West Surrey Joint Committee - 18 February 2026

Good afternoon everybody. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you. Uh, I'm councelor Amry Barker and I'd like to welcome everyone to the voluntary West Surrey Joint Committee on Wednesday the 18th of February, 2026. It's at 1 p.m. apparently, interestingly. Uh, and we're here in the council chamber at Spellthornne Burough Council. H So, welcome to all the Members of the committee. Uh, we have some offices here as well from various different uh councils and good to see we have a few people in the uh the gallery as well. So, welcome to uh you. Uh we're going to

go on in a moment to introduce ourselves, but first of all, I'd just like to mention a few items of housekeeping. Uh the meeting is being broadcast live on Spellthorn Burough Council's YouTube channel. Uh so, all those attending the meeting uh except That they will be filmed and recorded. Uh there's no fire drill except expected today. Uh so if the fire alarm does sound, uh everyone's asked to please follow the council staff out of the building to the muster point which is at the front of the office building. Uh please do ensure you've turned off

or or silence your uh your mobile phones. Um and I'll just mention that anyone is permitted to film, record or take photographs at joint committee meetings. Please leaz with the committee manager prior to the start of the meeting so the meeting can be made aware of any filming taking place. It's a bit late how to read that out, isn't it? To be honest. Um, but so if you are recording, basically you're fine to do it as long as you're not going to uh disturb the uh the meeting. And if that was the case, I might

need to ask you to uh turn it off. So no playing other YouTube videos. Um When you are speaking, members of the committee, please do turn on the microphone. Remember to turn it off when you've finished speaking. Um if I do have to adjourn the meeting at any time, I will advise that an adjournment is taking place and state the time of uh being reconvened. Uh we don't have any exempt business uh schedule today. Um but if we did need to go into that, then I would need to uh exclude uh press and public if

that situation did um occur. Um so I'd now like to uh ask the members of the committee just to briefly uh introduce themselves. Um, so I'll go first of all to my left and uh, councelor Paul Follows. >> Thank you, chair. Council Paul Follows, leader of Wavely Bar Council. >> Sean McDonald, uh, leader of Sar Heath Bar Council. >> Julia McShane, leader of Guilford Bar Council. >> Joanne Ston, leader of Spellelform Bar Council. >> Katherine Pal, Surrey County Counselor. Liz Towns end uh sorry county counselor for Cranley and New Hurst. >> Lance Spencer, sorry county

counselor, Goldsworth East and Halls of Village in Woking. >> Matt Fernes, sorry county council shelf division. >> Martini, sorry county council. >> Chenade Mooney, sorry county councelor for stains. >> Robert King, co-leader on board council. Thanks everybody and then I'll just ask the officers to introduce themselves. So I'll start on my my right here. >> Thank you chair. I'm Terrence Herbert. I'm the SRO and the chief executive of Surley County Council. >> Thank you Nicola Kilington. I'm the program director. >> Thank you Nicola. And then on my left here as well. Thank you, Chair. Nick

Stevens, deputy Deputy lead officer for West and Chief Executive of Surrey Heath Council. >> Hi, Karen Brimham. Um, chief exec at Mo Valley District Council and I am the theme sponsor for the people and governance theme. >> Good afternoon. Uh, Rachel Wiggley. I am the workstream the finance workstream lead and I'm director of finance and deputy section 151 at Surrey County Council. >> Good afternoon. My name is Sally Kipping. I'm the head of transformation at Surrey Heath Bough Council and the deputy lead for people and governance for West. >> Thank you very much everybody. Um

and we will be joined later in the uh meeting as well by uh Susan Stale who's the co-work stream lead for the constitutional and shadow authority workstream. She'll be joining us for item six on the uh agenda. Okay. So moving on to the meeting. Um I'm not Aware of any apologies for absence this evening. I think we this afternoon even we have everybody here I believe. >> Oh sorry you didn't introduce yourself. Simon, my apologies. >> Simon Rumsby, I'm secretariat for the committee. >> Very important part of the committee as well. Thank you very much,

