Agenda and minutes

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Potter declared a personal non prejudicial interest in respect of the called-in report, as she was employed in the voluntary sector by an organisation who had made bids to a number of ward committees.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Committee’s remit can do so. The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Friday 23 March 2012.      

It was reported that no members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 30 January 2012.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last Scrutiny Management Committee(Calling In) meeting held on 30 January 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record

To consider the provisional decisions made by Cabinet at their meeting held on 6 March 2012 in relation to the above item, which has been called in pre-decision by Councillors Runciman, Reid and Ayre and post decision by Councillors Barton, Healey and Galvin in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in’s and the remit and powers of the Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling In) in relation to the call-in procedure, together with the original report to and decisions of the Cabinet.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the provisional decisions made by Cabinet at their meeting held on 6 March 2012. The report sought members’ approval for a new model of Neighbourhood Working through which the Council would work with partners to deliver better services for York’s communities.

Details of the Cabinet’s provisional decisions were attached as Annex A to the report with the original report to the Cabinet attached as Annex B. The provisional decisions had initially been called in by Councillors Runciman, Reid and Ayre, on the grounds that:

(i)            There has been a complete lack of consultation with stakeholders, including ward councillors and ward organisations such as Parish Councils.  The results of consultations should be clearly reported.

(ii)          The potential effect of the measures being suggested to neighbourhood working across the city mean that any decision on the future of this report should be taken by all members, given the impact it will have on all communities in the city.

(iii)         The report does not take into account the continual running costs of present projects (such as the cost of salt bins already in place), and the effect they might have on future budgets.

(iv)         Options other than the proposed ‘Community Contracts’ concept have not been properly proposed or discussed.

Following the provisional Cabinet decision, Councillors Barton, Healey and Galvin had then also called in the item, post decision, on the grounds of:

(i)            Lack of consultation with Parish Councils and Ward Members, and the potential effect lack of grants will have on the future of local organisations.

(ii)          Challenge to the assumption the new system will be non-bureaucratic. (Paragraph 8).

(iii)         Opposition to a non elected organisation distributing public money by way of grants previously voted upon by residents.

(iv)         Lack of information regarding the effect of double taxation following the implementation of the scheme.

Members were asked to decide whether to confirm the provisional decisions (Option i) or to refer them back to the Cabinet for re-consideration (Option ii).

Cllr Reid addressed the meeting on behalf of the pre-decision Calling-In Members. She expanded on the four reasons given for the call-in pointing out that the new approach would not deliver a better service as it appeared that residents would no longer be consulted on budget decisions affecting their wards. She questioned how priorities could be proposed in community contracts without a budget. No indication had been given of how residents views would be taken into account when monies were allocated.

Councillor Ayre confirmed that there were a number of good ideas in the new approach however this appeared to be a flawed policy which would damage the city and its residents. He questioned how the Council for Voluntary Service could undertake additional work with reduced funding and similarly with staffing reductions how would any proposals be delivered. Reductions in the number of ward meetings however would not assist residents in attending meetings and he pointed out that the report failed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.