Agenda item

Appointment of Independent Persons (Agenda Item No. 10)

3.30 p.m.

 

Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer

 

In recent years, the work of the Committee has benefited from the co-option to it of an Independent Member, Dr Geoff Jones.  While it is not a statutory requirement to do this, it is recommended best practice to do so.  The perspective and challenge afforded by an Independent Co-opted Member is integral to the purpose of an effective audit committee, as has been proven through the services of Dr Jones.

 

It is also recommended best practice that this independent perspective is refreshed periodically.  As such, this report sets out a proposal for seeking public interest in the role of an Independent Co-opted Member for this Committee. This proposal involves a public advertisement against the CIPFA skills and competencies framework for audit committee members.  The appointment, and any remuneration for it via a Special Responsibility Allowance, will be for Full Council to determine.

 

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed approach for recruiting and appointing two Independent Co-opted Members to this Committee.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer recommending that the Committee approve the proposed approach for recruiting and appointing two Independent Co-opted Members to the Committee, as set out in the report.

 

Anita Bradley, Director of Law and Governance, presented the report, noting that the report referred to the Redmond Review published in 2020 on the arrangements in place to support the transparency and quality of Local Authority Financial reporting.

 

In the subsequent discussion, the following points were raised.

 

(a)   Local authorities who had not appointed Independent Members were now addressing this issue in response to the Redmond review and CIPFA guidelines.

(b)   Given the complexity of the recruitment exercise, it was proposed that the Council should advertise for the appointment of two Independent Members.

(c)    Officers were of the view that it was appropriate to appoint two Independent Members as to appoint more may result in a dilution of the duties and responsibilities of Committee Members.

(d)   Staggering appointments would afford the opportunity to retain the knowledge and experience of the current Independent Member, Dr Jones, should he wish to stand for reappointment, while providing continuity when appointments ended.

(e)   It would be advantageous to appoint an Independent Member who had no connections with the County Council or the District Councils.

(f)     It was recommended Best Practice that, to retain the independent perspective and willingness to challenge norms that an Independent Co-opted Member brought to their role, Independent Members should not be allowed to remain in post for so long that they lost their “independence”.

(g)   It would make sense to retain the experience of the current Independent Member, while recruiting a new Independent Member for the reasons set out in the Best Practice guidelines.

(h)   In response to a proposal by the Chair, Ms Bradley confirmed that, as the Monitoring Officer, both she and Ms Baxter, as the Section 151 Officer, had no objection to any appointment as an Independent Member being for a period of four years to allow the Independent Member(s) sufficient time to develop knowledge and experience of the role such that they could make a meaningful contribution to the work of the Committee.

(i)      Once an initial recruitment exercise had been carried out, officers could report back to the Committee on the response to the recruitment exercise and on more detailed matters such as the recommended terms of any appointment.

(j)      It may be preferable to appoint any Independent Member(s) for a period of two years, subject to possible extension of the term of office, to determine if they were competent in their role as an Independent Member(s).

(k)    Subject to confirmation, it was understood that Dr Jones’s term of office as the Committee’s Co-opted Independent Member expired in May of this year.

(l)      It was for the Committee to determine the number of years of any appointment and whether it would wish to reappoint Dr Jones should Dr Jones wish to reapply.

(m)  It was confirmed that Dr Jones had been an Independent Co-opted Member of the Committee for over 15 years.

(n)   It was noted that Cherwell District Council was also appointing an Independent Co-opted Member and that, to optimise the independence of the Independent Co-opted Member, this should not be the same person for both authorities.

 

RESOLVED: to approve the proposed approach for recruiting and appointing two Independent Co-opted Members to the Committee.

 

Supporting documents: