|
3 INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL FOR WALES
ANNUAL REPORT-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Submitted - The report of the Corporate Director (Finance)
which was deferred at the County Council meeting on 4th March, 2010
together with the supplementary report by the Corporate Director
(Finance).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Leader reported - that the Independent Remuneration
Panel for Wales had published on 12th February 2010, their 2009
Annual Report which set maximum rates for Members Allowances in
financial year 2010-11.
|
|
|
|
|
The County Council resolved on 15 September
2009, as a statement of intent, that the total cost of
Members’ Allowances should not rise over the next three
years. Reflecting this, no allowance for inflationary increase had
been made in the 2010-11 budget as currently proposed.
Notwithstanding this, there was a requirement to consider the
matter annually in the light of the recommendation of the Panel.
Details were provided within the report of the recommendations with
regard to the following:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
Special Responsibility Allowances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The report also detailed in tabular form the
amounts currently paid, and the maximum payable in 2010-11.
Increasing all allowances to the maximum as per the recommendation
would cost an additional £54k. In view of the Council’s
resolution, the assumption must be that current rates of allowance
should be frozen for 2010-11.
|
|
|
|
It was also necessary to amend the
Council’s scheme to discontinue the allowance for Vice-Chairs
of the Principal Scrutiny Committee and the Overview Committees
which would save £16,602.
|
|
|
|
In view of this Authority having lobbied to
increase the Audit Committee Chairman’s allowance, as the
Panel had agreed, it would be logical for this allowance now to be
increased - not to the maximum of £9,708 but to the same
level of £8,304 currently paid to other Chairmanships
in the same band, at an additional cost of £2,770. The
Panel’s remit did not include allowances of Chairman and
Vice-Chairman of the Council. However, if the generality of
allowances were frozen, these too, should be.
|
|
|
|
It was noted that the Corporate Director
(Finance) considered that difficulties in securing accommodation in
London and Cardiff may support adopting the new maximum overnight
subsistence rates of £150 and £120 respectively, as
recommended by the Panel.
|
|
|
|
Within an overall envelope of an unchanged
budget, there was around £13k available for other changes, if
required. Members may wish to give further consideration to the
co-optees allowance, not so far adopted by this
Authority.
|
|
|
|
It was further recommend that the wording of
the constitution be changed so that all claims must be supported by
receipts for expenditure incurred and restricted to reimbursement
of that expenditure.
|
|
|
|
Councillor H. Eifion Jones referred that he
raised at the last meeting of the Council, the issue of first class
travelling. He considered that first class travelling should
be abolished due to the financial situation of the Council.
The Leader responded that the matter will be discussed
further in due course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
To note the recommendations of the Independent
Remuneration Panel for Wales.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
To accept the revised subsistence allowances
recommended by the Panel for overnight stays in London and
Cardiff.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
To agree with the increase proposed by the Panel with
the regard to special responsibility allowance for the Chair of
Audit Committee at the current rates payable by this
Council.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
To discontinue the allowance payable to the
Vice-Chairs of the Principal Scrutiny Committee and the Overview
Committees in accordance with the recommendations of the
Panel.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
Not to proceed at the time being with the payment of
co-optees’ allowances.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
That the current rates of members allowances be frozen
for 2010/11 and to accept the following amounts of allowances for
2010/11 whilst the current Committee Structure remains in place and
that a further report be submitted to the AGM of the Council
identifying any changes needed to the Committee Structure to
strengthen the Council :-
W.E.F.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Chairman's Allowance
£7,170
|
|
|
|
Council Vice-Chairman's Allowance
£5,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special Responsibility Allowances:
|
|
|
|
Leader of the Council
£27,679
|
|
|
|
Deputy Leader of the Council
£15,223
|
|
|
|
Other Executive Committee Members
£13,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chair of Principal Scrutiny Committee and
|
|
|
Policy Overview
Committee
£8,304
|
|
|
Chair of Planning and Orders
Committee
£8,304
|
|
|
|
Chair of Licensing Committee
£8,304
|
|
|
|
Principal Opposition Group Leader
£8,304
|
|
|
|
Chair of Audit Committee.
