- \n\n\t\t
- Attendance Details \n\t\t\t
- Agenda Frontsheet\n\t\t\t
![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\")
PDF 140 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n\t\t\t\t - Agenda reports pack\n PDF 868 KB \n\n\t\t\t\t
- Printed minutes\n PDF 30 KB \n\t\t \n\n
Venue: The Guildhall
\n\t\tContact: Simon Copley \n\t\tDemocracy Officer\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tPART A - MATTERS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tDeclarations of Interest
\nAt\nthis point in the meeting, Members will be invited to declare any\npersonal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on\nthe agenda.
\nMinutes:
\nMembers were invited to declare at this point\nin the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might\nhave in the business on the agenda.
\n\n
Councillor Fraser declared a personal\nnon-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 (Update on the Work of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee) as he was one of the Council’s\nrepresentatives on the Hospital Foundation Trust and a member of\nthe retired sections of Unison and Unite.
\n\n
Councillor Waudby declared a personal\nnon-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 (Update on the Work of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee) as her daughter was employed by York\nLocal Involvement Network (LINk).
\nMinutes PDF 36 KB
\nTo approve and sign the\nMinutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on\n15 September 2008 and the final meeting of the Barbican Ad Hoc\nScrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2008.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nIn relation to minute 15 (Final Report of the\nBarbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee – Sale of the Barbican) of\nthe meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on 15\nSeptember 2008, Members asked officers to check that the\nCommittee’s comments were being reported to the Executive for\nconsideration with this item.
\n\n
RESOLVED: \nThat the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management\nCommittee held on 15 September 2008 and the minutes of the Barbican\nAd Hoc Scrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2008 be signed as a\ncorrect record.
\nPublic Participation
\n\nAt this point\nin the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish\nto speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the\nCommittee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or\nrequires further information is requested to contact the Democracy\nOfficer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda.\nThe deadline for registering is Friday 14 November 2008 at 5\npm.
\nMinutes:
\nIt was reported that there had been no\nregistrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s\nPublic Participation Scheme.
\nUpdate on the Work of the Health Scrutiny Committee PDF 35 KB
\n\nThis report presents a summary of the work\nundertaken by the Health Scrutiny Committee since April 2008.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nMembers received a report which presented a\nsummary of the work undertaken by the Health Scrutiny Committee\nsince April 2008.
\n\n
The topics that the Committee had looked at\nincluded Local Involvement Networks (LINks), dental provision and\nthe ‘Dementia Review’.
\n\n
The Chair of the\nCommittee requested that political groups considered the benefits\nof continuity of membership for the Health Scrutiny Committee when\nputting forward nominations for places in the future, in order to\nallow Members to build on their training to date and develop a good\nknowledge of the complex structures and processes in the health\nservice.
\n\n
In relation to the\nthree year government funding for the Council to commission a host\norganisation to enable, support and facilitate the LINk, Members\nqueried whether the funding would continue in the longer\nterm.
\n\n
Members thanked the\nChair of the Health Scrutiny Committee for the report.
\n\n
RESOLVED:\n \nThat the report be noted.
\n\n
REASON: \nTo inform Scrutiny Management Committee of the work and progress of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee.
\nProtocol on Joint Scrutiny Reviews PDF 33 KB
\nThis report asks Members to consider adopting\na protocol to enable joint scrutiny reviews to be undertaken in\nYork should the need arise.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nMembers received a report which asked them to\nconsider adopting a protocol to enable joint scrutiny reviews to be\nundertaken in York should the need arise.
\n\n
A draft protocol was attached as Annex A of\nthe report.
\n\n
RESOLVED: \nThat the protocol to allow joint scrutiny\nwork to be carried out be adopted, subject to minor alterations\nbeing brought back to a subsequent meeting in relation to the\nfollowing:1
\n\n
\na) \nHow proportionality would be achieved for\nthe City of York Council membership;
\n\n
\n \nb) How the arrangements would apply if more than two authorities\nwere involved.
\n\n
REASON: \nTo ensure Members can fully take part in scrutiny work that may\nimpact on more than one geographical area.
\nPART B - MATTERS REFERRED TO COUNCIL
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tReview of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Function PDF 84 KB
\n\nThis report sets out the findings to date of a project, undertaken\nby officers within the Democratic Services Team, to review the\nexisting arrangements at City of York Council for fulfilling the\nlegislative requirements for facilitating Overview and Scrutiny\nwithin the council. It\nconsiders the existing arrangements at York in the light of recent\nresearch and experience from other authorities, seeks to highlight\nsome key areas of variation and goes on to present potential\nalternatives to the current scrutiny structure within the council.\n It asks Scrutiny\nManagement Committee to consider a revised structure, in order to\nsimplify the existing arrangements by bringing them more in to line\nwith other authorities and to make more effective use of the\nlimited resources available.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nMembers\nreceived a report which set out the findings to date of a project,\nundertaken by officers within the Democratic Services Team, to\nreview the existing arrangements at City of York Council for\nfulfilling the legislative requirements for facilitating Overview\nand Scrutiny within the council. It considered the existing\narrangements at York in the light of recent research and experience\nfrom other authorities, sought to highlight some key areas of\nvariation and went on to present potential alternatives to the\ncurrent scrutiny structure within the council. It asked Scrutiny Management\nCommittee to consider a revised structure, in order to simplify the\nexisting arrangements by bringing them more in to line with other\nauthorities and to make more effective use of the limited resources\navailable.
