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: