The copy of the presentation for this item is to follow in a Supplementary Papers Pack.
Minutes:
The Representative from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) delivered a presentation on governance system options available to local authorities and in doing so highlighted that no governance system option was inherently better or worse than others. Instead, the right governance option for a given authority depended on the local area, local circumstances and culture that existed within the authority. Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of each governance system depended on the local circumstances and there was no evidence that changing a governance system would lead to actual changes in terms of ensuring good governance.
The main features of governance system models that were available to local authorities in England were introduced as follows:
· Leader and cabinet – This was the model currently operated at Bromsgrove District Council. In this model the council appointed a leader who in turn would appoint his/her cabinet. The cabinet was responsible for making decisions within the policy framework (including ‘key decisions’). With this model, there was a requirement for scheme of delegation to officers, which defined decision-making powers delegated to officers. Under this model, there needed to be at least one overview and scrutiny committee to act as a check and balance to cabinet.
· Directly elected mayor – Almost identical to leader and cabinet, the only difference being that the directly elected mayor appointed his/her cabinet, which was then also the body responsible for decision-making.
· Committee system – In this model, councillors made decisions through politically balanced committees with no option for decisions to be taken by individual councillors. Scheme of delegation to officers would still need to be in place to define the decision-making powers given to officers. There was no requirement for an overview and scrutiny committee under this option but some authorities operating the committee system still chose to retain scrutiny arrangements through standalone scrutiny committee. Generally, committee systems could be seen as more collaborative because more members would be directly involved in committees when decisions were made, however, under the model it would take longer to make decisions as greater degree of work planning and programming was involved.
· Hybrid model – This involved modifying one of the above governance models to suit the specific circumstances of a given authority. For example, the leader and cabinet model might be adapted so that scrutiny committees would be carrying out detailed debate on every single cabinet decision. Other adaptations might to the models might be made.
· Writing to the Secretary of State to request a different governance model of choice – This was an option provided for in legislation but had not been used to date.
Regarding the hybrid models, it was highlighted that councils might decide to modify an existing model to their specific needs. For instance, the full committee system might be modified into a hybrid model so that the overview and scrutiny arrangement would be retained, or the leader and cabinet might be modified to include features of a committee system.
The CfGS Representative explained that all the models could be placed on a spectrum in terms of councillor representation, from the mayoral system where decisions were concentrated in the hands of a single individual to the full committee system where politically balanced committees were responsible for making decisions.
The legal process of implementing changes to the governance arrangements of a local authority was discussed. The ability for local authorities to change their governance arrangements had been available since 2012 and there were two ways through which local authorities could make the change.
The most common way that councils could make the change to their governance system arrangements was through a resolution at a full Council meeting. A majority of councillors voting in favour of the resolution would be required in order for governance model to be changed and, once agreed, the actual change to the governance system model would only take effect from the next annual general meeting (at the start of a new municipal year). If the decision to change the governance system had been taken, the arrangements could not then be changed again for a five-year period.
The second way to change the local authority’s governance system was through holding a referendum, either triggered by councillors themselves or if at least 5 per cent of the local government electors in the local authority area petition the local council to do so. If the referendum was to result in a change to the governance system, the arrangements could not be changed again for a period of ten years. In addition, any subsequent change after the ten-year period could only come as a result of another referendum.
It was stressed that any change to governance arrangements would necessitate redrafting of the Council’s Constitution as well as modifications to a range of services and processes such as procurement. It was predicted, based on the experience of the work that Centre for Governance and Scrutiny undertook with other councils, that the process of finding and testing an appropriate governance model for the Council would take at least six months.
Following the presentation, Members asked a number of questions of the Representative from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny and Officers present, and the following answers were provided:
· Implications of changing governance system at one council in a shared service arrangement environment – It was noted that if two councils under shared service arrangements had different governance systems, this would create additional difficulties for Officers as they would need to streamline their processes to service both authorities. It was noted that consequently, given current resources within the Council, it was highly likely that additional officers would need to be recruited if a new governance system was adopted.
· Possibility of reverting back to the previous governance system – This was possible, as highlighted in the pre-amble above. However, a period of five years would need to elapse before a change back could be made, if the original decision was made through a full council resolution, and a period of ten years would need to pass if the original change was decided through a referendum. In the second case, any decision to revert back to previous governance arrangements could only be made via a referendum.
· Making adjustments within an existing governance system option – It was noted that legislative requirements regarding governance system changes would not be relevant if the authority opted to retain a governance model but adapted some processes and constitutional arrangements within an existing system. Therefore, the authority would not need to wait for the five year (or ten year in case of referendum option) period to elapse before making a different set of adaptations. This applied as long as no change was made to the governance system option itself.
· It was commented that speaking to other local authorities which had undergone changes to their governance system would be helpful when the Governance Systems Review Task Group was undertaking the review into this. It was also highlighted that because of the nature of this matter it was imperative that all Members were involved throughout the review process.
· Case studies of different hybrid governance arrangements would be provided to Members.
RESOLVED that the presentation on Governance System options for the Council be noted.