DOCSLIB.ORG

Simultaneous Cabinet Further Transformation In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

6

SIMULTANEOUS CABINET

Monday 13 November 2017

FURTHER TRANSFORMATION IN EAST SUFFOLK (REP1629)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. 2.
Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council agreed in January 2017 to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This was preceded by an intensive period of public consultation in November 2016, the results of which demonstrated that the majority of residents were in favour of one district Council in east Suffolk.

The decision to create a new Council for east Suffolk was both ambitious and ground breaking. A “super district” Council will be formed which will be the largest in England in terms of population. The creation of a new Council follows the successful legacy of both Councils working closely together for many years. Officers of all levels of seniority are shared, a joint Business Plan has been adopted and other key policies such as the Housing Strategy are shared. The Councils already share one website under the “East Suffolk” banner and Councillors from both authorities have attended meetings of each Council’s Cabinets since 2010. Cabinet portfolios are aligned and members have shared representation on various outside bodies.

  • 3.
  • The creation of a new Council will be a model other authorities follow as they decide how

best to grapple with the significant challenges facing local government. Councils need to be of a scale large enough to face these challenges by having a loud enough voice, a strong bargaining position, a healthy balance sheet and a resilient workforce, yet small enough to feel connected to their residents. The creation of the new Council for east Suffolk will strike that balance.

4.

5.
In February 2017 a request was made to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to authorise the creation of a new Council and a business case in support of that request was provided to him.

Since then, a number of high profile matters including Brexit have diverted the government’s attention away from progressing local government issues, which has meant the Secretary of State’s decision has not yet been received. The Councils and local MPs have since been lobbying the Secretary of State and DCLG which led to key meetings being held with them. These meetings have had the desired effect of firmly placing the Councils’ ambition for the creation of a new Council back onto the Secretary of State’s agenda.

107
6. 7.
It is now hoped that the Secretary of State will commit to making a “minded to” decision imminently, which will trigger the DCLG in to drafting the Order required to create a new authority.

A Member Programme Board comprising of Councillors from both Councils was set up to progress the work around the creation of a new Council. It has so far met on four occasions and has considered a number of key matters, thought to be required for the purposes of the drafting the Order. For instance, the Member Programme Board has given consideration to: the name of the new Council, Council size (i.e. the number of Councillors to be elected to the new Council), ward boundaries and whether to adopt a cabinet or some other model of governance.

8.

9.
This report details the findings of the Member Programme Board and makes a number of recommendations to a simultaneous meeting of each authority’s Cabinet.

These recommendations will be considered by each Cabinet at their simultaneous meeting, and given the significance and nature of the decisions to be made; their decisions will also be referred to each of the respective authorities’ Full Councils.

  • 10.
  • Should these recommendations be accepted, they will be provided to the Secretary of State

(and Local Government Boundary Commission for England) so that Order can be drafted, if he is so minded, to bring this in to effect, and subsequently, the Order will be laid before each House of Parliament, for consent.

Is the report Open or Exempt?

Wards Affected:

Open All

Cabinet Members:

Councillor Ray Herring - Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council Councillor Mark Bee - Leader of Waveney District Council

Supporting Officer:

Nick Khan Strategic Director 01502 523606

[email protected]

108

1

INTRODUCTION

  • 1.1
  • In January 2017, members at Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) and Waveney District

Council (WDC) agreed to progress with the creation of a new single authority for the east Suffolk area.

1.2

1.3 1.4
On 26 January 2017 at the Full Council meeting of Suffolk Coastal District Council, it was resolved:

“That following consideration of the Business Case for the proposals previously (in Reports REP1359 and REP1380), and the public engagement conducted by the Councils, the Council of Suffolk Coastal District Council

(i) approves the proposal to create a new single Council for East Suffolk as their preferred way forward and

(ii) authorises the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leaders of the Councils, to submit a written request to the Department of the Communities and Local Government to commence the formal process of merger of the Councils, based on the proposal set out in Appendix A to report CL03/17.”

On 25 January 2017 at the Full Council meeting of Waveney District Council, it was resolved:

“That following consideration of the Business Case for the proposals previously (in Reports REP1359 and REP1380), and the public engagement conducted by the Councils, the Council of Waveney District Council:

(i) To approve the proposal to create a new single Council for East Suffolk as their preferred way forward and;

(ii) To authorise the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leaders of the Councils, to submit a written request to the Department of the Communities and Local Government to commence the formal process of merger of the Councils, based on the proposal set out in Appendix A to this report.”

A Business Case for the creation of the new Council was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 2 February 2017. The Business Case is available on the East Suffolk website:

Creating an East Suffolk Council - full proposal document

2

BACKGROUND

  • 2.1
  • Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council have been working

increasingly closely together since first sharing a Chief Executive in 2008. Simultaneous meetings of the Cabinets have taken place since 2010. This strong and successful partnership culminated in the adoption of a new joint Business Plan, designed to integrate the Councils’ business planning approach for east Suffolk. (Adopted by WDC Full Council on 18 November 2015 REP1285 and by SCDC Full Council on 26 November 2015 CL 28/15).

2.2

2.3
This unanimously supported positive step adopts a more business-like approach to developing financial self-sufficiency, encouraging growth across east Suffolk and enabling communities to develop from within, to maintain their unique quality of life.

Working in partnership has already enabled the Councils to save over £16m since 2010. SCDC and WDC are however committed to building further upon this successful shared services partnership to enhance the quality of life for east Suffolk’s residents. Bringing

109 the Business Plans together was an important part of creating such continuous improvement, within this ground-breaking operational and strategic partnership. The new Business Plan contains the Councils’ long-term joint ambitions for east Suffolk, reflecting their determination to push the boundaries of what they can achieve together. A summary of the vast transformational work undertaken as a result of working in partnership can be found at Appendix A of this report.

  • 2.4
  • This is also vital as the Local Government world is continually changing and the

Government is committed to further public sector reform. Both Councils face a number of key challenges, including:



The need for investment in growth and infrastructure projects; Addressing increasing housing demand and costs; Growing employment opportunities and wages; Significant reductions in Central Government funding for Councils (both Revenue Support Grant and New Homes Bonus);



Devolution of greater powers from Central Government; Double Devolution transfer of functions & responsibilities from Suffolk County Council; Further alignment and integration across the public sector; Improving education and skills; Better use of technology; Further welfare reform.

  • 2.5
  • Creating a new District for east Suffolk requires the consent of the Secretary of State for

Communities & Local Government. The Department for Communities & Local Government (‘DCLG’) has established five broad principles that it has adopted for considering proposals. It should be noted however that these are not statutory tests and nor do they form statutory guidance. As such there are no wider definitions or details for the five principles. The principles, which are equally weighted, are that the proposal would provide:



better local/public services; significant cost savings; greater value for money; stronger and more accountable local leadership; and sustainability in the medium to long term

  • 2.6
  • DCLG has recommended that any proposal for merger by the Councils should be carried

out under the powers created by section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (CLGDA). This section provides the primary legislation by which the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the governance arrangements of local authorities, and their structural and boundary arrangements. The carrying out of functions under s15 of the CLGDA are executive decisions. The necessary regulations to make such decisions ones that are reserved to full Council have not been made. However, given the structural changes involved, the DCLG have indicated that, as part of the process, they would expect the proposals to have the support of the full Councils. Hence the recommendation at 5), below, that the proposals be approved by each Council.

  • 2.7
  • S15 (5) provides that any regulations made under this section, so far as they include

structural or boundary provisions in relation to non-unitary District Council areas, may only be made with the consent of the local authorities to whom the regulations apply.

110
Whilst the primary legislation exists to allow for this type of structural change, the

“regulations” or secondary legislation referred to above have not been made. In order to

make them, the Secretary of State will need to receive a request to do so. That request was indeed made by the Councils to the Secretary of State on 2 February 2017 and a

“minded to” decision was expected to be made reasonably quickly after that date.

  • 2.8
  • However, due to Civil Service and parliamentary time being exhausted by a number of

high profile matters – general elections, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, terrorist attacks and the Grenfell tragedy, the “minded to” decision has not been

received and has consequently pushed back the Councils’ timetable. If the Councils are to meet their objective of creating a new Council by 2019 it is imperative that any delays

are minimised and a “minded to” decision is received as soon as possible. Although

delays in central government are very much outside of the Councils’ control, members, local MPs and officers have been applying pressure on DCLG, the Secretary of State, and other bodies such as the Local Government Association at every given opportunity. This proactive approach to lobbying has yielded results as it led to securing key meetings with DCLG representatives on 8th August and then with the Secretary of State himself on 6th September.

