward work, in trying to obtain information from members and officers at Lancashire County Council.

Members also discussed the need for training to be provided on effective time management, to improve members’ ability to carry out a strong community leadership role.  Councillors also discussed the importance of carrying out exit interviews with members who chose not to stand at future elections.  It was thought that this may provide an insight into the barriers which prevent people from becoming more effective community leaders.

It was noted that an Overview and Scrutiny Task Group “Barriers to Being a Councillor” had recommended that exit interviews be carried out with councillors who chose not to stand for re-election and the Democratic Services Manager agreed to find out whether exit interviews had been undertaken prior to the 2011 city council elections and, if so, what information had been gathered from the interviews.

Resolved:

(1)        That an item be referred to the next meeting of the Three Tier Forum on improving the working relationship between city councillors and members and officers of Lancashire County Council;

(2)        That officers find out whether exit-interviews were ever carried out with city councillors who chose not to stand for re-election in 2011;

(3)        That Democratic Services be requested to look into arranging training for members on effective time management;

(4)        That the summary report of the Keeping it REAL project be noted.

Report of the Democratic Services Manager.

The Democratic Services Manager introduced a report on the next stage of the electoral review of the district, and asked members whether the council should make a submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) on its draft warding patterns for Lancaster City Council.

It was noted that the council had received a number of submissions from local parish councils subsequent to the agenda being published, and these were circulated at the meeting and are appended to the minutes.  The Democratic Services Manager reported that whilst the LGBCE was consulting on the current proposals, they had stressed that responses which opposed their draft recommendations should suggest an alternative arrangement, backed by evidence. 

(The meeting adjourned at 7:25pm and reconvened at 7.29pm.)

Resolved:

(1)        That the views expressed by Carnforth Town Council and Warton Parish Council, opposing the proposal to include Warton with Carnforth in a three member ward, be endorsed.

(2)        That the city council’s response should state that a boundary between Carnforth and Warton should be drawn in such a way that the number of electors in each ward allows for a one member ward for Warton, and a two member ward for Carnforth, rather than one three member Carnforth and Warton ward as shown in the LGBCE’s proposals. 

(3)        That the view expressed by Morecambe Town Council, that Morecambe and Heysham would be under represented by the proposals, be endorsed and included in the city council’s response.

Report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Democratic Services Manager introduced a report about a revised draft protocol, referred from the Standards Committee, which concerned members who were the subject of, or aware of, an alleged breach of the code of conduct.

Resolved:

That the revised protocol be approved to replace the obsolete version in part 7, section 4 of the Lancaster City Council Constitution.

There were no appointments to committees or changes to membership.