Agenda item

Nick Hughes to provide a presentation to Members on the progress so far.

Nick Hughes, Committee Services Manager introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  The Council was required to produce evidence for the review that included the following information:

§  Geocoded Electoral Register

§  Current & Forecast Electorate,

§  Forecasting Methodology

§  Housing Development Data,

§  Polling District Maps

§  Polling District Review Report

§  Parish Electoral Arrangements

§  Parish Ward Maps

§  Local Orders & Governance Changes

§  Communications Planning

§  Stakeholder Database

·  Local Orders and Governance Changes: This would be information on whether the Council had made any changes since the last review;

·  The forecast document had been updated with electoral information and there was a tool for forecasting elector numbers;

·  The Council had to identify predictions that were outside this LGBCE model using the challenge data column in the forecast document;

·  There were large housing developments in Thanet. If these house numbers were going to be built the corresponding number of electors would be significantly different to the LGBCE ones;

·  The Comms and Digital teams were working on collecting data;

·  The Legal department had confirmed that the Council did not have any Orders in the period under review;

·  Democratic Services were currently collecting stakeholder data;

·  BEAWP had agreed at the previous meeting on working towards a councillor number of between 36 and 44;

·  It was worth noting that Outside Bodies numbers to which the Council appointed its representatives had significantly decreased in the period under review. The number was half of what it was;

·  The Council had changed governance arrangements from a committee system to executive arrangements in the period under review;

·  Councillors were now using more of ICT equipment like Chromebook to carry out their councillor role including communicating with residents in their respective constituencies;

·  Members were now working more efficiently than before;

·  There was a cabinet system in place and there was no intention to change;

·  There was now more officer decision making than before and less policy framework and key decisions to be made by Members;

·  There was currently a high threshold for key decision definition;

·  There was also now a single Overview and Scrutiny Panel, unlike before when there were two;

·  There were less committees than before;

·  There was currently extensive Member support and training, all to deal with Member queries and casework;

·  There were significant areas of deprivation in Thanet, therefore busier wards in terms of councillor ward casework;

·  The Council could consider combining some committee functions like Standards and Governance and Audit into a single committee thereby reducing further the number of committee there were. This would also reduce the need to keep the councillor number at the current level;

·  Officers would bring all the evidence at the next meeting;

·  LGBCE wanted the Council to provide them with a number of proposed councillor for Thanet and not a range.

One Member said that councillors had different approaches to work. Some were proactive whilst others were reactive. It was about how manage their casework. They further said that a committee membership of 15 councillors was not unwieldy.

Members noted the update report.