Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Committee held on 28 May 2015 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2015 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

A decision on this report was deferred until the next meeting.

The report before the Committee stated that the IWMS Contract Liaison Committee, set up by the east London Waste Authority, no longer met and that there was no longer a need to appoint representatives to it.

Likewise, the Second Chance Theatre for the People that had been based at Fairkytes Arts Centre was also no longer active and that it had not been possible to make contact with the co-ordinator to discuss its current position or its future.  Members were informed that if there were to be a change in circumstances, they would be advised.

Members were reminded that there had been no appointment to the Governor Panel at its last meeting but that Councillor Julie Wilkes had now been nominated to fill that position.  The Committee was asked to approve that nomination or choose another.

The Committee:

1.            Noted the position In respect of the IWMS Committee.

2.            Noted the position in respect of the Second Chance Theatre for the People.

3.            Appointed Councillor Julie Wilkesto the current vacancy on the Governor Panel

Members were reminded that upon the establishment of the oneSource Joint Committee and the implementation of joint services, both Councils had delegated similar functions to the Joint Committee.  These separate delegations had been reviewed and brought together into a single scheme of delegation suitable for approval by both Councils.  The joint scheme of delegation would make it easier for both Councils - and for the Joint Committee - to appreciate the precise extent of what had been delegated and what had been retained.

The Committee Recommended to Cabinet and Council that the functions listed in Appendix 3 to the report be delegated to the oneSource Joint Committee

The Committee was reminded In light of recent events the Committee was invited to consider proposed amendments to the procedure rules for the scope of motions submitted for consideration at meetings of Full Council. 

In drafting the proposed revised wording, account had been taken of the existing provision within the Council’s Constitution and that of all other London Boroughs (except for Enfield and the City which had not been available at time of reporting).

The Committee recommended to Council:

1.  That Council Procedure Rule 11.4 of the Council’s Constitution be revised to read as follows:

11.4 Scope

(a) Motions must be relevant to a matter in which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the borough.

(b) The Monitoring Officer may reject a Motion if it:

i. is not about a matter for which the local authority has a responsibility or which affects the borough;

ii. is defamatory, derogatory, vexatious, scurrilous, frivolous or offensive;

iii. is substantially the same as a motion which has been put at a meeting of Full Council in the past six months;

iv. requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information;

v. seeks to pursue or further a complaint against a Councillor or an Officer of the Council, where other channels already exist for the determination of complaints.

c). Where it would assist the proper or efficient conduct of the Council’s business, the Mayor may direct that two or more motions relating to the same matter shall be debated together, with a separate vote on each one at the conclusion of the debate.

(d) The Monitoring Officer shall be entitled to clarify the wording of motions and amendments with the proposer before committing the motion or amendment to the agenda and shall be entitled to amend the wording of a motion or amendment in consultation with the proposer prior to the meeting to clarify, correct, or make sense of the particular wording. The Monitoring Officer shall consult the Mayor if agreement on such clarification cannot be reached and the Mayor may direct that the motion or amendment shall not be included in the summons.

2.   That the Council’s Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary change to the Council’s Constitution, should the proposed changes be agreed by Council.

The Committee was informed that the Council was now obliged to appoint a Director of Public Health.  This was a Chief Officer appointment, but because it was a joint appointment with the health service providers, was currently not provided for in the Council’s Constitution.

In order that the Constitution should accurately reflect the current legal position, the amendment before the Committee was to establish an Advisory Appointments Committee which would incorporate representatives of the various health providers and Government monitors.

The Committee noted the amendment.