Meeting documents

Members may wish to defer in depth discussions of the proposed constitution and terms of reference until the next meeting. However should they wish to discuss this item Locality Services team officers will be in attendance.

Members discussed the proposed constitution and terms of reference.

A Member asked what legal basis the Forum would have. Rebecca Carley, Locality Services Manager, told Members the following:

·         Local Area Forums were convened by Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) and all District Councillors and Parish Councils in the local area were invited.

·         Decision-making mechanisms at Local Area Forums had been left open-ended. Most Local Area Forums operated on a consensual basis with local arrangements for voting.

·         BCC had already agreed the allocation of some devolved budgets. The arrangements regarding budgets were the same as those in the Local Committee (now dissolved). The money remained with BCC until it was actually spent. Although officially the final decision on the budgets lay with the Head of Service (for legal reasons), BCC was keen to follow the guidance of the Local Area Forum on how the budget should be spent.

Members then made the following points:

·         There was immense goodwill at BCC regarding the Local Area Forums, and following their guidance on how budgets should be spent.

·         Amersham Local Area Forum had agreed a voting system of one vote per organisation. Would people coming in and joining the meeting have voting rights? (E.g. special interest groups).

·         A positive way forward should be found, where a consensus approach was most usual. Chiltern Local Committee had only used its voting procedure twice in eight years. However the Local Area Forum did have a wider remit than the old Local Committee.

·         Members should be in attendance as representatives of their authority, rather than delegates, and should have freedom to act.

Alison Derrick, Locality Services Co-ordinator, said that it was up to Members whether they invited other people to join the Forum and whether or not to give them voting rights. It was noted that the current model Constitution would not include ChAP as a core member, but that representatives could be invited to sit on the Forum as an outside body.

A Member from Chesham Town Council said that they had previously been told that they would have five votes at the Local Area Forum, and that each Parish Council would have one vote. However the Parish Councils were not aware of this suggestion, and expressed concern that a communication had been made with the Town Council about this. The Chairman apologised for this, and it was agreed that communication with members outside the meetings should be on the same basis for all organisations (i.e. with Town and Parish Councils equally).  It was suggested that if the Forum proceeded with the proposal of five votes for Chesham Town Council, that there could be the incorporation of a veto. There was a strong feeling by the Parish Councils that each Town and Parish Council should have the same number of votes.

The following was also agreed:

·         Members to give any suggestions for voting structure to Alison Derrick, with the aim being a positive structure where a consensus approach is most usual.

·         Proposals for voting structure to be put in a short paper and circulated to Parishes at least 6 weeks before the next LAF meeting.