£8,304
|
|
|
|
Care Allowance (if payable)
£4,836
|
|
|
|
|
Travelling Allowances (per
mile)
|
|
|
|
|
Private motor vehicles : up to 10,000 miles
40p
|
|
|
|
Private motor vehicles: over 10,000 miles
25p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passenger supplement - per passenger per
mile
5p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absence overnight (not involving absence overnight
from the usual place of
residence) of more than 4 hours
:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absence overnight (24 hours)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With friends or relatives
£25
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
That the Constitution be changed to accommodate the
recommendation on Care Allowances by adding at the end of Clause
6.3.2:-
|
|
|
|
|
“All claims must be supported
by receipts for expenditure incurred and will be
restricted to reimbursement of that
expenditure.”
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
that a small Panel be established, consisting of the
Leader, Deputy Leader and the Leader of the Opposition, to discuss
the question of the allowances payable to the Chair and Vice-Chair
of the County Council and that a report thereon be submitted to the
full Council in May, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Councillor B. Durkin wished it to be recorded that he
proposed that all special responsibility allowances should be
discontinued for a trail period of 12 months; this will save around
£126,000. Councillor W.J. Chorlton questioned
why an amendment has been proposed to a resolution that has been
voted upon by the Council and then asked for it to be minuted.
The Interim Managing Director responded that the Motion had
been moved and carried and therefore is not appropriate to move
another motion. The Motion was therefore not
valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Councillor Durkin noted that he considered that more time
be allow for Members to responded to items under discussion before
voting takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR WALES -
DRAFT PROPOSALS.
|
|
|
|
|
Submitted - report by the Head of Service (Corporate
Services) in relation to the above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Leader reported that the Local Government Boundary
Commission for Wales has published its draft proposals for the
future arrangements for the County Council’s electoral
divisions for which, it had invited comments by the end of March
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To fulfill this invitation, the political group leaders
jointly agreed to establish a representative panel of members to
formulate a response to the draft proposals. The Panel met on
Tuesday 9th March,
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In their deliberations on this matter, the Panel members
noted the statutory directions from the Minister for Social Justice
and Local Government (Wales Assembly Government) (detailed at
Paragraph 3 of the report.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, the Members were reminded of the Boundary
Commission’s prime guidelines that the “value” of
a vote should be equal (Paragraph 4 of the report
referred.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Panel was advised that notwithstanding the
Council’s recorded wishes in relation to multi-member
electoral divisions, such a decision was not in the gift of the
County Council, rather it was a matter for decision by the Minister
with the advice of the Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members of the Panel acknowledged that the proposals, as
submitted, were designed to reflect and support the best interests
of the Island through:-
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
Maintaining the maximum defensible number of elected
members.
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
Emphasising the fact that the 30 member/1750 voter
principle was not achievable on the island.
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
That with extensive rural areas, large numbers of small
villages and hamlets and few large urban conurbations, the
proposals effectively represented the Commission’s aspiration
as “desirable in the interest of effective and convenient
local government.”
|
|
|
|
|
The Panel were advised of the potential dangers
of seeking to propose wide ranging changes at this time inasmuch
that insistence on sustaining electoral divisions which varied
widely from the proposed average electorate of 1451 could lead the
Commission to abandon the current proposals and to impose upon the
Authority a scheme which might well be more detrimental and
unsatisfactory to the Council and the Island’s electorate
than the current proposals.
