|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM EX7
EXECUTIVE
- 19 MARCH 2002
CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 MARCH 2002
REVIEW OF
SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS
Report of
the Review Panel
Summary
- A key purpose
of the new political management arrangements is to give a greater emphasis
to the strengthening of Councillors’ links with their local communities.
Within this context, the Council decided that a review should be undertaken
of the support that is, or could be, provided to members to help them
in serving their communities.
- We have therefore
been tasked by the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee with considering
the issue of support for members and making recommendations on potential
improvements. The Scrutiny Committee asked us to have regard to:
- current County
Council practice
- the views and
suggestions of County Councillors and
- best practice
from other authorities.
- This report presents
our recommendations on the range of support that we believe should or
could be provided to help Oxfordshire’s County Councillors to strengthen
links with their communities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Our recommendations
suggest that the Council should adopt, or investigate the feasibility
of adopting, support in several areas. However, as this report makes
clear, in some cases we are recommending only limited kinds of
support. In each case, we have sought to give reasons for our recommendations.
Our suggestions cover the following areas:
- Surgeries
- Secretarial/officer
assistance
- Information
about/from the Council
- Complaints
- Public meetings
- Community initiatives
fund
- Publicity for
local initiatives/information
- Divisional profiles
- Area structures
- Training
- Facilities and
publications in County Hall
- A key point that
emerged on several occasions was the need for clear guidelines as to
what support is (and is not) available to members. This would help members
to understand what assistance it is possible for them to seek and would
likewise help officers to be clear on how to provide it. Such Guidelines
would help provide a consistency of approach and help to avoid situations
of difficulty or confusion.
We
RECOMMEND the Committee to RECOMMEND Council to:
- accept
the findings of the panel for the support of members set out
at paragraph 18 of the report having regard to the resource
implications identified at paragraphs 19 and 20: and
- review
in 18 months time the support that is provided to members.
Background
- The Government’s
Guidance on New Council Constitutions makes it clear that the roles
of members in their communities should be "meaningful and well-supported"
(Guidance, paragraph 2.15). It is within this context that the Council,
on 17 July, agreed that a Review should take place to identify ways
in which County Councillors’ links with their communities and constituents
could be strengthened.
- The Council also
decided that a report on such a Review should be brought to Council
on 2 April 2002 as part of a wider review of the working of the new
political management arrangements which were introduced on 5 November.
- Consequently on
4 September, the Council included reference to the Review of support
for members in its submission to the Secretary of State. It was further
decided that the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee should carry
out the Review. In the light of these decisions, the Council agreed
on 20 November to ask the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee:
- to give early
consideration to this issue in formulating their programme of work;
- to make arrangements
for all Councillors to be consulted;
- to take into
account the views expressed by members on ways in which County Councillors
could strengthen links with the communities and constituents they
represent.
- The Scrutiny Committee
appointed Councillors Jean Fooks, Mrs J Heathcoat, MacKenzie and Sylvia
Tompkins to form the Review Panel to lead the review. We were appointed
for a fixed term from 13 December 2001 to 2 April 2002. The Scrutiny
Committee also appointed review panels to look at the Council’s standing
consultative arrangements and at local area structures (consultative
and/or decision making). We were conscious that these issues related
to and had an impact upon our review and we have therefore tried to
avoid duplication. A cross-party Project Board has also been appointed
to implement the Council’s Information Technology (ICT) strategy for
members. We are aware that significant issues of support are raised
by the issues of area structures and ICT for members; however, we have
not made specific recommendations on these matters, as these will be
addressed by the Review Panel and the Project Board.
