Agenda item

i)                    To note the notes of the inquorate meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 15 November 2005 (attached).

                        ii)         To note the draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on (a) 29 November 2005 attached and (b) the special Board meeting held on 10 January 2006 (To follow).

(i)                 Notes of the Inquorate Advisory Committee – 15 November 2005

The Chair asked if there were any points of clarification as to the notes.

Mr Aspden referred to the issue of the previous meeting of the Advisory Committee being inquorate and asked for clarification as to:

·        the rules and procedures in this respect of Advisory Committee meetings being inquorate;

·        the status of the notes of the inquorate meeting and whether they could be formally endorsed, together with whether the minutes  that were put to that meeting could be considered and signed off;

·        the notes of the inquorate meeting showed that 3 members were present at 19:45HRS before Cllr Hoban arrived. 

The Clerk – Mr Hart, responded that in terms of inquorate/ quorate meetings, as detailed in the rules of procedures it was stated that should a meeting be inquorate at the commencement time a 15 minute period of time should be given to await the arrival of members. Should, after that time the member attendance still be inquorate then the meeting should be declared abandoned.  The Committee was then able to have an informal meeting, the notes of which would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee. 

Mr Hart advised that at the previous inquorate meeting the meeting was declared inquorate at 19.45HRS and although Councillor Hoban arrived at 19.58HRS the meeting could not then become quorate.  Mr Hart further advised that should members of the public have been present at the point 19:45HRs and had subsequently left due to the meeting being declared and then the meeting was declared quorate on a Member’s arrival then this would be open to challenge by the members of the public who had left the proceedings with the impression that such proceeding were inquorate and that no decisions could be taken.

Mr Hart also advised that the notes of the proceedings were inaccurate as Cllr E. Prescott had not been present at all during the proceeding and should be amended thus. With regard to the status of the notes of the proceedings of 15 November 2006 it was the case that as the meeting was inquorate the notes had no legal stand as a formal record and therefore could not be acted upon.  With regard to the minutes of the meetings held on 14 June 2005 and 6 September 2005 these would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee for its approval.

Following further comments and points of clarification from Mr Aspden in terms of regulating the rules and procedures the Chair felt that it would be appropriate for the Committee to address these issues later in the proceedings. In terms of the notes of the inquorate meeting held on 15 November 2005 the Chair felt that these should be formally endorsed and it was:

RESOLVED

i.                    That the notes of the inquorate meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 15 November 2005 be noted and endorsed as an accurate record of those proceedings.

ii.                  That the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Committee held on 14 June, and 6 September 2005 be submitted to the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on 28 March 2006.

              (ii)          Board Meeting – 29 November 2005

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Board meetings held on 29 November 2005 and 10 January 2006 be noted.

                            Matters Arising

Mr Aspden referred to Minute APP017 – and sought clarification as to the information relating to the criteria for evaluation and asked for some clarification and guidance on this issue. Mr Aspden felt that it was difficult to have an understanding of the process unless the evaluation criteria were known to the Advisory Committee.

The General Manager -Mr Holder responded that whilst such a request could be put to the Board he advised that cautiously such criteria contained crucial commercial information not for the public domain, and that all parties had signed confidentiality clauses to not disclose information therefore the need to ensure that this was maintained.  The disclosure was therefore unlikely.

In response to further questions Mr Holder advised that para 4 of the development brief set out the criteria for the bidders to address and was as such not confidential to the bidders. However any disclosure of responses to other parties could result in the Board being challenged on the process it had agreed and embarked upon. Therefore a request for the information could be considered by the board whilst the responses could not be made public.