  • 2.9
  • The meeting with the Secretary of State was attended by the leaders of both Councils,

the Chief Executive and all 3 local members of parliament. The meeting was very positive

and the Secretary of State was encouraged by the unified “front” presented by the

Councils’ leaders and all 3 local MPs, who are firmly in support of the proposal. He was pleased that the Councils had submitted all the key information required, including the full business case in February and he viewed our proposal as being at an advanced stage, when compared to some other Councils pursuing similar ambitions.

2.10 Due to a considerable period of time having elapsed since the Councils’ proposals were first submitted to him, the Secretary of State requested some additional information. He asked for an update on the financial position, namely whether the savings originally anticipated in the business case were still applicable. The Secretary of State also asked for further information on the consultation carried out last year, in particular, how the Councils’ have been dealing with any adverse comments received through that consultation. All of this information was submitted to him within a few days of it being requested.

2.11 At the time of writing the DCLG is preparing a report for the Secretary of State’s consideration, which will hopefully enable him to make a “minded to decision” as soon as possible. If a minded to decision is received, this then sets in train the parliamentary Order making process, which will include the DCLG working with the Councils to prepare the draft regulations required. The draft Order must then be progressed through a

number of parliamentary stages before it can be finally “made” and become law. After

any “minded to” decision is given, the Secretary of State will seek representations on the

councils’ proposals for a “reasonable” period of time, which is likely to be around 6

weeks. He will use this to obtain his own validation as to the level of support for the proposals, although clearly any engagement the councils have already undertaken will be reviewed, considered and taken into account. DCLG have said that the Councils themselves will be consultees during this time, and this being the case, any further support for the proposals can be submitted at the appropriate time.

2.12 If he is minded to support the proposals, the Secretary of State will request the creation of an Order that will dissolve the current Councils and create a new Council, transferring the powers, functions and responsibilities of Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council to the new Council on 1 April 2019. The Order must receive the approval

111 of both Houses of Parliament, and be accompanied by a report setting out why the Secretary of State believes it appropriate to create the new Council, and any consultation he has taken into account.

Figure 1 Parliamentary process
2.13 The DCLG has previously indicated that it will take approximately 6-8 months for it to make the secondary legislation to allow the creation of the new Council to take place. Therefore, by using section 15, the Councils will have the period from approximately spring 2018 through to April 2019 to fully prepare for implementation of the new Council. Other formal steps which will be required are that once the DCLG has made the secondary legislation, the Councils will need to consent, formally, to the making of the necessary Order to bring the new Council into existence.

2.14 SCDC and WDC are very much breaking new ground in seeking to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This being the case, the precise details of what an Order should comprise of have not yet been fully clarified by DCLG.

2.15 SCDC and WDC have been advised by the DCLG that there is a need to inform it of the preferred size of the proposed new Council, and its name. In order to consider the proposed size, we need to consider the warding arrangements currently, and how they might work, in future. Also, what model of governance the new Council might adopt, and its structure.

2.16 Following submission of the Business Case in January 2017 approved by SCDC and WDC,

a ‘Member Programme Board’ (MPB) was formed to consider these and other key

matters for the creation of the new Council in preparation for a decision later in the year. The MPB is made up of 10 members, with 5 being from SCDC and 5 from WDC. The MPB is politically balanced with 4 members from the SCDC Conservative group and 1 member representing the opposition parties/independents at SCDC, and 3 members of the WDC Conservative group, 1 member of the WDC Labour group and 1 member representing the other opposition party/independents.

2.17 The MPB has met on 26 April 2017, 26 June 2017, 7 August 2017 and 13th October with further meetings expected. The MPB does not have the power to make formal decisions but will seek to update members on the process and where appropriate make recommendations to Cabinet and Full Council. The MPB has operated in a cross party manner and it has welcomed attendance from non-MPB Members.

2.18 What follows in this report is the MPB’s consideration of various key matters thought to

be required for the purposes of the Order.
112
2.19 Decisions made by Simultaneous Cabinet on the recommendations made in this report will then be proposed to be approved at SCDC’s and WDC’s Full Councils later in November (WDC Full Council on 15th November 2017 and SCDC Full Council on 23rd November 2017).

3

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EAST SUFFOLK BUSINESS PLAN?

  • 3.1
  • Both Councils are committed to ensuring that east Suffolk is in the best possible position

to respond to, and take advantage of, these emerging opportunities and challenges. With this in mind one of the planned actions for east Suffolk, as set out in the Joint Business Plan, is to:

“Explore the options for further integration between the partner authorities for more streamlined and resilient district services, and evaluate the potential for greater east Suffolk autonomy”.

