Agenda item

To receive an update from the Monitoring Officer and to consider feedback from the Independent Persons arising from their attendance at meetings of the Council.

The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that they had agreed at the last meeting to ask the Independent Persons to attend a selection of meetings, to sit at the back and observe, as a member of the public, to see how business was transacted. Unfortunately one of the Independent Persons (IP) had resigned from his post, due to other commitments.  The requirement in law was to have one IP but it had been agreed that it was preferable to have two in case the IP was unable to assist due to other lack of availability or a conflict of interest.  The officer informed Members that she would make enquiries with neighbouring authorities with regard to sharing.

Mr Smith, IP, informed the Committee that he had attended a range of meetings, just sitting at the back as a member of the public, not looking for anything in particular but to see how the meeting went and how it may appear to a Member of the public. He had attended Full Council and Audit. Mr Smith informed the Committee that he intended to continue attending meetings. The IP reported that the meetings he attended had been well chaired, managed and interesting. He considered that from a public point of view Councillors behaved extremely well. He appreciated that each Councillor was an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses. He witnessed a well-argued debate with points from both sides and some persuasive points. Some points of view had been strongly held but he said he had nothing but praise for the way in which Councillors behaved and how the meetings had been chaired. He had observed that Audit was a short meeting with a reliance on officers for technical input but the Members had clearly ready the papers and made positive contributions. He thought Members had performed very well and had no adverse comments to make.

Discussion took place regarding the role of the IP and whether it would be compromised by attendance at meetings.  The IP was able to reassure Members that he would be careful to maintain his neutrality.  He was not introduced at meetings and acted as a member of the public.  Mr Smith did remind Members that there could be occasions when he could be conflicted due to knowing personally a Member or complainant, but this was already the case due to having lived in the town for a long time and would not be affected by his attendance at meetings.

The update from the Independent Person and the implications arising from it were NOTED.

The Monitoring Officer provided an update from Mr Williamson, the former IP, who due to his resignation was not present at the meeting.

Mr Williamson had attended what might be seen as the more contentious meetings, Planning and Scrutiny.  He had reported that these meetings had been more emotive and lengthy.  He had no concerns regarding the way the meetings were managed but, recognising the challenging nature of the subject matter, felt that Members had, at times, dropped their guard and that after a period of discipline would let slip a comment that might not be well recieved.  He appreciated that this could be due to fatigue. He had stressed the point that although the meeting had been long in length, the public may not appreciate a jovial comment at their agenda item.  He wondered how Members could be reminded of the importance to remain professional throughout the meeting, regardless of the length.

Discussion took place regarding:

·       A reminder could be put in WIS;

·       The seriousness of each agenda item at planning;

·       The importance of striking a balance for the seriousness of the matter and the passion felt by Members;

·       The difficulties in chairing these particular meetings.

 The Chairman thanked the Independent Persons for their updates.