To seek the Strategic Monitoring Committee’s views on proposed revisions to the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules and Contract Procedure Rules made in the light of the Section 151 Officer report and Crookall Review last year.

The Committee’s views were sought on proposed revisions to the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules and Contract Procedure Rules and, as contained in a supplementary report, changes also to the Budget and Policy Framework and a proposed amendment to arrangements for receipt of questions to Council from Councillors.

Copies of the Procedure Rules and Contract Rules had been included with the agenda papers.   The supplementary report contained updated versions highlighting further amendments to the documents following their consideration by the Constitutional Review Working Group on 11 February. 

Mini guides to the asset management, financial management and procurement framework supporting the revised Procedure Rules were also circulated with the supplementary report.

The Director of Resources presented the report noting that drafts of the documents had previously been considered by the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee, the Standards Committee and the Constitutional Review Working Group.  She explained that the aim was to ensure that respective accountabilities were clear. She commented on some of the specific changes.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The process for approving the documents was questioned.  It was stated that the revised draft of section 12 of the Constitution presented to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee in December 2007, titled “scheme of delegation”, had at section 12.15 proposed to allocate responsibility for reviewing that scheme to that Committee.  That Committee had at the same time considered the Procedure Rules and Contract Rules and approved revisions.  That Committee had the detailed knowledge that would enable it to give proper consideration to the latest versions of these documents as now presented.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that the currently approved process for considering changes to the Constitution required consideration by the Constitutional Review Working Group, then by Strategic Monitoring Committee, then by Cabinet and then by Council.  The reports could still be presented to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee on 29February if required.

The Chief Executive reiterated that in reviewing the documents the aim had been to ensure clarity.  The documents before the Committee sat alongside the revised scheme of delegation, which remained draft and had not yet been approved by Council.

·         The differences between the documents approved by the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee and those before the Strategic Monitoring Committee were explored in detail quoting specific references in the documents.  In outline there were three principal areas of concern:  an apparent weakening of the role of the Director of Resources; seven instances of a reduction in the role and involvement of Cabinet Members, which taken collectively were considered of great significance; and what were described as several other notable changes and omissions, new errors and anomalies. 

The Chief Executive acknowledged in response that, on reflection, some clarity may have been lost in the drafting process and the documents may benefit from a further, final review.

The Committee recognised that the proposed changes to the documents had been made in response to the Crookall review of ICT financial and contractual governance arrangements and noted that there was an expectation on the part of the Audit Commission that these revisions would be approved by Council in March.  However, there was some question as to whether Council in March could consider the issue as that meeting was principally reserved for consideration of the budget.  Given the acknowledgment that further review of the documents to ensure the desired clarity had been achieved might be beneficial and the uncertainty of the process of approval of the revisions it was therefore proposed that the Committee defer consideration to a future meeting.  It was recognised that this might still entail an additional meeting of the Committee before Council in March.

RESOLVED:   That consideration of the proposed revisions to the Constitution be deferred for further consideration by the Committee given the need for the documents to be revisited to ensure clarity and for the process of approval of the revisions to be clarified