- This review of
support for local members also finds resonance with the Government’s
White Paper on Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services,
Chapter Five of which (Support for councils) indicates the Government’s
intention to undertake its own wide-ranging review of support for capacity
building and training. Our review is also timely, given the results
of surveys of public attitudes to councillors generally. For instance,
a Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions research
project (Survey of attitudes to Directly Elected Mayors, 2001)
found that 60% of those asked agreed with the comment that "councillors
lose touch with people pretty quickly". More locally, consultation
during the Council’s move to new political management arrangements raised
revealing comments about how the Council and its Councillors are viewed
by the public and stakeholders and how Councillors themselves view their
own roles.
- The Office for
Public Management report for this Council on Political Management Arrangements
(April 2000) states that 76% of this Council’s members listed "meeting
the concerns of constituents" as their primary objective. A
significant number of Councillors also said that, if their time could
be liberated from attending meetings, their chief goal would be to get
more involved in the local community – visiting schools, constituents,
businesses. A workshop held on behalf of the Council by MORI (Democratic
Management in Oxfordshire, 29 May 2001) revealed that the majority
of participants (members of the public) did not know the name of their
local councillor or when and where surgeries were held. A key recognition
was that "if democracy is to be reinvigorated, participants
generally considered that councillors needed to be more visible in the
community" (report, page 18). [Copies of the reports mentioned
in this paragraph are on deposit in the Members’ Resource Centre].
The Process of
the Review
- The timetable
for us to conduct our review was extremely tight and we have met three
times over a period of eight weeks. We have been supported in our review
by Derek Bishop Head of Democratic Services and Glenn Watson Democratic
Services Officer for Members’ Support and Development.
- We chose to approach
the review by:
- Agreeing a working
list of the kinds of "support" the Review should cover
- Considering
members’ views on each of these areas and adding in any others suggested
by members; we did this by means of a Questionnaire to all 70 members
of Council to which we received 26 responses.
- Considering
how other local authorities are implementing these areas of support
and looking into any other kinds of support that other authorities
may be piloting/operating
- Recommending
areas of support that should be taken forward in Oxfordshire
- In conducting
our review, we needed to be clear about what was meant by "support"
for members and what was meant by "strengthening links with local
communities". We considered that the context was given by the Local
Government Act 2000 which introduced the new political management arrangements.
It was intended that these new arrangements should liberate Councillors
from the traditional committee structure and therefore allow them more
time and scope for focussing directly on the needs of their communities
and constituents. It was also intended that councils, as organisations,
should be encouraged to redirect resources to support their members
in their local role.
- We therefore understood
the focus of our Review to be on how to strengthen the local, constituency
role, which has been variously referred to in some local government
literature as "the community role", the "representational
role" and the "non-executive role". This is to differentiate
it from other aspects of the work done by Councillors (e.g. member of
the full Council, member of the Executive, member of a Scrutiny Committee,
member of a regulatory Committee) as envisaged by the new political
management arrangements.
- Throughout, we
have recognised that many Councillors, especially perhaps the most long-serving,
will already have good links with their communities. In suggesting areas
of potential support we also intend that such current practice and experience
should be recognised and built upon. We considered that it was very
important that the Review, and any recommendations arising from it,
should recognise the differences between individual Councillors’ preferred
approaches to their work and the variety in the nature of the communities
that they represent. It was clear from responses to the Questionnaire
that Councillors had different (and occasional opposed) views as to
the kinds of support they would value and the degree to which support
should be provided at all. We concluded that a flexible approach was
necessary which offered all Councillors the same kinds of assistance
but which allowed members to choose whether to seek such assistance
or not.
Documents
- In the course
of the review, the following papers were considered and prepared. Copies
of each are available for inspection in the Members’ Resource Centre.
- Review Panel
meeting – 8 January 2002
- Agenda, briefing
paper by Head of Democratic Services, note of meeting
- Review Panel
meeting – 30 January 2002
- Agenda, report
analysing Questionnaire responses and giving comparison with other
local authority practice, note of meeting
- Member Questionnaire:
full schedule of responses
Findings
- Our findings are
set out below, together with an introductory comment referring to the
reasoning behind our recommendations.
- Surgeries
- Comment:
noted that holding surgeries is currently ad hoc. Some members
evidently doubt the relevance of holding surgeries at all while
others are seeking new ways of meeting the public (e.g. surgeries
in supermarkets). An approach based on personal choice was therefore
appropriate. Although it could be argued that surgeries are apolitical
(members serve the whole community, not just those who voted for
them), the choice of whether to hold them or not is exercised
by individual members, many of whom prefer to arrange them (or
not) in their own ways. We considered it appropriate, therefore,
that officers should have only a limited role in the arrangement
of surgeries. [It was also noted that the Council needed to be
careful that no literature produced by the Council, or that any
of its buildings, were used for party-political purposes]
- Budget provision:
made available up to a prescribed limit per councillor, which
individual councillors, if they wish, can use to hire and publicise
their surgeries
- Portable
display stands and publicity material: to be obtained specifically
for use at surgeries (to be booked, collected, set up and returned
by individual councillors) to publicise what the County Council
does
- Code: a
Code of Good Practice to specify what Councillors can/cannot expect
in the way of support for surgeries, and to highlight key issues
such as personal health and safety, appropriate venues etc.
b.
Secretarial
and dedicated officer support
- Comment:
noted that responses to the Questionnaire had indicated that secretarial
assistance was the one area of support mentioned by most. Other
authorities had set up "contact officer" systems so
that members had access to dedicated assistance from more senior
officers. Others had set up "Local Government Information
Units" – research and information points – for members and
officers. We were not generally supportive of the provision of
secretarial or dedicated contact-officer support, but believed
that limited secretarial assistance may be appropriate at times
when significant local issues (or other unusual occasions) lead
to a need for more correspondence/photocopying etc..
- Secretarial
assistance: limited access to secretarial assistance at peak times
when significant local issues (especially those arising from County
Council policies/activities) generate additional administration
- Code: would
need specific, clear guidelines to Councillors on what they could/could
not expect to receive in the way of secretarial support
- Local government
information point: investigation into the possibility of setting
up a dedicated enquiry unit (for councillors, officers and the
public) to act as a first point of contact for information about
the Council and its services, and about local government generally
(NB as in models operated by Bedfordshire and Devon County Councils);
this to be distinct from any plans for a "contact centre"
for the Council as a whole
- Out of hours
ansaphone/voicemail service: investigate the implementation of
ansaphone/voicemail service to enable Councillors to leave brief
messages for officers (as an alternative to writing or e-mailing),
at times convenient for the Councillor
c.
Information
about/from the Council
- Comment:
noted general satisfaction - from the Questionnaire - with the
level of information about the Council. Nevertheless, there were
concerns about the need for clearer, standard-format reports,
the usefulness (or otherwise) of the Members’ Bulletin and the
need for a better organised internal telephone directory. We were
also concerned that Councillors should be made aware of significant
divisional issues, particularly those that may be raised with
them by Parish and Town Councils.
- Internal
telephone directory: a clearer telephone directory tailored to
the needs of members (e.g. councillors listed alphabetically by
Division and by name; more frequently updated; without sections
about use of the internal phone-system, which only really apply
to officers)
- Diary: a
ring-binder format rather than the smaller, more "cluttered"
style of the current "pocket-sized" diary
- Standard
publicity: directorates/departments to use standard-format charts
and publicity to inform Councillors of key personnel/contacts
- Highways
information: a regular (e.g. monthly) bulletin, by division, of
works affecting roads and footways
- Council
papers: clear, consistent procedure to allow Councillors to choose
which papers they wish to receive and in which format
- Plain English:
reissue Guidelines to officers on the use of plain English in
writing reports and correspondence
- Emailed
documents: to state, at their head, whether "hard copy in
the post" – to prevent Councillors having to print out bulky
documents
- Reports:
clear, standard format for the writing and presentation of reports
- Members’
Bulletin: a review of the purpose, content and format to ensure
that the Bulletin is adequately meeting the information needs
of members
- Division
specific information: officers to be reminded of paragraph 7 of
the Protocol on Members’ Rights [Section FF of the Constitution]
-"Effective communication with members"- which specifies
that members should be kept informed of significant local issues
- Key contacts:
produce a one-page authority-wide list incorporating key contacts
in all Directorates who can act as the first ports of call for
members
d. Complaints
- Comment:
Panel agreed that Councillors had no formal right to be informed
about the details of a complainant’s concerns unless the complainant
specifically referred the matter to the Councillor. Most members
were content with existing practice whereby they are informed
of a complaint if it progresses to the stage of a Complaints Panel
hearing. Nevertheless, Questionnaire responses showed that some
Councillors considered that a degree of information about the
number and kind of complaints arising would be useful.