\n\n
The report\npresented the following options for consideration:
\n\n· Option A\n– To remove the existing Scrutiny Committees from the\nstructure and give authority to each of the Executive Member\nAdvisory Panels (EMAPs) to carry out all of the scrutiny function\nin relation to the services under their individual portfolio\nareas;
\n\n· Option B\n– To replace the existing Scrutiny Committees with an\nincreased number of alternative Scrutiny Committees, and remove\nEMAPs from the decision making structure;
\n\n· Option C\n– To replace the\nexisting Scrutiny Committees with an increased number of\nalternative Scrutiny Committees, and retain EMAPs, for the\nrecording of Executive Member decisions, but clearly define their\nrole to ensure they do not undermine the scrutiny\nfunction;
\n\n· Option D\n– To make no change\nto the Scrutiny Committees and decision making structure, but\nclearly define the role of EMAPs to ensure they do not undermine\nthe scrutiny function and allow for policy development work\n(currently considered by EMAPs in part) to be considered by\nScrutiny Management Committee instead, in line with Section 21\nof the Local\nGovernment Act 2000,\nwith Executive Member decisions continuing to be recorded at\nEMAPs.
\nOptions A-C\nwould also involve the removal of the Strategic Policy Panel from\nthe structure. If none\nof the options were adopted, some changes would still be needed to\nthe current structure to meet the requirements of existing or\nforthcoming legislation.
\n\n
Some Members\nsupported Option B and expressed the view that it provided clarity\nin the roles of the different bodies and individuals in the\ndecision making structure, and a properly resourced scrutiny\nfunction to hold the Executive to account. Other Members supported a version\nof Option C, modified to strengthen the status and increase the\nresourcing of scrutiny, on the grounds that EMAPs had an important\ndiscursive role and provided an opportunity for backbench and\nminority group members to be informed of and comment on items for\ndecision.
\n\n
\nRECOMMENDED: That Option B be adopted and\na Committee of Council be formed to consider the detailed\nimplementation of this model and the constitutional changes\nrequired.1
\n\n
\nREASON: \n \nTo improve the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function.
\n\n
[Note: Councillors Aspden, R Watson and Waudby\nrequested that their votes against the recommendation to Council\nabove be recorded.]
\n PDF 140 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t PDF 868 KB PDF 30 KB \n\t\t Venue: The Guildhall
\n\t\tContact: Simon Copley \n\t\tDemocracy Officer\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t PART A - MATTERS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS \n\t\t | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declarations of Interest \n\n \nAt\nthis point in the meeting, Members will be invited to declare any\npersonal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on\nthe agenda. \nMinutes: \n\n \nMembers were invited to declare at this point\nin the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might\nhave in the business on the agenda. \n\n Councillor Fraser declared a personal\nnon-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 (Update on the Work of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee) as he was one of the Council’s\nrepresentatives on the Hospital Foundation Trust and a member of\nthe retired sections of Unison and Unite. \n\n Councillor Waudby declared a personal\nnon-prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 (Update on the Work of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee) as her daughter was employed by York\nLocal Involvement Network (LINk). \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Minutes \n \nTo approve and sign the\nMinutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on\n15 September 2008 and the final meeting of the Barbican Ad Hoc\nScrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2008. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \nIn relation to minute 15 (Final Report of the\nBarbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee – Sale of the Barbican) of\nthe meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on 15\nSeptember 2008, Members asked officers to check that the\nCommittee’s comments were being reported to the Executive for\nconsideration with this item. \n\n RESOLVED: \nThat the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management\nCommittee held on 15 September 2008 and the minutes of the Barbican\nAd Hoc Scrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2008 be signed as a\ncorrect record. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Public Participation \n\n \n\nAt this point\nin the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish\nto speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the\nCommittee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or\nrequires further information is requested to contact the Democracy\nOfficer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda.\nThe deadline for registering is Friday 14 November 2008 at 5\npm. \nMinutes: \n\n \nIt was reported that there had been no\nregistrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s\nPublic Participation Scheme. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Update on the Work of the Health Scrutiny Committee
\n \nThis report presents a summary of the work\nundertaken by the Health Scrutiny Committee since April 2008. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \nMembers received a report which presented a\nsummary of the work undertaken by the Health Scrutiny Committee\nsince April 2008. \n\n The topics that the Committee had looked at\nincluded Local Involvement Networks (LINks), dental provision and\nthe ‘Dementia Review’. \n\n The Chair of the\nCommittee requested that political groups considered the benefits\nof continuity of membership for the Health Scrutiny Committee when\nputting forward nominations for places in the future, in order to\nallow Members to build on their training to date and develop a good\nknowledge of the complex structures and processes in the health\nservice. \n\n In relation to the\nthree year government funding for the Council to commission a host\norganisation to enable, support and facilitate the LINk, Members\nqueried whether the funding would continue in the longer\nterm. \n\n Members thanked the\nChair of the Health Scrutiny Committee for the report. \n\n RESOLVED:\n \nThat the report be noted. \n\n REASON: \nTo inform Scrutiny Management Committee of the work and progress of\nthe Health Scrutiny Committee. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Protocol on Joint Scrutiny Reviews \n \nThis report asks Members to consider adopting\na protocol to enable joint scrutiny reviews to be undertaken in\nYork should the need arise. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \nMembers received a report which asked them to\nconsider adopting a protocol to enable joint scrutiny reviews to be\nundertaken in York should the need arise. \n\n A draft protocol was attached as Annex A of\nthe report. \n\n RESOLVED: \nThat the protocol to allow joint scrutiny\nwork to be carried out be adopted, subject to minor alterations\nbeing brought back to a subsequent meeting in relation to the\nfollowing:1 \n\n \na) \nHow proportionality would be achieved for\nthe City of York Council membership; \n\n \n \nb) How the arrangements would apply if more than two authorities\nwere involved. \n\n REASON: \nTo ensure Members can fully take part in scrutiny work that may\nimpact on more than one geographical area. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t PART B - MATTERS REFERRED TO COUNCIL \n\t\t | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Review of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Function \n \n\nThis report sets out the findings to date of a project, undertaken\nby officers within the Democratic Services Team, to review the\nexisting arrangements at City of York Council for fulfilling the\nlegislative requirements for facilitating Overview and Scrutiny\nwithin the council. It\nconsiders the existing arrangements at York in the light of recent\nresearch and experience from other authorities, seeks to highlight\nsome key areas of variation and goes on to present potential\nalternatives to the current scrutiny structure within the council.\n It asks Scrutiny\nManagement Committee to consider a revised structure, in order to\nsimplify the existing arrangements by bringing them more in to line\nwith other authorities and to make more effective use of the\nlimited resources available. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \nMembers\nreceived a report which set out the findings to date of a project,\nundertaken by officers within the Democratic Services Team, to\nreview the existing arrangements at City of York Council for\nfulfilling the legislative requirements for facilitating Overview\nand Scrutiny within the council. It considered the existing\narrangements at York in the light of recent research and experience\nfrom other authorities, sought to highlight some key areas of\nvariation and went on to present potential alternatives to the\ncurrent scrutiny structure within the council. It asked Scrutiny Management\nCommittee to consider a revised structure, in order to simplify the\nexisting arrangements by bringing them more in to line with other\nauthorities and to make more effective use of the limited resources\navailable. \n\n The report\npresented the following options for consideration: \n\n· Option A\n– To remove the existing Scrutiny Committees from the\nstructure and give authority to each of the Executive Member\nAdvisory Panels (EMAPs) to carry out all of the scrutiny function\nin relation to the services under their individual portfolio\nareas; \n\n· Option B\n– To replace the existing Scrutiny Committees with an\nincreased number of alternative Scrutiny Committees, and remove\nEMAPs from the decision making structure; \n\n· Option C\n– To replace the\nexisting Scrutiny Committees with an increased number of\nalternative Scrutiny Committees, and retain EMAPs, for the\nrecording of Executive Member decisions, but clearly define their\nrole to ensure they do not undermine the scrutiny\nfunction; \n\n· Option D\n– To make no change\nto the Scrutiny Committees and decision making structure, but\nclearly define the role of EMAPs to ensure they do not undermine\nthe scrutiny function and allow for policy development work\n(currently considered by EMAPs in part) to be considered by\nScrutiny Management Committee instead, in line with Section 21\nof the Local\nGovernment Act 2000,\nwith Executive Member decisions continuing to be recorded at\nEMAPs. \nOptions A-C\nwould also involve the removal of the Strategic Policy Panel from\nthe structure. If none\nof the options were adopted, some changes would still be needed to\nthe current structure to meet the requirements of existing or\nforthcoming legislation. \n\n Some Members\nsupported Option B and expressed the view that it provided clarity\nin the roles of the different bodies and individuals in the\ndecision making structure, and a properly resourced scrutiny\nfunction to hold the Executive to account. Other Members supported a version\nof Option C, modified to strengthen the status and increase the\nresourcing of scrutiny, on the grounds that EMAPs had an important\ndiscursive role and provided an opportunity for backbench and\nminority group members to be informed of and comment on items for\ndecision. \n\n \nRECOMMENDED: That Option B be adopted and\na Committee of Council be formed to consider the detailed\nimplementation of this model and the constitutional changes\nrequired.1 \n\n \nREASON: \n \nTo improve the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function. \n\n [Note: Councillors Aspden, R Watson and Waudby\nrequested that their votes against the recommendation to Council\nabove be recorded.] \n | \n\t\t