[Ed Hammond]

My understanding is that the old structure would usually continue until the new structure is agreed.

Is it not the case that you'd have to have this approach approved at Full Council anyway? Different councils have different rules about committee procedure and the set-up of new bodies, but most require that the establishment of top-level committees (ie anything that isn't a sub-committee) needs to be approved by full council.

I'm not sure that this situation has come up anywhere else in my limited experience but I'm sure that I will be proved wrong.

[Josh Mynott]

When we've changed, we've just plodded on with the old structures up to the point when full council officially decide somethign new. This was even the case several years ago when the committees were patently no longer relevant, but political arguments delayed agreement on alternatives.

We simply made the best of it for a little while. We even simply cancelled the odd meeting where we couldn't wedge work in to into a pointless committee's redundant terms of reference. Would it be too much of a problem to keep the old structure in name, but simply cancel any meetings due between now and the council meeting? Surely that's only going to be a month or so. Only a problem if there's a call in or similar, but on second thoughts perhaps where things have got "political", that's exactly what would happen!

[Peter Marrington]

Hi, On what you have said I would agree with Ed and others that you stick with what you have until such time a Full Council agree on different arrangements. I can't see the advantage of an interim solution, which would also need to be agreed by Full Council.

[Fiona Bottrill]

hi,

The difficulty is that at the moment we only have 1 formal Scrutiny committee - Scrutiny Leadership Board made up of the 6 Lead scrutiny Members (this is politically balanced) the rest of the scrutiny work is carried out through standing sub groups or review groups (these are not politically balanced) If at Annual Council all the Lead Scrutiny Members who receive SRAs are appointed from the controlling group they could no longer form this formal committee . (I cannot see that all Members of the Council would unanimously agree to waive political balance) this whole debate has become very political - the controlling group recently got a 50% majority and it was said at a meeting last week that the democratic majority will determine which Members be appointed as Lead Scrutiny Members. With the strenght of feeling at the moment I don't think that the controlling group would allow the current Members of the Scrutiny Leadership Board to continue as this is chaired by an opposition Member (who the casting vote) Under the constitution it is this Board that make recommendations to the Council's Constitution Committee on the Scrutiny arrangements.

I may be over complicating things by looking at interim arrangements - but I can see that we could potentially end up on a situation where we do not have a formal scrutiny committee.

Fiona

[Matthew Garrard]

Fiona - Is that not where the Chief Exec or Monitoring Officer steps in and advises full council that they are required under LGA2000 to have an OSC and that it must be politically balanced - unless all agree to waive that (which it sounds like is not going to happen). Would they really go against such advice publicly delivered?

[Jessica Hall]

Fiona, our Full Council agreed on Tuesday to set up an interim scrutiny committee which will operate between 11 May (date of AGM) and the 22 June (the next full Council meeting after the AGM). This will respond to urgent scrutiny business only.

This has happened following a fundamental review by the current O & S Management Committee which further resulted in full Council agreeing to a reduction from the current 4 committee structure to a 2 committee structure on Tuesday. However the terms of reference and names of the new committees are yet to be finalised but Members felt strongly that the opportunity to change had to be grabbed now. So rather than go on into the new municipal year with the old arrangements still in place they agreed to an interim arrangement for the short period while the terms of reference are sorted and agreed on 22 June.

The interim committee will be made up of the Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the 2 new committees, who will be appointed at AGM with the others being appointed on 22 June when the new arrangements can be put in place.

At the same time though, there was cross party support for this.

[Fiona Bottrill]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments on this it has been helpful to get a wider perspective - however Council Constitution Committee met last week and agreed to recommend to Full Council that an interim committee is established at Annual Council.

Fiona