- Periodic
reporting: investigate the possibility of Councillors being given
periodic reports on the number and kinds of complaint being raised
in their divisions
- Existing
practice: maintain existing practice of informing councillors
at Stage 3 (Complaints Panel Hearing) of the process.
- Informing
councillors: officers to be reminded of the general protocol on
keeping local members informed of significant local issues (Protocol
on Members’ Rights) – this helps members to keep in touch with
issues that may become the subject of comments/complaints and/or
which are likely to be raised when County Councillors attend Parish
and Town Council meetings
e.
Assistance
with public meetings
- Comment:
we agreed that County Councillors would normally only be involved
in "setting up" a public meeting when the issue arose
as part of the Council’s own activities. Public meetings on other
topics, to which the Councillor may be invited, were usually organised
by local residents or groups. Therefore, we agreed that officer
assistance with the arrangement of public meetings (venues, publicity,
attendance for advice etc.) should only be applicable where need
for the meeting is driven by the actions of the authority.
- Officer
assistance: to be available on request when it can be demonstrated
that the meeting arises out of the actions/services of the Council
(assistance: booking venues, arranging publicity, officer attendance
to advise on relevant issue etc.)
- Code: need
Code so that Councillors know what support they can reasonably
expect and when they can expect it
f.
Community
Initiatives Fund
- Comment:
noted that there were mixed (and polarised) views among Councillors
about such an initiative. We agreed that the local councillors
should not, ideally, be involved in the actual allocation of money
– to avoid any sense of bias or "patronage". Councillors
should simply be seen to be using their local knowledge in the
furtherance of schemes rather than making actual decisions in
their favour. It was also important that the role of parish/town
councils was respected, given their traditional activity of supporting/funding
local initiatives. Duplication should be avoided and co-operation
encouraged.
- Local members’
initiative: investigate the feasibility of introducing a local
members’ initiative on the lines of that adopted by Staffordshire
County Council (an allocated sum per councillor; councillor chooses
whether to support or not support an initiative; councillor forwards
supported schemes to the Executive for decision; once yearly).
Clear guidelines and an established procedure essential.
g. Publicity
for local initiatives/information
- Comment:
we considered that local initiatives were usually publicised at
the local level by parish/town councils or village/residents’
newsletters. Formal County Council publicity was often given through
libraries; a future development could be through the website.
However, effective local publicity depended on a regularly updated
listing which may be difficult to achieve through Council systems.
It was noted that a number of respondents to the Questionnaire
had mentioned the need for a County Council Newsletter. While
this may not be a good vehicle for local publicity, we considered
it would be a good way of highlighting issues of general local
concern (e.g. recycling, traffic calming etc). We would therefore
endorse the Executive’s plans for producing a County-wide newsletter.
- Newsletter:
endorse the principle of a County Council Newsletter;
with the possible inclusion in each issue of a focus
on a single theme of significant local interest, to enhance public
awareness
h. Profile
of division
- Comment:
noted that there was no clear expression of favour in the Questionnaire
responses. Some considered that it would duplicate what Councillors
already knew; others felt it would help members to gain a deeper
in-the-round awareness of their patch. We did not believe that
profiles should be provided in hard copy form.