4

COUNCIL NAME

  • 4.1
  • Local authorities are required to conform to certain legal requirements when it comes to

its name. As two councils are proposed to be dissolved and a new, single district Council

created, that new district Council will need a name. “District” is defined in s270 of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972) as “a metropolitan district or a non-metropolitan

district”. s1 (1) of the LGA 1972 says that for the administration of local government on and after 1 April 1974, England shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts.

4.2

4.3
The districts in the non metropolitan counties were specified by orders made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 to schedule 3 of the LGA 1972 and had the names given to them by those orders. S2(3) of the LGA 1972 says that “each council mentioned

… shall be a body corporate by the name “the county council” or ”the district council”, as the case may be, with the addition of the name of the particular county or district”.

The MPB discussed the respective merits of 2 names “East Suffolk District Council” and “East Suffolk Council”. It recommended that “East Suffolk District Council” is an appropriate name to be adopted as the new Council’s name for legal purposes and “East Suffolk Council” as the commonly referred to name. This accords with the MPB’s view that “East Suffolk Council” is the name which residents are most familiar with, given the Councils’ shared website and other references to it in day to day matters. Using “East Suffolk District Council” for legal purposes, in formal documents such as contracts,

Orders and the like means the new Council will be compliant with the law pertaining to the naming of local authorities.

5

COUNCIL SIZE

  • 5.1
  • At the meeting on 26 June, the MPB began work on considering the optimum size of the

new Council, having regard to the guidance of the LGBCE. Members worked through the criteria set out in the LGBCE guidance document on determining Council size, and reached an initial decision on their preferred size for the new Council. The workings and rationale in reaching this provisional number are shown in further detail in this report. A proposal on Council size with supporting evidence will serve the dual purpose of informing the Order and also forming the basis of the information needed for the initial stage of the anticipated electoral review.

113
5.2 5.3
The provisional Council size number was also discussed further at the MPB meeting on 7 August, at which members were able to see how this number would work in practice if used with the county divisions as electoral boundaries, and had the opportunity to review their workings from the 26 June and ensure they were happy with the preferred number they had reached.

After that meeting, all 90 members of both Councils were invited to comment on the proposed Council size so that the simultaneous meeting of each Council’s Cabinet could consider these comments and take them into account when making their respective decisions. Eleven Councillors submitted a response to this invitation, two of which agreed with the conclusions of the MPB on the proposed Council size. The comments received stating that the proposed number of Councillors was too low can be broadly summarised as follows:

Recommended publications
  • List of Councils in England by Type

    List of Councils in England by Type

    List of councils in England by type There are a total of 353 councils in England: Metropolitan districts (36) London boroughs (32) plus the City of London Unitary authorities (55) plus the Isles of Scilly County councils (27) District councils (201) Metropolitan districts (36) 1. Barnsley Borough Council 19. Rochdale Borough Council 2. Birmingham City Council 20. Rotherham Borough Council 3. Bolton Borough Council 21. South Tyneside Borough Council 4. Bradford City Council 22. Salford City Council 5. Bury Borough Council 23. Sandwell Borough Council 6. Calderdale Borough Council 24. Sefton Borough Council 7. Coventry City Council 25. Sheffield City Council 8. Doncaster Borough Council 26. Solihull Borough Council 9. Dudley Borough Council 27. St Helens Borough Council 10. Gateshead Borough Council 28. Stockport Borough Council 11. Kirklees Borough Council 29. Sunderland City Council 12. Knowsley Borough Council 30. Tameside Borough Council 13. Leeds City Council 31. Trafford Borough Council 14. Liverpool City Council 32. Wakefield City Council 15. Manchester City Council 33. Walsall Borough Council 16. North Tyneside Borough Council 34. Wigan Borough Council 17. Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 35. Wirral Borough Council 18. Oldham Borough Council 36. Wolverhampton City Council London boroughs (32) 1. Barking and Dagenham 17. Hounslow 2. Barnet 18. Islington 3. Bexley 19. Kensington and Chelsea 4. Brent 20. Kingston upon Thames 5. Bromley 21. Lambeth 6. Camden 22. Lewisham 7. Croydon 23. Merton 8. Ealing 24. Newham 9. Enfield 25. Redbridge 10. Greenwich 26. Richmond upon Thames 11. Hackney 27. Southwark 12. Hammersmith and Fulham 28. Sutton 13. Haringey 29. Tower Hamlets 14.
  • Written Evidence Submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021]

