Nick Hughes asked Members whether they had any
comments to make regarding the contents of the submission
document.
Members asked questions and made comments as
follows:
- How would combining the Governance
and Audit Committee and Standards Committee into a single committee
be done?
- The submission documents seemed that
combining these two committees would be done;
- Would committee membership numbers
change as a result of changing the total number of councillors from
36 to 44?
- It was important to go with a number
that was likely to be acceptable to the LGBCE;
- This review should have been carried
out ten years ago;
- Going with a total number of
councillor 40 might be too low it was too close to the original
number that the working party had proposed;
- Did the LGBCE guidance require the
Council to focus on the trend as established by the 15 Councils
comparators?
- Was there no risk that in six
years’ time after 2027 the councillor number would be out of
kilt again in comparison to other Councils?
- Could an assumption be added to the
report to reflect that other Councils’ populations would grow
and therefore there would be changes which were likely to require
Thanet District Council having to conduct another review earlier
than would be the case (i.e. every 10 years)?
- Was it possible for the Council to
change this number after this meeting?
- Could a Members Briefing be held
before Full Council in order to advise Members on how the
recommended total number of councillors of 42 was arrived at?
- Could an updated graph be made
available to Members or a narrative explaining the pros and cons be
used instead?
Nick Hughes and Ingrid Brown, Head of Legal
and Democracy & Monitoring Officer responded to Members
questions and comments as follows:
- Discussions held between Nick Hughes
and the Section 151 Officer had indicated that the two committees
could be combined;
- This approach had been done by other
Councils. This could be done at Annual Council when committees
would be reconstituted;
- It was however important to consider
the merits of combining committees;
- The Council could also decide to
change the membership sizes of committees in line with the new
total number of councillors adopted;
- If the Council submitted a number
that was not suitable the LGBCE would come back to a negative
response and that would be the end of the Council’s
contributions to this stage of the review process;
- The Council had to have regard to
what the other Councils (CiPFA 15) were doing. That was what the
guidance advised;
- Yes, the risk was there that the new
figure could be out of kilter in the next few years. However, the
Council could apply to the LGBCE to conduct another review outside
of the LGBCE review cycle. That was what Canterbury City Council
did and they were currently carrying out their own review;
- Once the recommended number went to
Full Council it would not be possible to change it and that was
what would be submitted to the Commission;
- Officers would consider adding some
wording in the report explaining the pros and cons of the approach
taken in deriving the total number of councillors.
As a result of the additional information that
was presented to the Boundaries and Electoral Arrangements Working
Party, Councillor Everitt proposed, Councillor Kup seconded and
Members agreed to recommend to Full Council that a proposed figure
of forty-two (42) councillors be total number of TDC councillors to
be forwarded to the Local Government Boundary Commission for
England (LGBCE).