Venue: Committee Rooms A/B, South Walks House, South Walks Road, Dorchester, DT1 1EE
Contact: Lindsey Watson Email: lwatson@dorset.gov.uk - (01305) 252209
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Councillors are required to
comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable
pecuniary interests. Minutes: The
Chairman noted that members were not required to declare their membership of
any bodies to which they had been appointed by their local authority. The Monitoring Officer clarified that members
needed to declare any financial interests. There
were no declarations of interest. |
|
To confirm and sign the
minutes of the previous meeting held on 31 July 2018. Minutes: In
respect of minute 12 with regard to Town and Parish Councils – Principles for
transfer and disposal of assets and the bullet point with regard to the DAPTC
working with the Shaping Dorset Council’s Programme Team (page 2 of the
minutes), it was noted that the DAPTC continued to work with the programme
team. The
Chairman noted that the last meeting had been a difficult meeting with people
getting to know each other and how people worked together. He asked members to bear with each other during
this early period for the committee. It
was proposed by J Sewell seconded C Brooks Decision The minutes of the meeting
held on 31 July 2018 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman
subject to the note about the DAPTC above. |
|
Public participation To receive any public
questions or statements on the business of the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny
Committee in accordance with the procedure rules as set out in the Shadow
Dorset Council Constitution. Minutes: There were no representations
from members of the public. |
|
Statement and advice to the Shadow Dorset Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee Stephen McNamara, a
Consultant with VWV Solicitors attended the committee and provided a statement
with regard to the discussion that had taken place at the meeting of the
committee on 31 July 2018, with regard to the process for the appointment of
the Interim statutory officers for the shadow period. The statement is attached at appendix A to
the minutes. |
|
Change to order of agenda items The Chairman reported that he
had agreed to change the order of the following two agenda items and that the
item on the process for the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive for the
Dorset Council would be taken as the next item at the meeting. |
|
Process for the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive for the Dorset Council To receive a presentation
from the HR Strategic Lead, Shaping Dorset Council. Minutes: Nicola
Houwayek (HR Strategic Lead, Shaping Dorset Council)
attended the meeting to provide a presentation with regard to the process for
the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive for the Dorset Council. The presentation included background to the
process, including the recruitment process timeline and detail of the
membership of the Senior Appointments Committee. In
response to questions raised with regard to the composition of the Senior
Appointments Committee it was noted that the members were acting in their role
as Shadow Councillors and that it was a politically balanced committee. There were 8 members appointed to the
committee which had been agreed by Full Council at its first meeting and it was
noted that the Chairman would have a casting vote in the case of an equality of
votes. A concern was noted that there
should be an odd number of members on the committee. Clarification
was sought in respect of the members of the Senior Appointments Committee and
which councils they were also members of.
A concern was expressed in respect of the public perception of
this. The Chairman confirmed the
councillors’ council membership as follows: Councillor
Anthony Alford – West Dorset District Council Councillor
Andy Canning – West Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council Councillor
Graham Carr-Jones – North Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council Councillor
Jeff Cant – Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Councillor
Spencer Flower – East Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council Councillor
Colin Huckle – Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Councillor
Rebecca Knox – Dorset County Council Councillor
Gary Suttle – Purbeck District Council In
response to a question, it was confirmed that the process for appointing tier 2
officers would be similar but with a lower level of stakeholder
engagement. Further information on the
tier 2 appointment process and timescale would be considered at the next
meeting of the Shadow Executive Committee.
It was agreed that a further presentation would be provided to the next
meeting of the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny Committee with regard to this
process. Members
considered the issues arising from the presentation and during discussion the
following points were raised: ·
The stakeholder involvement could include representatives of public
sector partners that the council worked with including, health partners,
housing associations, youth panel and the Local Enterprise Partnership as well
as businesses. The stakeholder feedback
to the panel would be important and properly considered ·
In respect of the psychometric testing, members were informed that an
occupational psychologist would attend to talk through the results with the
panel. It was noted that psychometric
testing was used widely for senior appointments ·
In response to a question, organisational costs in respect of
redundancies were noted which would be met by each council ·
It was noted that the final approach to the Chief Executive salary had
not been agreed and would depend on the successful candidate offered the
appointment. A salary range had been
agreed · Terms and conditions such as amount of annual leave were standard terms offered to Chief ... view the full minutes text for item 22. |
|
Programme Highlight Report including Internal Audit report produced by SWAP PDF 833 KB To consider the Highlight
Report – August 2018 which includes an Internal Audit report and follow up
report produced by SWAP to provide a high-level review of the LGR programme
governance. This report for the Shadow Executive Committee will be
considered at the meeting of the committee on 21 August 2018. Additional documents:
Minutes: In
response to a request by the committee at the last meeting, members received a
copy of the Highlight Report – August 2018, considered by the Shadow Executive
Committee at their meeting on 21 August 2018, which included a Programme
Governance Report and follow up report produced by South West Audit Partnership
(SWAP). Sally White, representing SWAP,
attended to provide an overview of the issues raised in the reports. Detail
of the ‘Headline Conclusions’ from the initial report was set out at page 21 of
the agenda. In response to these points
raised, the Programme Director had provided a detailed report on progress made
