102 Review of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee's Terms of Reference PDF 167 KB
To receive the report from the Head of Legal and Democratic.
To outline the inputs and reasoning behind the current Terms of Reference for the Joint Audit and Governance Committee and provide members the opportunity to review it and assess whether it remains fit for purpose.
Recommendation:
To make any recommendations about the updating of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee’s Terms of Reference to the Joint Constitution Review Task Group and each Council for inclusion in the councils’ constitution.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Following a training session, the Joint Audit and Governance Committee agreed to review their terms of reference (ToR) to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and member expectations. The democratic services team leader, presented a report outlining that officers were satisfied that the current ToR met statutory requirements and Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) expectations. However, there was room for procedural improvements, such as introducing Co-Vice Chairs, which would be appointed by the committee.
To ensure balanced chairing and timely sign-off of documents, it was recommended to create Co-Vice Chair positions, one from each council.
The committee consisted of four members from each council plus an independent member, and was politically balanced. Any changes to membership needed approval from both councils.
Members noted that some of the wording in the ToR felt vague; such as noting and approving items as opposed to making changes or recommendations. The head of legal and democratic services confirmed that the discharge of functions and statutory remit required certain items to be “noted” or “approved” formally by the committee, and that keeping that consistent was sensible.
There was a discussion where members and officers agreed that while the committee should note or approve where required, they are able send recommendations to full council or via other avenues regarding particular issues if it was deemed appropriate.
Members noted that some of the reports listed in the ToR may not have come to the committee. They discussed whether the scope of what the committee considers and seeks to achieve should be reviewed.
The head of finance explained that this committee has a distinct and defined role. They used budgetary control as an example; this committee had a specific function to check the accuracy of accounts, which was very different from scrutiny’s purpose, which was to look at why and what had been spent. Members agreed this was a helpful explanation and asked that this distinction be put in writing.
Members discussed whether the power to make recommendations and to whom should be included in the terms of reference. The head of legal and democratic services confirmed that this would be possible, and that they would come up with some wording to meet these requirements.
Members considered the proposal for Co-Vice Chairs to be included and agreed that it would be helpful.
RESOLVED: to make a recommendation to the constitutional review group that the draft ToR be agreed, and should include: