Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Whitehead (TDC)

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Fitter-Harding, Holloway and Whitehead.

The Chair to report any notifications received prior to this meeting regarding the attendance of substitutes.

There were no substitute members for the meeting.

Under the operating arrangements, the Chair for the municipal year 2020/21 will be a representative of Thanet District Council, and the Vice-Chair will be a representative of Dover District Council.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Everitt be elected Chair of the committee for the year 2020/21.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Bartlett be elected Vice-Chair of the committee for the year 2020/21.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To confirm as a true record.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true record.

TO CONSIDER the report of the Head of East Kent Human Resources.

Members discussed the report which sought authority from the Committee for Dover District Council (DDC) to enter into a contract for the provision of HR services by EKHR to the Marlowe Theatre Trust.

The recommendations in the report were proposed and seconded and when put to a vote AGREED.

RESOLVED: 

1. That DDC (employing Authority for EKHR) enters into a contract with the Marlowe Trust to provide HR services via EKHR.
2. That the terms are approved by the Interim Head of Shared Services in consultation with the Head of EKHR and DDC.
3. That the Solicitor to the Council at DDC, on behalf of DDC, is authorised to sign the contract.

Reason for decision: The acceptance of the proposal provides business continuity for the Marlowe Trust. It also provides a revenue contribution to the costs of maintaining the HR service and prevents redundancies from EKHR.

A record of the vote was taken as follows:

For the proposal: Councillors Bartlett, Carnac and Everitt (3)

Against the proposal: None

Abstained from voting: None

TO CONSIDER the report of Head Legal Services (CCC).

Members discussed the report which sought authority from the committee to enter into an agreement with Canterbury Environment Company Limited for the provision of HR services from East Kent Human Resources from 1 February 2021 for a period of 14 months to 31 March 2022.

The recommendation in the report was proposed and seconded and when put to a vote AGREED.

RESOLVED: That Canterbury City Council enter into a legally binding side letter in order for Canterbury Environment Company Limited to receive Human Resources, payroll and Occupational Health services to be delivered by East Kent Human Resources.

Reason for decision: The proposal would provide a cost effective solution for the district partners and allows Canterbury Environment Company Limited to deliver the services from day one without having to procure a new back office service at the same time.

A record of the vote was taken as follows:

For the proposal: Councillors Bartlett, Carnac and Everitt (3)

Against the proposal: None

Abstained from voting: None

There was no other urgent business to be dealt with in public.

TO RESOLVE – That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act or the Freedom of Information Act or both.

To note the information contained in this annex when considering the report listed in the public part of the agenda.

The appendix will follow as an agenda supplement.

(This information is exempt from publication as it relates to the financial affairs of the council. This means paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 applies as does paragraph 2 of section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council believes that at present the benefit of maintaining these exemptions outweighs the benefits of disclosing the information.)

The information exempt from publication was not discussed.

There was no other business which fell under the exempt provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or both.