Agenda item

This item is not subject to the Call-In process and the following is for information only:

1.      The Appropriate Officer is to circulate the definition of a key decision to all Members of the Council (as outlined in the Constitution pages 2-37 and 2-38, article 14)

2.      The decisions made at the meeting on 8 July 2009 relating to Item 10 on that agenda are re-confirmed.

As Chair of Overview and Scrutiny 3, Councillor Lane presented to Cabinet the findings following the call-in of the Cabinet Decision of 8 July 2009: Evaluating Ways of Delivering Services and Improving Value for Money for the Council Tax Payers of Northampton.  He stated that the item had been identified as a non-key decision in the Forward Plan but the report presented to Cabinet identified the issue as ‘key’.  This was the reason for the call-in.

Councillor Keith Davies addressed Cabinet, expressing confusion as to why the issue of Market Testing was not on the agenda as a separate item.  He felt that a crucial part of discussion at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting, relating to advertisements for tenders, had been omitted from the report.  He felt that the process was not clear to the public, who might then assume that the council had something to hide.

Councillor Clarke addressed Cabinet clarifying that the decision made at the meeting on 8 July had not been implemented because of the call-in process.  He was of the opinion that the decision made at the time was based on information that had not been available to the relevant Portfolio Holder.  He then invited the Monitoring Officer’s view as to whether or not the issue was a key decision. Councillor Clarke believed that the issue should have been ‘key’ owing to the financial impact and the impact on more than one ward.  He warned Cabinet that he intended to refer the matter to the District Auditor.

Councillor Capstick addressed Cabinet commenting on the ambiguity of the Borough Solicitor’s advice relating to whether or not the issue was ‘key’.  She asked for assurance that £50,000 had not already been spent on the process.  She then asked for an open and transparent debate with all matters flowing from the decision being subject to the pre-scrutiny process.  There was still confusion as to whether the issue was incorrectly designated as non-key on the Forward Plan, or whether the fault was in the report that was presented at Cabinet.  Overview and Scrutiny had determined that the item should have remained non-key as on the Forward Plan.  It was pointed out that if the issue was non-key, then all reports would have come back to Cabinet as key decisions and would be on the Forward Plan and open to scrutiny.

The Monitoring Officer then advised Cabinet that the conclusions of Overview and Scrutiny clearly indicated that the designation of the issue on the final Cabinet report as ‘key’ was a publication error and they had accepted that the issue was ‘non-key’.  The decision made on 8 July was legally valid but was currently suspended pending call-in. He confirmed that if the issue had been a key decision, all other decisions could have been non-key.  In response to a question from Councillor P.D. Varnsverry, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that as the decision of 8^th July 2009 was legally valid notwithstanding the error on the face of the report identifying it as key, Cabinet could having heard Scrutiny’s comments adopt the original decision.

Cabinet then discussed the Scrutiny Committee’s comments and agreed that, as the decision had proper status, they were happy to re-confirm it. With reference to recommendation 2.1 (2) on the 8^th July report, it was pointed out that the definition of a key decision was accessible for Members of the Council in the Constitution, as well as being outlined on the Forward Plan and the front page of the Cabinet agenda.  However, the Monitoring Officer was to reaffirm this with Members.

RESOLVED

1.      That the Appropriate Officer would circulate the definition of a key decision to all Members of the Council (as outlined in the Constitution pages 2-37 and 2-38, article 14)

2.      That the decisions made at the meeting on 8 July 2009 relating to Item 10 on that agenda be re-confirmed.