Agenda item

Councillor Stonebridge attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman in order to explain the process of call-in and consideration of matters by the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee, and, in particular, the reasons for a decision taken by PSOC at Minute No. 120 held on 25^th February, 2005.

The minute referred to a request from this scrutiny panel to consider a report prior to it being determined by the Cabinet Member.

In terms of the current political arrangements within the Local Authority, it was explained that less attention has been given to overview of scrutiny, certainly from a legislative point of view, than perhaps the work of the executive decisions.  This was starting to improve.

Councillor Stonebridge explained that clearly key decisions are reported through the Forward Plan, a rolling document which is updated on a quarterly basis.  Key Decisions are for items costing over £100,000 up to £500,000 and affecting 2 or more wards.

Increasingly the grey area was around what constitutes a decision if it is not a key decision, some of which are around policy, community impartiality, scale and in cases where Cabinet Members make decisions.

Some Local Authorities dealt with this by allowing PSOC members to access reports and minutes from the time a meeting is called.  This enabled them to be aware of a series of small scale proposals prior to decisions being made.  In Rotherham, only Chairs and Vice Chairs of Scrutiny Panels can attend Cabinet Member meetings. 

Rotherham, in common with all local authorities, has a call-in procedure that is available to all members. 

In addition the Chair of PSOC is able to look at items likely to be contentious at the point of publication and discuss them with Cabinet Members.

The Cabinet Member outlined the delegated powers process and her role as Cabinet Member.  The decision taken on block bookings at the Cabinet Member meeting in question was taken in line with Council policy and a vote within this scrutiny panel did not constitute a change of policy.  The issue had originally arisen from one query from a constituent on a gymnastics activity which had been advertised incorrectly.

The meeting debated issues regarding the block booking system.

The following views were expressed:-

-                       How could members effect changes if scrutiny process could not influence the democratic system?

-                       some constituents had been informed they could pay weekly and some groups could not afford to block book

-                       no mention had been made at the executive meeting of the views of this Scrutiny Panel

-                       role of non-voting co-optees who were not eligible to take part in call-in

-                       need for six members to call-in a decision

-                       the need to “toughen up” relationship between scrutiny and executive process – that has yet to be debated

-                       time restrictions on executive decisions did not make the process easy

-                       scrutiny process could review policy and recommend changes – did a reaffirmation of policy constitute a decision?

-                       A request by scrutiny to view a report prior to executive decisions should be adhered to

-                       Need for co-optees to be aware of call-in rights – although call-in was not felt to be appropriate in this instance

-                       Overview and scrutiny has a clear role in policy review and development – a role which has not yet been properly developed in Rotherham

-                       Gift of an individual to lead on call in and explain the situation to members of other panels prior to call-in

-                       Call-in process not used excessively – due in part to good communication with executive members

-                       Ability for any scrutiny member to request a scrutiny review on any issue

-                       Why is there a need to reaffirm existing policy?

Delia Watts, Scrutiny Adviser, confirmed that the statutory co-optees (three parent governors and two Diocesan representatives) on this Scrutiny Panel could become involved in the call-in process, the arrangement being unique to this scrutiny panel in relation to education matters.

The meeting debated the best way forward on this matter in view of the new democratic arrangements after this year’s Annual Council.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the issue of an executive body not taking cognisance of the scrutiny role, be raised at a further meeting of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee.

(2)               That co-optees serving on this scrutiny panel with voting rights be reminded of the call -in rules on any executive issue relating to an education matter.

(3)  That, in line with the new scrutiny arrangements, the block booking aspect of the charging policy be passed on to the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel for consideration of a future scrutiny review.