Agenda item

Having been asked by the Engagement DSP for further comments on each of its recommendation, the Democratic Review Working Group had met on 15^th December 2006 to consider the responses from the DSP.  The views of the working group had been set out in tabular form alongside each original recommendation (numbered 1 to 21) and the DSP response.  A copy of this document was circulated with the agenda and is also appended to these notes for reference purposes.

Councillor Shorrock presented he views of the working group who had concentrated on those recommendations not supported by the DSP:-

Recommendation 3:  It was felt that consideration should be given to parish council involvement as a matter of course, for example including parish Councillor nominees on district council working groups.

Recommendation 4.  A set of criteria for a citizens engagement fund would enable this to operate on a consistent basis.

Recommendation 5.  The working group urged the council to participate in national initiatives to promote democracy; Councillor Shorrock advised that there were often funded programmes available that the council could access.  He cited recent promotional activities undertaken by North Kesteven District Council to engage young people in the democratic process.  Whilst acknowledging that external funds could be available, the Panel expressed some concern that running these activities would inevitable impact on officer time and that aspect did represented a “cost”.

[Action point:  The Scrutiny Officer was asked to make enquiries with colleagues at North Kesteven District Council to ascertain the amount of officer time involved on their recent youth engagement event.]

The Strategic Director advised the panel that a new youth co-ordinator post had been created (pending recruitment) whose remit would include involvement with young people and outreach work in the community. It was suggested that this post holder come support these kind of initiatives and link into the working group’s recommendations 6 and 7.

Recommendation 9.  Whilst acknowledging the concerns of the DSP, the working group strongly supported members’ direct involvement in the democratic and political engagement part of the school curriculum.   The training aspect would require resources and an associated cost if this was out sourced, however, Councillor Shorrock advised that external resources were available.

Recommendation 11.  Councillor Shorrock informed the panel that schools preferred to make the involvement in citizenship education “real” for their students and this could be addressed by the provision of internships at the council.  This would have resourced implications in terms of support time.  The panel was asked to look at this recommendation more broadly, suggesting that the council would work with the Council for Voluntary Service to progress this.

Recommendation 12.  The working group urged the panel to support the provision of funds for an annual school representative assembly, although it would need to be included within the next budget round.  The Strategic Director suggested that this type of activity could potentially be supported by sponsorship from businesses and other organisations.

Recommendation 13.  The working group asked that the provision of a citizen pack be reconsidered, particularly as the law had changed to permit a person to stand as a candidate from the age of 18.  The Service Manager, Democracy briefly advised the panel of the new legislative changes which came into force from 1^st January 2007.  This Act placed greater statutory obligations upon the Electoral Registration Officer to be more proactive in ensuring the electoral register was complete and encouraging greater democratic participation.

Recommendation 14.   This recommendation had stemmed from the analysis of evidence that turn out for elections was greater in rural areas than in urban wards, particularly where there was a strong sense of community.  Where people were more involved in community activities, this provided a platform for decision-making and greater engagement in the democratic process.  The working group had suggested the exploration of funding to support a particular area or ward.

Recommendation 15.  The working group asked the panel to support an invitation being extended to the South Lincolnshire CVS to attend a meeting of the DSP to give a presentation.

Recommendation 16.  Regarding pre-election awareness campaigns, the working group’s point was that it was about making information available in a more accessible way and to build on the good practice that already existed.  Some concern was expressed by members of the panel that the onus was on political groups to find candidates to stand for election.  It was not the remit of officers of the council.

Recommendations 17 to 21.  In response to the panel’s rejection of these recommendations, the working group asked for consideration to be given to a presentation by Rutland On Line and another local authority.

Conclusion:

Having considered the feedback from the Democratic Review Working Group, the DSP agreed to:

• Recommendation 3 – to note and accept
• Recommendation 4 – acceptance in principle stands
• Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 – support these recommendations being pursued subject to investigation of training costs and involvement of new Youth Co-ordinator
• Recommendation 11 – support in principle and approach being made to the CVS
• Recommendation 12 – support principle for reconsideration at next budget round
• Recommendation 13 – note new statutory requirements on Electoral Registration Officer.
• Recommendation14 – support in principle if external funding could be accessed
• Recommendation 15 – support presentation to the DSP by the South Lincolnshire CVS in the next municipal year
• Recommendation 16 – to not support this activity being undertaken by council staff
• Recommendations 17 to 21 – support an invitation to RoL and another authority (such as Preston) to make a presentation to the panel in the next municipal year.