Agenda item

Report of the Director of Resources

The Director of Resources introduced the report as circulated with the agenda and invited Grant Thornton to make a short statement. 

Peter Barber, of Grant Thornton, wished to clarify the role of Grant Thornton.  Despite the Council resolutions as outlined in the executive summary of the covering report and the fact that Grant Thornton were fully supportive of the proposal to appoint co-opted members, they had been unable to have any input into the draft documentation which was being considered by the committee.  Part of their role could call for them to comment on the arrangements, which they would be unable to do had they had any involvement in the process. 

The Director of Resources reminded members of the long discussion at the last meeting pertaining to criteria and restrictions and the committee’s decision to refer the matter to Council.  Council had supported the proposal to appoint co-opted independent members but had delegated selection criteria back to the Audit Committee, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor and External Auditors.  Officers had drafted documents based on those used by Cheltenham Borough Council in the past and those used by other authorities for the recruitment of independent members of the Audit Committee.  He reminded members that there was no legislation relating to the criteria and referred members to the suggested minimum, as set out at 2.4 of the report.  As with other co-opted members of the authority, no allowance would be paid, though travel expenses could be claimed. 

Members were comfortable with minimum criteria which had been suggested by Officers at 2.4 of the report. 

The committee talked through each of the further criteria set out at 2.5 of the report.

v) Members chose not to accept this, deciding that it would prove difficult to exclude members of a political party when an individual could well have very strong political views, whilst not being a member of a political party. 

vi) Whilst members agreed that it would not be appropriate for serving officers and members of the County Council, partner authorities, shared services or Parish Councils within Cheltenham, to hold the position of co-optee on the committee, they did not feel that members of all other authorities should be excluded. 

vii) The Committee felt that it would be inappropriate for a previously serving officer or member of the Executive (ex-Cabinet Member) to be appointed

until after such a time as the accounts for that period in which they were serving had been signed off, it was considered that a long stop period of 18 months from cessation of membership/employment should be sufficient.  It was not felt necessary for non-executive members to be subject any such time restriction. 

viii) This was accepted.

The committee agreed that appointment would be for 3 years rather than the 4 suggested in the report and members felt it would be prudent for the committee to review any such appointments as required.  

The committee also agreed that the Chairman and Vice-Chair would be given the opportunity to review any applications before Officers convened the Interviewing Panel. 

The Director of Resources would suggest suitable wording to reflect the criteria which had been agreed by the committee and circulate it for approval by the Chairman and Vice-Chair.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that;

1.     The opportunity to apply for the position of independent member of the Audit Committee be advertised on the Council’s website.

2.     The advert, job description, person specification and application form, as amended, for approval by the Chairman and Vice-Chair, be used as part of the recruitment process.

3.     An Interview Panel comprising the Director of Resources and Democratic Services Manager (or their nominated representatives) nominate up to three Co-optees and make recommendations to the Audit Committee for their appointment, the Chairman and Vice-Chair having been given the opportunity to review all applications prior to interview.