Consultation process
Review of Scheme for Establishment of Community CouncilsPlease leave details of your feedback
Comments that are specific to a certain section of the Scheme should be numbered for easier reference eg section 2 part 2.9.
Consultation process
Review of Scheme for Establishment of Community CouncilsComments that are specific to a certain section of the Scheme should be numbered for easier reference eg section 2 part 2.9.
Part 1
Barr community council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft Scheme currently under review.
Having considered the document in detail, we wish to record our concern that the proposed Scheme remains unnecessarily lengthy and bureaucratic. The proposed draft continues an administrative burden inconsistent with the voluntary nature and local purpose of community councils. This creates an exclusionary force which deters volunteers.
We believe that the Scottish Government and COSLA approved Model Scheme provides a more appropriate framework. It achieves the necessary balance between accountability and independence, and it does so in a concise and accessible format. In contrast, the current draft appears to import procedures, particularly around governance and complaints, that are more characteristic of large statutory bodies than of small volunteer organisations.
This iteration is also a very amateurish attempt at a procedure. Volunteer organisations such as CCs cannot be expected to function effectively where they must be well acquainted with huge documents (Scheme / Scheme Appendices / Guidance / Guidance Appendices), especially where they are often contradictory. Use the Model Scheme - or do SAC Officers REALLY think that they know better than the Scot. Govt. and every other Council?
We have carried out a scoping exercise across all Scotland’s Local Authorities which shows that while the COSLA/Scottish Government Model Scheme provides a useful foundation, the majority of councils expand it significantly with additional provisions. Many operate schemes of 30–50 pages, demonstrating that a wider scheme is the established norm across Scotland. South Ayrshire’s draft reflects wider national practice, however the scheme has been cut down considerably from the previous version. This ensures that while the scheme is broader than the model, it is now more concise, accessible, and proportionate, while still providing the necessary accountability, transparency, and dispute resolution mechanisms
I have made a number of comments. I initially wished to add them all together but the system would only allow a certain number of characters. As a consequence, I have had to add my comments individually.
Training should be more specific and actioned. At present, paragraphs relating to ‘Training’ are simply, words.
Online training platform is currently being developed for all Community Councillors and also specific to office bearer roles.
p8 2.23 CC member who has declared financial or other interest in relevant matters coming before the CC - The CC member could assume the rights of a member of the public, and give comment but not be involved in the decision making process as a community councillor on that matter?
Good point. Needs a definitive answer.
Suggest adding the following under section 3 after 3.8. This is based on previous experience of contested elections, where candidates withdraw after the process has started and ballot papers etc have been posted out
Where more nominations have been received than there are places available, a period of 7 days will be allowed for anyone who wishes to withdraw from the election process.
Proposal been added –
3.8 Where the number of valid candidates nominated to be Community Councillors is greater than the number of advertised vacancies, a period of 7 days will be allowed for anyone who wishes to withdraw and thereafter a contested election shall be organised and held by South Ayrshire Council.
There is no procedure for amendment suggestions to be made by pencil changes in the document.
Current
a. to review the Scheme periodically, including consultation with Community Councils and the public;
Unable to make pencil changes, as per proposed Scheme
b. Review the Scheme, both periodically and in response to representations made, and where amendments are required to propose, consult and vote on those amendments in terms of section 53 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Appendix 6 General Public Complaints There is no escape from Stage 1 which is the flaw I found myself in. Does the complaint have merit? There has been no notice taken of a decision made by members of a CC at stage 1. There is little improvement from what was before.
6.1 No mention of does the complaint have merit. No, bin it. The table has no section for no merit ie No breach No sanctions, Requirement at stage 1 and falls short of the requirements of 5.2.
The flow chart has to have a box to ascertain if the complaint has merit as you call it. Does it satisfy the conditions of 5,2 if no then dismiss the complaint it should go no further. There should be a section as to what is inadmissible. Vexatious, Hearsay, Uncollaborated evidence, Not connected to the work of the CC, He said she said third party statements and so on.
Provided by A Russell
This has been taken into consideration within the new proposed Community Council Complaints Procedure.
18. Doesn’t make any sense and contradictory, an organised husting event should not be part of any CC meeting. Often a member of a CC might be a political candidate but refrain from any political discussion at a CC meeting as normal. They have removed the political candidate stuff they had before in section 17. It may now be in guidance section? Particularly 17.1, 17.7, and 17.8 which worked before where political neutrality was continued to be observed during meetings as it has always been. They added Husting because some CC;s organise them. It is my opinion they should not be organised by CC’s in the same way one wouldn’t expect the Council to organise a hustings. Fair enough the local paper, residents associations or the likes. It makes me feel uncomfortable and somehow removes the neutrality of a CC organiser where some parties may not turn up even when invited for some reason or another. That immediately compromises the event. No need for it to be part of a CC’s activities.
Proposal to remove in updated draft
However, proposal to add some additional information at Scheme section 16 relating to Political Parties.
12. Complaints There needs to be a statement that complaint procedures should not appear in regular minutes when the complaint is internal to CC members or indeed made by a member of the public??.
What constitutes a breach and what constitutes a serios breach? When is it appropriate to arbitrate just by the Chair, do we really need to say chairperson? Would it be better to say Chair, or appointed up to 3 Office bearers by the Chair to give flexibility.
Provided by A Russell
This point will be considered in the final phase of the consultation.
10.1 There is conflict between 2,1 states 9 minimum and 2.7 1/2 of eligible voting members.
provided by A Russell
This refers to 2 different things 2.1 relates to the general membership of Community Council and is advising that the minimum constituted membership is 9 and the maximum is 18, this is based on the formula that is used by SAC in relation to electorate and population density.
2.7 relates to the membership of each individual CC.
7.7 Does this also apply to SAC meetings? If not, why has it got relevance here? Seems a bit, ‘big brother syndrome here’. The whole scenario could be summed up by only saying. Un-minuted private discussions should not take place during a public Community Council meeting ref to 7.1.
7.13 Minimum Quorum is 3 for minimum voting members of 9. With 15 voting members it will be Minimum Quorum 5. Better than the 8 it was before.
Look at 8.7 Admin costs compared to the last book Please include as before in 8.7 We would like to be able to give small donations to local youth groups and organisations promoting our community involvement.
Provided by A Russell