Agenda item

Further information can be found on the Council’s website regarding the Draft Articles and Terms of Reference for the Residents’ Forums (Report to Full Council on 22 February 2018) by clicking on the link.

The Council`s Monitoring Officer, Mr Dave Gill introduced himself. He spoke on this agenda item. The Officer informed residents that he joined the Council in November 2017 and had previously worked for North West District Council.

It was explained that one of his first tasks was to address the Forums Terms of Reference on the back of the consultation carried out in 2017 on how grants were made, address the terms of reference and place a more robust structure around the way the Resident Forum process worked.

Two papers attached for sharing with residents covered this agenda item. Part 1, Article 7 – Residents Forums,  Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 – Draft Terms of Reference, Residents  Forums. The papers covered the following:

Current and future role of the resident forums, their funding including proposed changes to the terms of reference, membership and participation, chairing, meeting format, voting, standards of conduct, conflicts of interest, frequency, duration, meeting venues, agenda setting, minute taking and reporting arrangements.

Residents were encouraged to raise questions on the paper and pose any recommendations on the changes. The Monitoring Officer informed residents he will report back their views and recommendations in a report to Members on 24 April 2018. Members will then take a view on the comments and recommendations received to inform decision making.

The following comments relating to the Terms of Reference were made on behalf of the Wigston Civic Society

2.2 The wording indicates a one way meeting from the Council to residents, but it is appreciated that 2.2 of the proposed Key Aims allows the process for residents to express their views to the Council. Only 2.5 and 2.6 of the proposed terms of reference seem to indicate that residents can express their views to the council. These clauses could be combined into one to indicate the two way process.

3.1 It is noted that the original wording has been amended following the consideration of the document by the full council. But the amended wording does not include representatives of properly constituted groups of residents within the Borough, such as the Civic Society (Oadby and Wigston), the Lions Club and the Pride of the Borough. Can this be amended please?

4.3/4.4 There needs to be a definition of who can vote, presumably a reference back to 3.1 as amended above.

6.3 This is rather abrupt, it is appreciated that usually participants in a meeting would not wish it to last longer than two hours but can this item but less dictatorial.

7.1 Can there be a timescale included regarding the issue of draft minutes?

7.2 Can there be a reference to the order of items on the agenda being agreed by the chair but that he can vary the order at the meeting in response to requests by residents present?

7.3 There needs to be a full and accurate record of the meeting and therefore the inclusion of the word ‘brief’ could invite the exclusion of some discussion and therefore the word should be deleted.

7.4 M y point in 7.3 above links to this reference that that the consideration of the minutes can only relate to ‘factual or typographical inaccuracies within the text as written only’. I think that this means that if residents consider that a point raised at a meeting has been omitted from the text of the minutes it cannot be included when considering accuracy at the next meeting. This is not correct as an item that a resident feels is important and needs to be brought to the attention of the full council will be lost forever if the minutes cannot be corrected. There needs to be a ‘matters arising’ item on each agenda.

Residents were referred to page 8, appendix 1, part 1 regarding the role of the Residents’ Forum and the reference to delegated powers. It was emphasised that the Forums allow for an exchange of views between the public and the Council, which then feed into Council Decision-making.

The draft Terms of Reference regulate how the Forums are to run. It was noted Oadby Residents Forum raised the issue of membership. They expressed the view that only people from their area, not influenced externally should be members. They held the view that Council Members should have no right to vote.

Some of South Wigston residents expressed the view that the current terms of reference be left unchanged.

A view was expressed that section 2.2 of the draft terms of reference seemed one sided. This was with regards to information coming from the Council to the public. It was requested that it be redrafted to make it explicitly twoway.

The Head of Law & Governance/Monitoring Officer read part 2 aloud. He confirmed that it will be within the Council`s constitution. It will form part of the articles of the Forum.

Residents can place items on the agenda.

The Terms of reference can be tweaked and any suggested change to the current form of wording to be included can be sent to the Community Engagement Officer. The Council will then make a decision on this.

It was agreed that a constituted community group in its own right, for example, the Wigston Civic Society, as a member, could take a proposal to the Forum. The Officer stated he was happy to accept this amendment.

On point 4.4  concerning voting rights, the Officer stated this point was considered at Oadby Residents Forum. There, it was agreed there that, only people who live in Oadby should be allowed to vote. It was suggested that this might lead to people`s identity having to be checked. The statement “primarily intended for people who live and work“ was suggested at Oadby Forum to be added to the draft Terms of Reference.

There was some resistance at this meeting to having businesses be given voting rights. The Head of Law & Governance/Monitoring Officer, suggested it would be advantageous for business associations to be allowed a vote, especially as they had potential accessible resources.

On point 6.3, the duration of meetings being for no more than two hours. A suggestion was made that it should be at the discretion the Chair to extend the meeting duration.