Issue - meetings

11.35

Report from the Director for Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer

The purpose of this report is to present the Committee with a review of the governance arrangements of the partnership working between Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council.

The Committee will be well aware that Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) and Cherwell District Council (CDC) entered into a partnership agreement at the beginning of September 2018.  The Committee approved the terms of the partnership agreement (also known as the Section 113 Agreement) together with the approval of a number of other documents that related to the governance of the relationship between the two Councils.  These included the Chief Executive Protocol, the Ethical Walls Protocol, the Role of Councillors Arrangements and the Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee.

On the 12 September 2018, the Audit & Governance Committee sought further clarification on the role and purpose of the Joint Committee and the terms of reference which were considered and approved further on the 14 November 2018.

At the inaugural meeting of the Partnership Working Group – the advisory committee set up to manage joint working between the two Councils – it was acknowledged that a review of the governance should be undertaken to ensure that effective and efficient arrangements were in place to underpin the development of the joint agreement.

This report seeks to review those governance arrangements for endorsement by the Audit & Governance Committee and ratification by the Partnership Working Group and the respective Executive and Cabinet of the partner authorities.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to endorse the review of the partnership governance outlined in this report.

Recommendation agreed.

Nick Graham introduced the six month review of the Section 113 partnership agreement with Cherwell District Council.  He summarised the four areas reviewed – the terms of the agreement; the decision-making process; the ethical walls arrangements and the scrutiny function.

Members raised various questions and Nick Graham responded as follows:

·         On S106 agreements the County and District have different interests – not necessarily in conflict – but two separate solicitors are engaged to represent each.

·         The Growth Deal is listed as a potential conflict area to be watched.

·         There are already processes for ‘dual hatter’ councillors to deal with conflicts of interest.

·         Officers will circulate information about Item 7 on page 112 Howes Tunnel later.

·         The employer has not changed for any staff – where shared, they are loaned to the other authority.

·         Most employees are appointed by officers but senior positions are normally appointed by the Remuneration Committee.  Where shared the role is delegated to the Joint Committee.

·         Complications for shared employees include dual email addresses, security access, regulatory enforcement, separate line managers.

·         Shared costs for lawyers are determined by timesheet whereas other officers estimate the breakdown based on other factors including size of undertaking.

·         The Head of HR has been appointed since the report was written.

RESOLVED: to endorse the review of the partnership governance outlined in this report.