    Written Evidence Submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021]

    Written evidence submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021] • How has Covid-19 changed the landscape for long-term funding reform of the adult social care sector? The challenges facing the adult social care market prior to the pandemic are well documented and, in many cases, have been brought into sharp focus over the last 12 months. Local Authority published rates; contract arrangements (e.g. block arrangements); commissioning approaches (e.g. strategic partners) and CCG funding agreements including Better Care Fund allocations are all key funding reform considerations which sit alongside the necessity to offer choice, personalised care and high quality, safe services. Residential and nursing care There are 306 registered care homes in East Sussex – the majority are small independently run homes, which don’t have the wrap-around organisational infrastructure enjoyed by larger / national providers. In East Sussex, Local Authority placements are made across around one-third of the residential and nursing care market. At the peak of the second wave over 100 care homes in East Sussex were closed to admissions due to Covid outbreaks. Week commencing 04/01/21 there were 853 confirmed cases of Covid19 in East Sussex care home settings. During 2021, as of the week ending 19/03/2021, East Sussex has had 2,404 deaths registered in total and 1,110 of these have been attributable to COVID-19, of which 597 have occurred in hospital and 436 have occurred in care homes (LG reform data). In the two years up to April 2019, there were 26 residential and nursing home closures in East Sussex resulting in a loss of 435 beds, across all care groups.
  • IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS

    IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS

    REPORT EMPOWERING COUNTIES UNLOCKING COUNTY DEVOLUTION DEALS Ed Cox and Jack Hunter November 2015 © IPPR 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in November 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions in this paper are the authors ’ only. POSITIVE IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................3 1. Devolution unleashed .....................................................................................9 2. Why devolve to counties? ............................................................................11 2.1 Counties and their economic opportunities ...................................................
  • 985 EDUCATION (2) That the Revised Estimates Of

    985 EDUCATION (2) That the Revised Estimates Of

    985 EDUCATION (Note: This report was presented to the Council at its meeting on \2th Decem­ ber, 1952.) EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4th December, 1952. Present: Councillors Brown (in the Chair), Adkins, Alien, J.P., Bailey, A. C. L. Bishop, Buckle, Collins, Duff, Gange, J.P., Leigh, J.P., C.C., Lovell, MacRae, Mason, Mrs. Milner and Sheldrake (Representative members); Messrs. F. W. Coppin and C. A. Lillingston, Rev. H. Eland Stewart, and Miss D. E. Hunt (Co-opted members); Mr. J. Barrow, C.C. (Appointed member); Mr. J. Rostron, Miss A. Robinson and Miss D. E. Ross (Members of the Youth Sub-Committee). PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION I: Education Estimates of Capital Expenditure for the Year 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation I of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to capital expenditure for the financial year 1953/54, details of which are set out in paragraph 61 (2nd December, 1952) of the report of the (Education) Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee. Resolved to RECOMMEND: That a resolution in the following terms be passed by the Council: That the items included in the estimates of capital expenditure, amounting to £52,365, for the financial year 1953/54, in accordance with the details now submitted, be approved and submitted to the Middlesex County Council. RECOMMENDATION II: Education Estimates on Revenue Account for the Years 1952/53 and 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation II of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to the approval of estimates of income and expendi­ ture on revenue account for the financial year 1953/54, and revised estimates for 1952/53.
  • Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Bridgend County Borough Council Caerphilly County Borough Council the City of Cardiff Counc

    Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Bridgend County Borough Council Caerphilly County Borough Council the City of Cardiff Counc

    Welsh Local Authorities gritting information (alphabetical order) Blaenau Gwent Info and map of http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/resident/highways- County Borough gritting routes cleansing/winter-gritting/winter-gritting-routes-salt-bins/ Council http://www.blaenau- gwent.gov.uk/resident/emergencies-crime- prevention/preparing-for-winter/ Bridgend County Info and map of http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/winter.aspx Borough Council gritting routes http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/services/highways.aspx Caerphilly County Info and map of http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/Services/Roads-and- Borough Council gritting routes pavements/Gritting-and-snow-clearing/Winter-Service- Plan http://www.news.wales/south/caerphilly-county- borough-council/caerphilly-council-is-monitoring- weather-conditions-2017-01-25740.html The City of Cardiff Info and map of https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Parking-roads- Council gritting routes and-travel/Winter-maintenance/Pages/Winter- Location of salt maintenance.aspx bins https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Community- safety/Severe-winter- weather/Documents/winter%20weather%20guide.pdf Carmarthenshire Info and map of http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/home/residents/t County Council gritting routes ravel-roads-parking/gritting/#.WH4UVk1DT9Q Twitter https://twitter.com/CarmsCouncil/status/7992671481998 25409 Ceredigion County Info and map of https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel- Council gritting routes Roads-Parking/Highways-During- Twitter Winter/Pages/default.aspx https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel-
  • List of Elected Officials