|
|
|
|
Members raised the following issues
:-
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
the recommendations of the County Council held on 30 June,
2009 were not presented to the Boundary Commission at the
time;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
requesting the Boundary Commission to visit the County
Council to discuss the concerns of the elected members regarding
the proposed changes to the electoral divisions;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
noted that another North Wales Authority, Flintshire County
Council and other South Wales Authorities has express
dissatisfaction regarding the Boundary Commission’s proposals
;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
dissatisfaction expressed to the WLGA that the proposal
produced do not have Member/Voter accountability;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
multi-member electoral divisions are not
acceptable;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
electoral review should be postponed to coincide with the
Town/Community Councils boundary review in 2016;
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
Community Councils in the rural wards feel that there has
been a lack of consultation and publicity to the whole
process;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Interim Managing Director reported that a formal
consultation document was received by the Boundary Commission and
they will have to demonstrate that they have listen fairly to
representation from the authority. He considered that a
request to extend the consultation period to have a proper dialogue
and debate by this authority would be difficult to be refused by
the Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
that the Council works positively and constructively
with the review of the Boundary Commission but challenge in a
robust manner in the way the Commission is not acting within the
terms of the legislation and Ministerial direction as invited to do
so by the Minister.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
to invite the Boundary Commission to visit the Council
to discuss the Council’s challenge and to delay the
progression of the proposals for Anglesey pending conclusion of
these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
that in the event that the extension of the
consultation period be refused by the Commission; to empower the
Panel established to discuss this matter, forward a written
response on behalf of the Council.
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
to encourage Town/Community Councils to make localise
representations to the Boundary Commission in the interim and to
enlist the support of the WLGA for the stance taken by the County
Council.
|
|
|
|
|
5. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC.
|
|
|
|
RESOLVED to adopt the following
:-
|
|
|
|
“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the
Local Government Act 1972, the press and public will be excluded
from the meeting during discussion on the following item as it
involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
Schedule 12A of the said Act and in the attached Public Interest
Test.”
|
|
|
|
6. RESTRUCTURING OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR’S
DEPARTMENT.
|
|
|
|
Reported by the Interim
Managing Director- That fundamental changes to the structure of
Department required a constitutional change, which turn required a
recommendation from the Executive.
|
|
|
|
The Corporate Governance
Inspection recommended that the Council should review and where
appropriate strengthen the structure of its corporate services
including those directly responsible to the Managing Director. This
report proposed changes within the Managing Director’s Office
focusing on three strategic areas- Policy, Performance and
Communications. A number of recommendations were made concerning
the transfer if certain functions to other Directorates. These
changes brought wider benefits and development opportunities for
the organisation and greater synergy between services. This
restructuring and other subsequent changes fulfill the requirement
to respond to the corporate governance recommendation.
|
|
|
|
As the Council moved
forward to improve its governance arrangements, it needed to ensure
that the centre of the organisation was fit for purpose to support
the prime task of strategic leadership both within and outside the
organisation now and in the future, and provided the necessary
focus on improvement and accountability when there was increasing
public expectations for better, more responsive services and
engagement with local communities.
|
|
|
|
The structure, with a brief
outline description of functions is set out at Appendix 1 of the
report.
|
|
|
|
This report concentrated
primarily on changes to the current structures and the creation of
a smaller Managing Director’s Office instead of the Managing
Director’s Department. There are changes proposed for the
re-distribution of certain functions and responsibilities elsewhere
in the organisation.
|
|
|
|
Appendix 2 of the report
identified those services/functions to be retained by the Managing
Director’s office and those to be developed elsewhere.
Responses were received to the consultation but they did not affect
the principle or strategy of the proposal.
|
|
|
|
Councillor R.LL.Jones
questioned what the savings/costs of this exercise entails. The
Interim Managing Director advised the Council of the costs and that
the payback period was 2 years.
|
|
|
|
RESOLVED to endorse
the recommendation of the Executive earlier this day :-
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
that subject to the Direction of the Welsh Ministers,
to approve the proposed transfer of services and functions
including the deletion of a Head of Service post from within the
Managing Director’s department in order to create a more
streamlined Managing Director’s office which will focus on
communications, policy and performance;
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
to authorise the Managing Director to resolve
individual matters arising from the consultation;
|
|
|
|
|
Ÿ
|
to authorise officers to make all necessary and
consequential amendments to the Constitution as above including the
Management Structure at Part 7 and the Delegation Scheme at
paragraph 3.5 including the transfer of the functions of the Head
of Service (Corporate Services) and the abolition of that
post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The meeting concluded
at 3.45 p.m.
|
|
|
|
COUNCILLOR O.GLYN JONES
|
|
CHAIR
|
|
|