Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Chairman of Maidstone Borough Council’s Policy and Resources Committee opened their Committee meeting, and welcomed Cabinet Members from Swale and Tunbridge Wells Borough Councils to the Co-located meeting.

The Leader opened the meeting of the Cabinet, as did the Chairman of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Cabinet.

The Deputy Head of Legal Partnership presented the report, which updated the governance arrangements for Mid Kent Services.  In doing so, she referred to the revised Governance Arrangements and Shared Service Collaboration Agreement template, which were attached as Appendices to the report.  The original agreement had been signed in 2008, and had been extended in 2012 for four years.  The current draft had been updated to reflect how the partnership had developed and how the Board operated, and would form a permanent arrangement subject to certain termination conditions being included.  The model Collaboration Agreement was intended as a template agreement for shared services, and set out standard requirements. 

The Deputy Head of Legal Partnership then answered Members’ questions.  She agreed to look at the font size and numbering of the agreement at paragraphs 10.16 and 10.34, and confirmed that it was an annual rolling agreement.  In response to questions regarding project methodology and accountability, and whether the board would further consider issues of income generation, the Deputy Head of Legal Partnership drew attention to the termination clauses in the Collaboration Agreement, and advised that as this was a partnership arrangement it was difficult to specify who would be accountable; however, the document did clarify points such as escalation and arbitration procedures, and also financial principles which had been discussed and agreed by the Section 151 officers.

In response to further questions, the Deputy Head of Legal Partnership clarified the position should a partner decide to ‘pull out’ of a shared service, and that the services remaining should not ‘suffer’ as a result of one party deciding to terminate its arrangement.  In response to questions regarding Appendix D and the risk register, the Deputy Head of Legal Partnership undertook to raise this with the Head of Internal Audit, and clarified that the list of 10 questions at Appendix D had been generated by the Audit Partnership specifically for the development of shared services.  The questions were a starting point, and did not prevent flexibility in how shared services might develop.  The Chief Executive of Swale Borough Council drew attention to the section of the report headed ‘Project Boards’ which referred to the need for a project framework, and said that risks would also be considered as part of the yearly service planning process.

After being proposed and seconded, Maidstone Borough Council’s Policy and Resources Committee put the recommendations to the vote.

The Leader moved, and the Deputy Leader seconded, the recommendations in the report, subject to the minor amendments to the font and numbering of the Collaboration Agreement.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Cabinet, after proposing and seconding the same recommendations, then put this to the vote.

At the end of the meeting, Officers were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 757.