Agenda item

PROPOSAL TO PILOT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE CHANGES

To consider the recommendation to pilot a new Open Forum

Minutes:

The meeting heard a variety of views including that:

·           Some members were in favour of the proposals in the paper as it was evident that the current structure of the Committee was not the most representative group of residents in the borough and not the best way of representing stakeholders. However, it would be useful to confirm what the objectives of the forum actually were.  In the past public meetings such as the licensing proposal in 2017 had worked well with members of the public giving and discussion giving   their views. One of the strengths of the Committee was that it had Board trustees as members. 

·           There appeared to be a risk that the Committee may become a question and answer session and this may not be productive.

·           The reports, such as CEO reports, being submitted to the Committee three to four times a year was a good way to keep up to date and the Committees would like to see this practice continue for the open forum.

·           It would be useful if the regular routine reports, which were available on the Council’s website, were also made available to anybody who wanted them on the AP Website perhaps by linking to the Council’s committee pages.

·           Although the report considered the need for more community proportionate representation, it did not appear to represent the beneficiaries of the Charity. There were specific matters which needed to be referred to the Statutory Advisory Committee by law and some matters to the Consultative Committee due to the Councils constitution. There were many items that were put before the Board that did not come before either the Statutory Advisory or the Consultative Committees. The Board advertised any proposed decision one week before the meeting. The proposed forum stated that the public needed to provide two weeks’ notice before submitting a question, but it would not be technically possible to do this as the papers to the Board were only published one week before. It was clarified that only items for including on the agenda should be requested with 2 weeks’ notice.

·           The proposal had only been published for about a week. The legal advice stated that there were no issues with the proposals for the pilot as long as the structure was unchanged, but it appeared that the proposal would change the structure. The proposals should not be agreed until a specially convened meeting of the Consultative Committee so that all interested parties including people from different organisations could attend it and provide their suggestions.

·           It was possible to consider not agreeing to abolish the Consultative Committee but still have an open forum and have a positive pilot scheme. The forum could meet two times a year. This would help to examine how well the proposed processes would work.

·           A discussion needed to be held on what an open forum would look like, how people would be brought into the conversation and a meeting could be held regarding the processes of the open forum.

·           It needed to be clarified that the Consultative Committee could only be abolished by the Council.

·           Solely advertising on social media would likely miss much of the target audience, particularly those who did not use social media. Other methods of advertising were necessary such as the use of posters in community centres, places of worship and local areas. Residents were more likely to become aware of the arrangements if signposting in those areas were used.

·           It was difficult for the Consultative Committee to provide their views on ongoing issues if it was not meeting often enough.

·           It would be disappointing to see the Committee not move forward with any proposed changes as there was at least some agreement amongst everybody that some form of a change was required. The Committee could at least see how the changes would take effect and facilitate a feedback loop.

 

The Chair stated that he had deep philosophical objection to the proposed model of governance and that it was premature to make a decision to approve the proposals as put forward at this point.  There needed to be more discussion and the Consultative Committee should meet without Councillors to examine views at a greater depth.  An initial trial period of 12 months had been proposed, however, during a conversation with senior council officers, the suggestion of a two-year pilot was put forward as their experience revealed that one  year was quite a short timeframe to establish a wider understanding.. There was a big difference between a properly constituted council committee and an open forum. Consideration needed to be given as to what would happen if the Consultative Committee was lost, some members felt that the Statutory Advisory Committee and Consultative Committee were likely to be taken more seriously and be more constructive if separated.

The proposals needed to be taken to the next Consultative Committee so that a more full discussion could be held.

The Committee agreed that as an action, the proposals would be discussed at the next Consultative Committee, but also agreed to start the process of the idea of an open forum in principle. This was so that officers could be tasked with taking action so that some progress could be made. 

The Chair stated that Ms Louise Stewart would be leaving in the new year and wished to express the Committee’s thanks for her work in the last six years as she had left an admirable legacy and played a key role on how Alexandra Palace operated and oversaw improvements in governance and management structure.

Ms Stewart thanked her team and support from stakeholders. 

            RESOLVED:

1      That the proposals be submitted and discussed at the next Committee.

2      That initial work be started on the processes of an open forum.

 

Supporting documents: