Agenda item

·          Report CEX288 to council on 28^th April 2005

·          Extract from council minutes – 28^th April 2005

·          Extract from resources dsp minutes – 24^th May 2005 

·          Extract from cabinet minutes – 6^th June 2005

·          Report CEX293 to council on 23^rd June 2005

·          Extract from council minutes – 23^rd June 2005

·          Extract from finance scrutiny working group report – July 2006

The panel scrutinised the decision made by council on 23^rd June 2005 in relation to member training by reviewing the relevant paperwork associated with the decision and questioning the strategic directors, training manager and the portfolio holder for organisational development.

The chairman explained that this scrutiny exercise had been referred to the panel from the scrutiny coordinating group. He considered that this decision, which essentially required cabinet and panel members to undergo compulsory training, was not legally binding. The panel scrutinised the wording of the decision and concluded that it did make member training for panel and cabinet members compulsory.

The panel members expressed their initial views of the decision. There was concern that it prevented the democratic right of members to represent their wards on the cabinet and panels and that it was the role of voters to decide the competency of whom they elected to the council. The alternative view was that a councillor might not be able to effectively represent their people if they were not adequately equipped with knowledge and skills.

The organisational development portfolio holder explained that in light of value for money and use of resources assessments, member and officer time was a valuable commodity and should therefore not be wasted by councillors who did not understand the fundamental elements of cabinet or scrutiny work. She later referred to statistics that some members present at the meeting had only attended one training module since their election. The training manager expressed a similar view in that there was a certain knowledge that councillors needed because recommendations and decisions should be made from an informed position. One of the strategic directors observed that legal advice had been sought for the initial recommendation to council. Barrister’s advice had been that provision could be made within the constitution and the code of conduct to require cabinet and panel members to attend certain training within twelve months of their appointment. This, however, was disputed by some members of the panel as it was a ‘grey area’. Another strategic director explained that in terms of members’ responsibility for good governance it may be advisable to require members to attend certain training. The director cautioned against undermining the best intentions of council’s decision to raise members’ standards.

Some panel members considered that council’s decision ignored the value of hands-on training, but a strategic director explained that the fact that the training would have to be undertaken within 12 months demonstrated an understanding of experience as well as training. A member, whose profession was an estate agent, explained that his profession was often criticised for not having compulsory standards. The council was open to similar criticism if it did not require certain training.

In concluding the scrutiny of this decision, it was apparent that there was no consensus on the issue. The majority of members supported the original decision of council, whilst a minority were of strong opinion that the decision was undemocratic and could not be supported legally.

The chairman advised that panel that he would not lead the next scrutiny exercise.

Conclusion:

(1)  To support the decision of the council taken on 23^rd June 2005 in relation to member training.

(2)  To note that this was a majority view of the panel, the minority view being recorded in the note above.