    List of Elected Officials

    Wayne County Elected Officials State Officials Governor Statewide Eric Holcomb Rep Lt. Governor Statewide Suzanne Crouch Rep Attorney General Statewide Todd Rokita Rep US Senator Statewide Mike Braun Rep US Senator Statewide Todd Young Rep Secretary of State Statewide Holli Sullivan Rep Auditor of State Statewide Tera Klutz Rep Treasurer of State Statewide Kelly Mitchell Rep US Representative District 6 Greg Pence Rep State Senator District 27 Jeff Raatz Rep State Representative District 54 Tom Saunders Rep State Representative District 56 Brad Barrett Rep Judge of Circuit Court 17th Circuit April Drake Rep Judge of Superior Court Superior Court I Charles “Chuck” Todd Rep Superior Court II Greg Horn Rep Superior Court III Darrin Dolehanty Rep Prosecuting Attorney 17th Circuit Mike Shipman Rep Wayne County Officials Auditor Kimberly Walton Rep Clerk of Courts Debra Berry Rep Coroner Kevin Fouche Rep Recorder Debbie Tiemann Rep Sheriff Randy Retter Rep Surveyor Gordon Moore Rep Treasurer Nancy Funk Rep Assessor Tim Smith Rep Wayne Twp-Assessor Gary Callahan Rep Commissioner-District 1 Kenneth E Paust Rep Commissioner-District 2 Mary Ann Butters Rep Commissioner-District 3 Jeff Plasterer Rep Wayne County Council Officials County Council-District 1 Robert (Bob) Chamness Rep County Council-District 2 Rodger Smith Rep County Council-District 3 Beth Leisure Rep County Council-District 4 Tony Gillam Rep County Council At-Large Max Smith Rep County Council At-Large Cathy Williams Rep County Council At-Large Gerald (Gary) Saunders Rep Wayne County Trustee Abington-Trustee Chelsie R Buchanan Rep Boston-Trustee Sandra K Nocton Rep Center-Trustee Vicki Chasteen Rep Clay-Trustee Rebecca L Cool Rep Dalton-Trustee Lance A.
  • Caerphilly County Borough Council by Email Only Davidpoole@Caerphilly.Gov.Uk Dear Councillor Poole

    Caerphilly County Borough Council by Email Only [email protected] Dear Councillor Poole

    Our ref: NB Ask for: Communications 01656 641150 Date: 7 September 2020 Communications @ombudsman-wales.org.uk Councillor David Poole Council Leader Caerphilly County Borough Council By Email Only [email protected] Dear Councillor Poole Annual Letter 2019/20 I am pleased to provide you with the Annual letter (2019/20) for Caerphilly County Borough Council. I write this at an unprecedented time for public services in Wales and those that use them. Most of the data in this correspondence relates to the period before the rapid escalation in Covid-19 spread and before restrictions on economic and social activity had been introduced. However, I am only too aware of the impact the pandemic continues to have on us all. I am delighted to report that, during the past financial year, we had to intervene in (uphold, settle or resolve early) a smaller proportion of complaints about public bodies: 20% compared to 24% last year. We also referred a smaller proportion of Code of Conduct complaints to a Standards Committee or the Adjudication Panel for Wales: 2% compared to 3% last year. With regard to new complaints relating to Local Authorities, the overall number has decreased by 2.4% compared to the previous financial year. I am also glad that we had to intervene in a smaller proportion of the cases closed (13% compared to 15% last year). That said, I am concerned that complaint handling persists as one of the main subjects of our complaints again this year. Amongst the main highlights of the year, in 2019 the National Assembly for Wales (now Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament) passed our new Act.
  • THE SANITARY FUNCTIONS of COUNTY COUNCILS. General