Simon. So, yes, we don't have any apologies for absence, do we, Simon? >> We've got no apologies for absence Today. >> Uh, do any committee members have any declarations of interest in respect of any items to be considered at the meeting? No, I don't see any. Thank you very much. We'll move on then to um the uh minutes of the previous meeting. This is item three on the um agenda and this relates to our meeting on the 16th of uh January. Um do we agree the minutes of the meeting As a correct record? Now I

believe we do have a couple of points, don't we? Thank you. So um councelor follows. Thank you. >> Thank you very much chair. Um, in regards to the request uh that I made and was granted by the committee to have an early financial baseline for the West, I'd like to propose an amendment to clarify what I meant by financial baseline. And my rationale for doing that is that I have been through the Surrey County Council budget process in The last month. And I think rather than run into a point where members get a financial baseline

and it isn't what we expect in March, it would be easier for me to offer a clarification. And so I would like to propose a clarifying amendment to suggest what I mean by a b baseline to be a forecast opening balance sheet or at least a forecast opening reserve statement. A general fund financial forecast for five years to update the model submitted to HMG for The bid in the first place. A financial forecast for the combined HR forecast credential indicators including debt and treasury repayments. So the treasury management strategy and that would also need to

include external and internal debt and finally an amalgamated capital program. Um I'd like propose that as an amendment and I believe I have a seconder. >> Happy to second. >> Thank you councelor towns end. Is the committee happy to accept that amendment from council follows? Councelor Mooney. >> Uh could councelor uh follows directors where in the minutes he's proposing this please? >> If I may madam chair. U so at the bottom of depending I'm looking at the online version as hosted on the Surrey County Council website. So it either says page three of nine or

page seven depending on which you're talking about. There's a Section that says members discuss the need for an early financial baseline for West Surrey emphasizing the need etc. Um there is some specificity in that language. I think just to ensure that it is very clear what we mean I would propose the language that I've just referred to in my amendment. I can send that to Simon in full if you'd like and I can do that right now. >> Uh councel >> thank you chair. Can can I ask for for What purpose we want this? Because

it seems quite a lot of work to be done for uh I don't a financial statement which you're going to do what with. We are not setting a budget for this new West County Council. Um most of what we will be looking at will not be relevant to that budget. So I'm not quite sure why we're going down this work stream. >> Thank you councelor Ny. Um well I think we agreed the principle that we needed the financial statement last time. All That we're looking all that councelor followers is looking to do now is just

to clarify some of the detail about what might be required in that. So the principle of doing it was agreed. Uh I think we're just looking to clarify what what detail is required. Does anyone have any further comments or are we happy to uh agree that amendment? >> We agreed. >> Thank you very much. Certainly. Okay, we'll take that to a a Vote then. So, all those in favor of the amendment made by council follows. >> It's 94. >> Thank you very much um Simon and uh those against. three against. >> Thank you very much.

So that amendment is uh agreed. >> Um yes, councel McDonald. >> Thank you, chair. Um if I could refer members to um it's page eight of nine or page 12 depending which Reference is used. It relates to the people aspect that we discussed last time which members might remember. Uh I proposed uh a number of things and then reverted to narrowing that the the narrowing of the scope uh to the interim statutory officer designation process in the m in the minutes is not what was agreed. It was agreed that members concerns on the overall approach

the roles timeline of the whole work stream would be reflected on in good faith by Officers with working group member input as per the amendment and with an updated report brought back to uh the full committee to note. Um I therefore would propose that the third last paragraph is changed to reflect the substance of the of the uh debate and discussion and what was agreed. Um so the pros minutes changed to replace for the interim strategy officer designation process with for the workstream elements as covered in phases one to three as Documented in the officer

report at the next meeting. I have made this uh wording available to Simon uh for effectiveness um in advance. Furthermore that it is duly noted that this action is now overdue today so it needs to be escalated in the officer's planning. Thank you. Thank you, Council McDonald. Uh, does anyone have any points to raise or response to Council McDonald's proposal? >> No, >> if if it needs to be I don't know if it needs to be seconded and voted on. I don't know whether we're going through that pava chair. >> Uh, yes, we probably do

need to second just to be sure. So, Councelor Spencer is going to second that. Thank you very much, Council Spencer. >> Um, is everyone happy to uh agree? Councelor McDonald's amendment. Agreed. >> Agreed. Thank you. So, we'll now come to Sorry, councelor Sexton. Thank you. >> Sorry, Ch. I just I noticed that councelor Niy was moving his head around. I don't think um could you be clear in terms of whether or not that was sufficient because he didn't seem very happy with the outcome. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, would you prefer we took a

