A report was submitted which provided the amendments to the Board’s constitution proposed as a result of the effectiveness review conducted by the Board.

G Warwick referred to the discussion that been held in the pre-meeting.  At that meeting, C Scott had stated that the Board and the Authority had agreed to an extension in the constitution of two to three terms, in particular for the Trade Union Representatives.  However, this had not explicitly covered the fact that there was any risk of a conflict of interest for those individuals that were members of both the Board and the Authority.  He requested C Scott to suggest a form of words as to how the decision should be minuted.

C Scott suggested that the decision should indicate that the Board had discussed the potential conflict of interest of dual membership between the Board and the Authority, and that the Board recognised that the Trade Union representatives largely observed the Authority meetings.  Therefore the conflicts of interest were manageable and minimal, and the Board was happy to proceed on that basis.

Members agreed to the suggested form of words for the decision.

Councillor Chaplin suggested that it would be helpful to make it explicit that the role of the Trade Union representatives on the Authority was in a non-voting capacity.

M McCarthy highlighted that there was scope within the meeting to make a declaration of interest.  If it was considered that there was a perceived conflict of interest, it would be for the Clerk to raise this within the meeting, with a view to it being discussed and dealt with within the meeting.

Members agreed to the additions to the suggested form of words for the decision.

C Scott referred to the potential change to the extension of the Elected Members, which was taken to the Leaders of the local authorities.

G Graham commented that the Chair of the Authority and himself attended the Leaders Meeting which was held in September each year.  Over the last few years they had raised the issue that the degree of turnover of Elected Members on the Authority and the Board was extremely unhelpful, and they would raise the matter again at the Leaders Meeting that was scheduled in September 2021.  However, it was anticipated that the matter would not be resolved on that occasion and that further discussions would be necessary.

Councillor Chaplin commented that although it was not possible to influence the appointment process, he queried whether the Board was in a position to amend the constitution.

In response, G Graham commented that theoretically changes could just be made to the constitution.  However, given that currently the district councils appointed Elected Members to the Board and the Authority on an annual basis, it would be somewhat challenging to prescribe a term of office.  His understanding was that the appointment onto the Authority had to be made as an annual appointment, as prescribed within the regulations.  He did not consider that there was any reason that the Board could not appoint for a longer period, due to it not being a

Local Government Act body.

RESOLVED – That Members:-

i)          Approved the revised constitution as set out at Appendix A to the report.

ii)         Agreed to the suggested form of words and the additions made to the decision.