Agenda item

Report of the Scrutiny Co-ordinator

The Scrutiny Board considered a briefing note of the Scrutiny Co-ordinator regarding Co-opted Membership and proposed changes to the Constitution being considered at Council on 22nd March 2022.

The report noted that Kellie Jones had been a co-opted member of the Scrutiny Board responsible for Education matters since 3rd July 2012.  In December she resigned from the Board having been an active member since her appointment.

The constitution provided detail on the co-opted members of the scrutiny board that considered education matters. Part 2D and in particular, paragraph 6 was concerned with education representatives as detailed below:

“6.  Education Representatives

6.1  The Scrutiny Board responsible for Education matters will include the following:-

(a)  One person nominated by the Church of England.

(b)  One person nominated by the Roman Catholic Church.

(c)  One parent governor elected by the parent governors in the City in respect of the Primary phase of education.

(d)   One parent governor elected by the parent governors in the City in respect of the Secondary phase of education.

(e)   One representative from other faith groups in the City

6.2  Such appointees, with the exception for the time being of the representative appointed under 6.1(e) above, may speak and vote on education issues only, but may speak on other issues.

6.3  They will also be invited to attend the meetings of Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee (if it is considering a call-in on an educational matter) and of other Scrutiny Boards (if education matters are to be considered at those meetings) and may speak, but not vote upon those matters.”

The Parent Governor Representatives (England) Regulations 2001 set out detailed provisions for Parent Governor Representatives (PGR’s) including that they had voting rights, their term of office must be a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 4 years and we must appoint at least 2 and a maximum of 5 PGRs.  Where a PGR ceased to be a parent governor because their term of office at the school had expired, they were not disqualified from continuing as a PGR but this would only be for the term of their appointment as a PGR.

Part 2D of the Constitution, in particular, paragraph 6 regarding education representatives and the Constitution divided the PGRs into primary and secondary representatives.  There was also nothing in the Constitution about what the term of office was which was required under the legislation.  There were now no maintained secondary schools left in the city and the number of maintained primary schools was also greatly reduced.  The most up-to-date version of this legislation had been checked and it was confirmed that the position remained the same and reference was only made to maintained schools but there was no stipulation that there must be a separate primary and secondary school PGR.  As the number of maintained schools reduced and especially as there were now no maintained secondary schools left in Coventry, it was proposed that changes to the Constitution be made to remove the requirement for there to be a separate primary and secondary school PGR, in addition to the insertion of a four-year term of office.  The proposal had been discussed by the Constitutional Advisory Group and would be presented to the Cabinet Member for Policing and Equalities prior to Council considering a recommendation to this effect at its meeting on 22nd March 2022.

In keeping with the legislation in this area and to reflect the fact that Coventry now had no maintained secondary schools, under Part 2D – Functions of Scrutiny, paragraph 6: Education Representatives the proposed changes to the parent governor representatives (PGR’s) were:

i.  a four year term of office; and

ii.  removal of the requirement for a parent governor representative from both a maintained primary and secondary school in the city (instead introducing a requirement for a generic parent governor who could technically be from any maintained school)

In order to address the current vacancies, the scrutiny team would be liaising with colleagues in Education Services to recruit school governors, as well as groups and networks that could identify suitable representatives for the Board.

The Board discussed:

•  the legislation

•  changes to the current membership

•  the great value Co-opted members bring to the Board including Education insight and a consistent commitment to challenge and support the Children’s Services improvement journey

•  concern about the regulation which restricted Co-opted Members from voting on non-education issues, due to the way Education matters were intrinsically linked to Children’s Services matters.

•  the appreciation for the valuable contributions made by Kellie Jones over a number of years, who’s insight and expertise at meetings of the Board and Task and Finish Groups was outstanding.

RESOLVED that the Board:

1)  note the proposed changes to the Constitution

2)  thank their Co-opted Member, Kellie Jones, for her valuable contribution to the work of the Board over the last 10 years.

3)  document concern about the regulation which restricted Co-opted Members from voting on non-education issues due to the way education matters were intrinsically linked to Children’s Services matters.