Agenda item

In the absence of members of the working group, the scrutiny support officer presented the recommendations of the democratic review working group. The chairman explained that it was not his intention to finalise the panel’s view of each recommendation at this meeting, as he considered that some needed further clarification from the group. Each was discussed in turn by the panel:

 

Recommendation 1: An example of the proposed publication was distributed. The panel discussed how this would be distributed.

 

Conclusion:

 

To support this recommendation in principle but would consider the circulated document and evaluate for the next meeting of the panel.

 

Recommendation 2: The scrutiny support officer explained that the first online jury had been a pilot and considered the council’s priorities. The working group was suggesting that this should be an annual process. The initial funding from the Department of Constitutional Affairs was provided until March 2007. The portfolio holder explained that the council may have a good case to apply for further funding if the project was successful in engaging with the public. 

 

Conclusion:

 

To support this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 3: The working group had been comprised of a number of members of the public and this had worked successfully. The working group considered that this should be encouraged for other working groups. The scrutiny officer explained that the constitution already allowed for this. The panel therefore supported this recommendation but emphasised that were members of the public to be invited to join working groups, the council must be able to show that it will seriously consider their recommendations.

 

Conclusion:

 

To support this recommendation and encourage DSP Chairmen to welcome members of the public onto scrutiny working groups.

 

Recommendation 4: Members of the panel were concerned about the financial implications of this recommendation. They considered the potential implications of exclusion and the current policy for councillors. They accepted the principle of the recommendation but made a slight amendment as noted below. 

 

Conclusion:

 

To support the principle of this recommendation but amend the last sentence to read: “This would cover agreed expenses”. 

 

 

Recommendation 5: The scrutiny support officer explained that a lot of further work could be done by the council on local democracy week. It was intended that the next online citizens jury, which was intended to be held in a local school, would coincide with local democracy week.  The portfolio holder added that he had done a lot of work on identifying what people expected from their councillors; this was to be respectable citizens in the community. He was therefore not a supported of the “I am a councillor get me out of here” element of local democracy week. The panel agreed with the principle of the recommendation and the thoughts of the portfolio holder that citizens engagement projects should be light hearted with not a silly extreme.

 

Conclusion:

 

To support the recommendation, subject to the removal of “I am a Councillor Get Me Out of Here and”

 

Recommendation 6: The panel considered that this recommendation provided a good method of engagement.

 

Conclusion:

 

To support this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 7: The panel was concerned about the potential cost implications with this recommendation, although it was noted that the first part had no cost implications. The training manager, who had organised previous youth events, emphasises that this must not be just a Grantham approach. All ages and all areas in the district should be engaged.  The success of the Bourne Youth Council and their input into the Bourne Local Forum was noted, and this was encouraging.

 

The strategic director explained that the Lincolnshire Youth Service had met with her to discuss support for setting up a youth council in Grantham. This was welcomed by the panel. Although the support requested was minimal, the training manager explained that some projects could be very resource intensive but they had been very beneficial and well-participated.

 

Conclusion:

 

(1)  To support the recommendation from the working group but amended to read: “Local youth councils should be informed and encouraged to join the local forums and the six-monthly youth area forums are held, jointly facilitated by the council and the youth service”.

(2)  To monitor progress with the establishment of a youth council in Grantham

(3)  To receive feedback from Councillor Conboy at a future meeting on the church organisation youth drop-in centre in Stamford.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation 8: The chairman stipulated that the constitution did not provide for this recommendation and that when co-option to the council had been attempted in the past, it had been unsuccessful.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support the recommendation.

 

Recommendation 9: The issues raised by the panel with this recommendation were: 1) as this involved working with children, what were the CRB requirements and who was going to pay for this; 2) who was going to pay for the training; 3) are teaching staff prepared to accept councillors to teach their curriculum; 4) what assurance was there that councillors would remain politically neutral? The panel did agree that the council needed to engage with youth on how the political system works, but it should be done carefully.

 

Conclusion:

 

To ask the working group to investigate the issues raised by the panel and report back at the next meeting.

 

Recommendation 10: A similar recommendation had been considered several years ago although nothing had developed. The panel considered this to be a good idea, especially as the students on the working group had explained that standard work experience placements had not fully engaged them in the political process. This element could therefore be improved.

 

Conclusion:

 

To support the recommendation.

 

Recommendation 11: The panel required further elaboration on this recommendation, especially concerning any financial implications.

 

Conclusion:

 

To ask the working group to provide further clarification on this recommendation for the next meeting of the panel.

 

Recommendation 12:  The panel disagreed with this recommendation because of the financial implications and the conflict with the established method of reviewing the council’s priorities.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support this recommendation.  

 

Recommendation 13: The panel considered that this was, and should be, already carried out by the political parties and not the council. The scrutiny support officer advised that the electoral team was working on sending a birthday card to 18 year olds informing them on their right to vote.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 14: The panel considered this recommendation to be excessive.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 15: The panel considered this recommendation to be ambivalent.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support this recommendation.

 

Recommendations 16: The panel considered this recommendation to conflict with the work of local politicians.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support this recommendation.

 

Recommendations 17 – 21: The panel considered these recommendations appeared to be the personal agenda of the lead member of the working group.

 

Conclusion:

 

To not support these recommendations.