Presentation attached for noting and discussion.

The Council’s Governance Officer explained that a key decision was one that involved expenditure in excess of £500k or had a significant impact on two or more wards. Key decisions were normally open for one week during which a requisition could be submitted.

The urgency provision did allow under the Constitution for the waiving of a call-in for a decision where this was necessary. It was essential for the reason why a call-in needed to be waived to be clearly demonstrated to the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

It was emphasised that urgency should not be used as an excuse for lateness. Officers were aware of the increased rate of use of the urgency provisions and officers had been reminded to try and avoid this.

It was felt by Members that Group Leaders should be involved in deciding if a matter was urgent. The Governance Officer responded that the Constitution stated that this should be an officer decision but that this could be passed to the Monitoring Officer or Constitution Working Party. The Board recommended that Group Leaders should be given an opportunity to give a view on whether a decision was urgent.

There had been 11 exemptions from call-in granted so far this municipal year. Many of these were related to the need to claim grant funding which was often released at late notice. There had not been any refusals to grant exemption from call-in since to do so would often mean risking a loss of funding or not having continuity of service. Members agreed that it was important that assessments were made so that the instances of call-in exemptions were reduced. This tied in with the amendment recently agreed at full Council.

Members also felt that more details should be of the business case for each exemption request. The Chairman confirmed that he was currently in discussions with the Council Leader and Chief Executive about these issues. A Member also asked if the Board could meet more quickly to deal with call-ins sooner. It was noted however that the Council was legally required to give five clear working days notice of any formal meeting. It was also suggested that some Members of the Board could feed into the Constitution Working Party. The Statutory Scrutiny Officer would seek to locate any benchmarking or guidance on numbers of call-in exemptions that may be held by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.

Officers often pushed back on Government deadlines for applications for funding etc but it was also important that the Council did not miss out on any available funding. It was also suggested that the report on exemptions from call-in could be sent to the Board prior to its being considered at Council.

The Board made the following recommendations:

1.    Group Leaders to be given the opportunity to give a view on whether a decision is urgent/call-in should be waived (whilst noting that, under the Constitution, the final decision sits solely with the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board).

2.    In line with the amendment agreed at Council on 22 November, that robust planning procedures are put in place to reduce the list of call-in exemptions.

3.    Some members of the Overview and Scrutiny Board to feed into the Constitution Working Party.

4.    Whilst mindful of legal requirements around giving the required notice of meetings, the Board to meet as quickly as possible to consider call-ins.

5.    The availability of benchmarking and guidance on exemptions from call-in to be investigated with the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.

6.    The exemptions from call-in report to be sent to all Members prior to its being included in the papers for Full Council. Details also to be provided to Members of the reasons for exemption including the business case used to decide on the exemption.