    THE SANITARY FUNCTIONS of COUNTY COUNCILS. General

    428 MTDICBALPJTURAL I SANITARY FUNCTIONS OF COUNTY COUNCILS. [FEB. 23, 1895. traces. Then, again, the line between giving IIa faint opal- Reports under the Housing of the'.Working Classes escence," " giving a very slight precipitate," and " giving no Aet. precipitate," is very difficult to draw, especially when no Applications and questions under the Isolation Hos- strength is given for the solutions nor limit of time for the pitals Act. formation ot a precipitate. It would be a very lengthy task Appeals by parish councils in case of default in sani- indeed to point out these defects in detail, but a comparison tary matters on the part of the rural district council. of the British with other more modern Pharmacopceias will 3. Whether any county medical officer of health had been soon show how much more minute are the instructions given appointed. for testing in these latter. In the first place fourteen administrative counties, accord- To these and similar criticisms from a manufacturer's ing to the returns furnished by the respective clerks, have standpoint there are two objections that are likely to be appointed county medical officers of health. These pioneer taken: first, that they are mere details which it is the counties are: business of the manufacturer to attend to; and, secondly, Bedfordshire Lancasllire Surrey that an absolute standard of should be Cheshire London Worcestershire purity set up and Derbyshire Northumberland Yorkshire, N. Riding adlhered to at any cost. To the first objection it may fairly be Durham Shropshire Yorkslhire,
  • 52A County and County Borough Councils: Duties of Leaders of Political Groups in Relation to Standards of Conduct

    52A County and County Borough Councils: Duties of Leaders of Political Groups in Relation to Standards of Conduct

    Atodiad 2 /Appendix 2 “52A County and county borough councils: duties of leaders of political groups in relation to standards of conduct (1) A leader of a political group consisting of members of a county council or county borough council in Wales— (a) must take reasonable steps to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by the members of the group, and (b) must co-operate with the council’s standards committee (and any sub-committee of the committee) in the exercise of the standards committee’s functions. (2) In complying with subsection (1), a leader of a political group must have regard to any guidance about the functions under that subsection issued by the Welsh Ministers. (3) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this section about the circumstances in which— (a) members of a county council or county borough council in Wales are to be treated as constituting a political group; (b) a member of a political group is to be treated as a leader of the group. (4) Before making regulations under subsection (3), the Welsh Ministers must consult such persons as they think appropriate.” ------------------------------------------------------- “(2A) A standards committee of a county council or county borough council in Wales also has the specific functions of— (a) monitoring compliance by leaders of political groups on the council with their duties under section 52A(1), and (b) advising, training or arranging to train leaders of political groups on the council about matters relating to those duties.” ----------------------------------------------------------- “56B Annual reports by standards committees (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, a standards committee of a relevant authority must make an annual report to the authority in respect of that year.
  • Sussex County Council Districts Road

    Sussex County Council Districts Road

    203 Sussex County LIGHTHOUSE RD L MARINA LN YN N 204A S LN S H 36 O 201 C K 202 L E MILLS RD D Y R R Y D E H RD L BEAC L EDAR O C C C BAY AV M 205 Council Boundaries 204 36 SAPP RD 206 B 208 ANGUS DR Adopted November 2011, Revised February 2012 E A 50 V Slaughter Beach E L R N N D E A E 209 M R R G D R E 618 R V D E OOK LN 204 E R BUCKS RD K 633 B A L W D MEA D O O T ST KIRBY209A RD H 50 T 634 210 I 14 Miles F F I R 619 R D G N HORSESHOE DR D R SEABURY36A AV N VINYARD DR O K DAVIS LANDING RD 224 T OLD619A SHAWNEE RD ELKS LODGE RD C G N E 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 I N 218 X Milford E R A R L SLAUGHTER BEACH RD 211 200 D SURREYD CT T E T R C O D B S B M VALLEY FORGE DR A A D D R 1 in = 1 miles A S 620 MARY DR AB EVANS DR P BOT R TS P LADY SLIPPER LN A O ND RD H S S UG A HIDDENMEADOW LN WATSON DR MANE ST R MAP RUTT RD LE D 113 R 224A µ 615 W IONA WAY 38 E L L S 617 FORK207A RD ARGOS CORNER RD R TEATOWN RD 113 D LINDALE RD RUST RD 1 ST 621 616 217 Council Districts DUPONTBLVD 213A 635 MARSHALLST 206 CHURCH RD D D WILKINS RD R R CALHOUN RD 213B 14E OD H JOHNSON RD E HAVEN O A C 38B R 216A W E IN D 224B ON B 207 P TT ER BUTLER AV KERFIE BU L 214 BA L 219 W 38C D O CODS RD 225B 220 RD F 225A 199 RD NELSON DR F ALDS H ITZ G ER E 207 R 38 38B S SHORE DR R I DANIELS RD LEWIS DR C N 38A E G 113 AMELIA DR D B SHORE DR A R 215A D HOLLY DR E R MAYHEW DR 627 A R 36 N C 613A C C A H L C R SUGAR HILL RD P £ 626 E U D BBAGE P E ¤ R O E N N NEAL RD 636 215 R 221 R D E D D R 637 S APPELS RD D K E HAFLINGER RD T A D R V S N K R 39B R EC D R GREENTOP RD R TER N TE I
  • INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL a Study

    INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL a Study

    INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL A Study of Council Effectiveness EVALUATION OF INDIANAPOLIS’ CENTERS FOR WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK Report forFebruary the United 28, Way 2020 of Central Indiana JULY 2018 | 18-XXX AUTHORS Cullen C. Merritt, Ph.D. & Amanda Rutherford, Ph.D. Prepared for the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council CONTENTS Part 1: Overview 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 6 Part 2: Results 13 Awareness of the council 14 Purpose of the council 16 Prior interactions with the council 17 Councilor salary 18 Trust in government 20 Council representation 22 Public engagement 24 Issues facing Indianapolis/Marion County & the council 26 Summary of findings 27 Part 3: Recommendations 29 Recommendations 30 Part 4: Appendices 33 ADDITIONAL CONTENT PART 1: OVERVIEW 3 FIGURE 1. Share of revenue by source 3 FIGURE 2. Share of appropriations by source 4 TABLE 1. Peer consolidated council comparison 7 FIGURE 3. Race/ethnicity of survey respondents vs. census estimates 7 FIGURE 4. Gender of survey respondents vs. census estimates 7 FIGURE 5. Education of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 6. Employment of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 7. Household income of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 8. 2016 local election voter turnout vs. reported turnout of ever voting in local elections among survey respondents 9 FIGURE 9. 2016 state election voter turnout vs. reported turnout of ever voting in state elections among survey respondents 9 FIGURE 10. 2016 federal election voter turnout vs. reported turnout among survey respondents 10 FIGURE 11. Overview of focus group participants PART 2: RESULTS 14 FIGURE 12.
  • ICT & Digital Strategy 2020-2023

    ICT & Digital Strategy 2020-2023

    ICT & DIGITAL STRATEGY WREXHAM 2020 – 2023 ICT & DIGITAL STRATEGY // WREXHAM // 2020-2023 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BY THE LEAD 4 MEMBER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 DRIVERS FOR CHANGE 8 WHERE ARE WE NOW? 9 VISION: 13 OBJECTIVES: 13 HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER 13 CUSTOMERS & COMMUNITY – A DIGITAL COUNTY BOROUGH 14 DIGITAL DESIGN: 16 ACCESSIBILITY: 16 CUSTOMER BENEFITS 17 2 ICT & DIGITAL STRATEGY // WREXHAM // 2020-2023 HOW WE WORK – A DIGITAL COUNCIL 18 SKILLS: 19 CHANGING TOGETHER: 20 COMMUNICATIONS: 20 DATA: 22 HOW WE WILL SUPPORT THIS – ICT FRAMEWORK 24 HOW WE WILL MONITOR THE 27 SUCCESS OF THIS STRATEGY LINKS 28 3 ICT & DIGITAL STRATEGY // WREXHAM // 2020-2023 INTRODUCTION BY Councillor David Kelly, Ian Bancroft, THE LEAD MEMBER Lead Member for Organisation – Chief Executive: Planning and Corporate Services: AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE The production of this Strategy is a key element This Strategy builds on the work undertaken of my portfolio of responsibilities and I am over the last three years and during the recent pleased that this document points the Council period when the Council has been responding in the right direction to move forward. We have to the demands of home working arising made so much progress in the ICT and digital from the current coronavirus pandemic. The areas during the current Covid-19 emergency objective is to empower our staff with the right situation and both Members and council staff technology and necessary support to work have embraced new and modern ways of more flexibly and cost-effectively reducing the working. need to enter information into conventional systems when they return to the workplace.