in the areas and this had led to SWAP producing a follow up report. It was noted that the follow up report set
out that the direction of travel was positive and identified key changes such
as the formation of new themed boards and changes to previous task and finish
groups. The report also recommended a
schedule of further detailed audit work. Members
considered the issues arising from the reports and during discussion the
following points were raised: ·
Members were aware of the amount of work to be undertaken and the short
time scale for undertaking the work required to meet the 1 April 2019 deadline ·
It was noted that support could be provided by the Centre for Public
Scrutiny and the Local Government Association ·
Reference was made to comments made in the report with regard to Dorset
County Council involvement and support in terms of their contribution to the
Shaping Dorset Council programme and consideration was given to inviting
representatives of Dorset County Council to the next meeting of the committee
to discuss these issues with them ·
The Programme Director provided information on the level of staffing
within the team which currently stood at 21 people with recruitment
ongoing. In addition nearly 200 people
within the councils were engaged with the plans including an oversight of areas
and work around service continuity. He
felt that significant progress had been made since the first SWAP report had
been produced. The SWAP report had been
requested by the Programme Board to ensure that processes and capacity for the
work was in place ·
Members recognised that improvements had been made but some issues had
been carried forward to the update report ·
Further audit work was to be undertaken to look at the governance of the
programme · An externally run Gateway review towards the end of September 2018 would involve SWAP and a transformation consultant and would set out to confirm whether the discovery phase had been satisfactorily completed in readiness for the main implementation phase. A second Gateway review would take place towards the end of January 2019 and would confirm all work carried out along with any contingency plan for any areas not covered. The ‘go live’ date for the new Council could not be moved but there could be consideration as to what would be in place by 1 April 2019 and what plans needed to ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
|
Shadow Executive Committee Forward Plan PDF 114 KB To review the Shadow
Executive Committee Forward Plan. Minutes: The Shadow Executive
Committee Forward Plan was considered alongside the item on the Shadow Overview
and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme. |
|
Shadow Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme To suggest items for
potential review by the committee during 2018/19. Minutes: The
Scrutiny Officer noted that following a meeting with the Chairman and
Vice-chairman of the committee and relevant officers, a draft work programme
would be brought to the next meeting of the committee. From September, the cycle of meetings would
see the committee meeting in advance of the Shadow Executive Committee. In future the Shadow Executive Committee
Forward Plan would be considered during the review of the committee’s work
programme. Members
considered issues for the work programme and during discussion the following
points were made: ·
There was a need for assurance with regard to the readiness of critical
services and any contingencies in place ·
The committee had a focus on ‘Safe and Legal’ from day 1 ·
A request was made to include a review of the future operation of
leisure facilities in Dorset, which was to be considered by the Shadow
Executive Committee on 17 September 2018 ·
The Chairman asked for there to be a presentation of services covered by
each council to be held in the autumn In
response to a comment, the dates of future meetings of the committee would be
recirculated to committee members. |
|
Urgent items To
consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification
and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local
Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the
minutes. Minutes: There were no urgent items. |
|
Appendix A Minutes: Statement
and advice to the Shadow Dorset Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman and members, Intro Thank you for giving me
the opportunity of addressing you this
morning on a matter of urgency. I intend to present to you the results of my investigation
into the allegations made by Cllr Trite to the OS Committee on 31/7/18. He said
that the selection procedure for the
interim statutory positions was uneven, unfair and inappropriate. He said that
the selection panel was "loaded in favour of certain candidates" These are extremely
serious allegation I will set out my reasoning shortly but at the
very start I want to make clear that my conclusion and professional advice Cllr
Trite is mistaken. This selection was neither uneven, unfair nor inappropriate.
Who I am I am Stephen Mcnamara, a consultant with VWV solicitors. I am a
solicitor of over 35 years' experience including 24 years in local authorities
and most recently 16 years as HoLs at BCC. I have
been a consultant with VWV for 6 years bar for one year in Myanmar where I was
a consultant on a rule of law programme Why an independent person was appointed When Jonathan Mair learnt of the allegations he was of the view that this
should be immediately investigated. Firstly because of the seriousness of the
allegations and also because a selection process is being undertaken for the
permanent positions. He was rightly of the view that this had to be
investigated by an independent person given that he has been appointed as the
interim Monitoring Officer. He wanted there to be no possibility that he would
be accused of bias The allegations I have not had the
opportunity of meeting with Cllr Trite (he is now on holiday until 31/8), but
on 15/8 he sent a detailed account of
what he said at the meeting on 31/7 to Mr Mair. This
explains his reasoning as to why he believes the selection process unfair and
includes the text of the statement he made to you on 31/7. I have reached a
definitive view on the merits on his allegations on the basis of his letter. I
would have liked to have met him, as a matter of courtesy, before giving my
advice but the urgency of the matter precludes this. This is his statement "Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak when I'm not a
member of this Committee. I feel quite uncomfortable saying this, but I would
feel more uncomfortable within myself if I didn't say it. My concern centres on
the process recently used for the selection of an Interim Head of Paid
Service and an Interim s.151 Officer. "A senior serving council officer in Dorset has described the composition of the selection panel to me as, in practice, loaded in favour of certain candidates, and I regret to say that I have to agree. If each of the six council leaders who comprised the selection panel had had a ... view the full minutes text for item 27. |