Agenda and minutes

Constitutional Review Working Party
Wednesday, 24th August, 2016 10.00 am

Venue: Austen Room, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent

Contact: Emily Kennedy 

Items
No. Item

88.

Apologies for Absence

89.

Declarations of Interest

    To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the extract from the Standard Board Code of Conduct for Members, which forms part of the Declaration of Interest Form at the back of this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that Form and hand it to the Officer clerking the meeting.

    Minutes:

    There were no declarations of interest.

90.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 200 KB

    To approve the Minutes of the Constitutional Review Working Party meeting held on 6 June 2016, copy attached.

    Minutes:

    The Working Party AGREED that the minutes of the Constitutional Review Working Party held on 8 June 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman.

     

91.

Sealing of Documents pdf icon PDF 143 KB

    Minutes:

    Tim Howes, Director of Corporate Governance and Monitoring Officer outlined the proposed change to the arrangements for the sealing of documents to be reflected in the Council’s constitution.

     

    The Working Party was advised that the proposed changes would make the process more efficient and that there was no benefit in maintaining the current arrangements.

     

    Further to discussion, Tim Howes agreed to make amendments to the report going forward to further clarify the process and purpose of the sealing of documents

     

    The Working Party agreed changes proposed by Tim Howes to arrangements for sealing of documents and recommended them to the Standards Committee.

     

92.

Removal of the Constitutional Review Working Party from Constitutional Change Process pdf icon PDF 169 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Nick Hughes, Committee Service Manager outlined the proposal to change the constitutional change process from a 3 stage process to a 2 stage process in line with other councils in Kent.

     

    The Working Party felt that it was valuable for detailed work on the consideration of changes to the constitution to be done prior to the Council meeting.

     

    Members also considered that the expertise and focus of the Working Party was valuable to constitutional change the process and therefore, CRWP should be maintained.

     

    Further to this debate, the Working Party agreed:

     

    That the constitutional change process is amended but not in a way that would result in the dissolution of the CRWP and for new options with regard to this be created and brought back before this panel.