- Suggested
approach: develop "division specific" information as
part of the proposed Intranet for members
i.
Training
- Comment:
noted that the venue most preferred by Councillors responding
to the Questionnaire was County Hall (either mornings or between
10.00 – 3.00). There was no clear preference for Personal Development
Planning. There was however some support for the concept of shadowing
whereby a Councillor can ask to shadow a service for a day
- note the
preferences for venue and timing stated in the Questionnaire responses
- investigate
the feasibility of establishing a "shadowing scheme"
(like that of operated by Dorset County Council) whereby Councillors
can choose to shadow a service for a day.
j. Facilities
in County Hall
- Comment:
we noted that, in order to support and represent their communities,
members needed to visit County Hall. We further noted that a Members
Accommodation Working Party was due to make recommendations shortly
on improvements to member’s facilities in the Members Lounge and
Resource Centre. As to publications, we considered that the availability
of local and national newspapers was useful; however, the case
for subscribing to specific professional or general journals (e.g.
New Scientist, The Economist) was less clear and thus should not
be pursued. We noted, however, that there was scope for investigating
the feasibility of working with the library service to provide
some form of information resource. It was noted
that good use was made of the photocopying facilities in the Members’
Resource Centre but we were concerned that members should be adhering
to copyright legislation.
- Oxford Mail
and Times: copies to be delivered to each Group Room and a copy
of each to be available in the Members’ Lounge
- Refreshments:
need (as shown in Questionnaire responses) for greater choice
of refreshments in Members’ Lounge (i.e. water cooler, fruit juices,
herbal teas, hot chocolate sachets); investigate possibility of
extending County Hall trolley service (or similar) into the Members’
Lounge or the inclusion of a free vending machine
- Members’
Accommodation Working Party: all members of the Council to be
consulted on the Working Party’s proposals before implementation
- Publications
etc: investigate the possibility of using library service expertise
in the development of a "publications resource"
k.
Guidelines
on support for members
- Comment:
in several instances mentioned in the Questionnaire responses,
it appears to us that the existence of clear Guidelines, or a
Code, on Support for Member roles, would have been helpful. We
noted and endorsed the Council’s own Protocol on Members’ Rights,
within the Council’s Constitution. We also noted similar models
such as that produced by Bedfordshire County Council. We were
of the view that the Protocol may need to be amended from time
to time to reflect additional areas of support for Councillors
(e.g. good practice on surgeries, the availability
of information, use of Council buildings/facilities, assistance
at area committees).
- Suggested
support: potential addition to the Protocol on Members Rights
to cover all areas of support currently operated or arising
from this or any future review
Financial
and Staff Implications
- Clearly, the Scrutiny
Committee will need to take into account how proposals might be implemented
in the short, medium and long-terms and also any budgetary and staffing
resources necessary to implement any proposals recommended. In the main,
it occurs to us that a good deal could be achieved within existing staffing
and budgetary resources. Changes in member and officer culture would
also achieve much. We do not envisage therefore, at least in the short
or medium terms, that significant additional staffing
or budgetary resources will be necessary.
- We have, however,
made some recommendations that would require additional resources:
- Surgeries: we
have recommended that a relatively small sum be allocated per councillor
for use in the hiring of premises and publication of publicity. It
would be for the Council to determine what this should be.
- "Local
Government Information Centre and Library": akin to those run
by Bedfordshire and Devon County Councils; they would require staffing
and other resources
- "Community
Initiatives Fund": which would set aside a sum per councillor
- Voicemail/ansaphone:
extension of voicemail/ansaphone for officers to enable members, and
the public, to contact them out of hours
Review Panel
on Support for Members
Councillor
Jean Fooks
Councillor
Mrs J Heathcoat
Councillor
MacKenzie
Councillor
Sylvia Tompkins
February
2002.
Return to TOP
|