vote? I'm sorry. It's quite a wide screen range here, isn't it? My I wasn't looking properly that way, so I do apologize. Council Niti, uh, did you Want to take a vote on that? >> Okay, fine. We'll we'll have a vote on that. So, all those in favor of the amendment as proposed by Councelor McDonald, >> it's 94. >> Thank you. And those against >> and two against. Thank you very much. So that amendment is agreed. Uh we now come on to um agreeing the uh minutes um overall. Is that agreed? >> Thank you very

much. We'll move on to item four, the implementation plan update. And I'm going to hand over to Terrence uh to begin with to uh introduce the report. Thank you, Terrence. Thank you chair. Um and if I may just give a very brief uh update reflections on uh activity since the last meeting. Uh the implementation team have now met twice. Um and obviously their minutes will be available. Um we had a program Away day which Nicola will uh touch on later. Um a significant number of uh people have been mobilized into program roles from across all

of the 12 constituent authorities. Um we are acutely aware of the um amount of work that needs to be done whilst at the same time ensuring that we maintain business as usual in each of our own authorities and the need to work at pace. Um governments have told us that uh they are on track with the structural changes Order and we expect that to come into force on the uh week beginning the 9th of March. Um the election planning for uh East and West Sur is underway and as we know uh now underway in many

more authorities um since the announcement this week. Um but if we turn um to the uh period between the elections and first shadow authority meetings um we will want obviously to support the joint committee to hand over the foundational work to the shadow authorities and a key Moment for that will be the first shadow authority meetings. dates are being finalized, but the initial plan um to uh propose holding the inaugural meetings for the shadow authority um is on the afternoon of the 21st of May. A full schedule of shadow authority meetings will be presented to

the joint committees in March. Um and I uh hope um or know that many members have taken up the offer to meet with Nick um deputy for the west for conversation in between The formal meetings and obviously want to remind the committee that the rest of the implementation team and myself as the SRO are here to support you in your roles. Um looking further ahead and this is obviously for information only. Um but we have heard from government that they are to welcome expressions of interest from areas wishing to secure a foundational strategic authority that

as you know is a step below a mer authority and the expectation is that areas have Foundational uh strategic authorities um that mature before me functions are devolved. MHCLG have indicated that the footprint for an FSA would mirror the spatial development strategy footprint which is countywide. We um have until the 20th March to submit an EOI and this is a matter for the uh sovereign authorities um and the leaders of those authorities to consider next steps. although mindful that all 12 authorities um in their Communication to the minister um stated their uh support of a

mayor for um Sur. Um so in light of this clarity and direction of travel um what are likely to be tight time skills um for 2027 uh Nicola will support Richard Carr as you know is the uh managing director commissioner in Woking um and he is the strategic authority theme lead and they will um stand up that theme um with uh regard to any associated work that's required. So if I turn to the report, it Provides an update on the development of the single implementation plan that supports safe and legal transition to uh West and

East Sur authorities. As agreed at our January meeting, I'm bringing forward the initial draft content for several key sections of the plan for your review today. The committee is being asked to endorse the draft vision, working principles, definition of success for the devolution local government reorganization program. This Will give clarity to members, officers, residents, businesses and partners uh on what we are collectively aiming to achieve through the transition and how we'll work together across the 12 councils to get there. You're asked to note the emerging approaches to programwide risk management, budget monitoring and communications which

will form essential components of the final implementation plan. The rationale for these recommendations is Straightforward. Once the SEO is enacted, producing implementation plan becomes a legal requirement. Agreeing these early components now keeps us on track to deliver the full plan to the required time scale ahead of handover to shadow authorities later this year. So now I'm going to ask Nicola to share some further details. >> Thank you. So excuse me. As you all know, the central task is for all councils to develop a single Implementation plan to enable the safe and legal transition to the

two new unitary authorities. Since the approach was agreed at the last meeting, the implementation team have made some progress in assembling the content we expect to be required once the structural changes order is enacted. So you now you know now that we have the work streams that cover all major program themes with officers from every council contributing to that. The role Of those is to support the planning and delivery required for the transition. It's not to preempt the design of any future authorities and they've already begun the detailed work needed to map services and prepare

the content expected in the final plan. The work streams that are sitting below those themes were included in annex one to the report. As Terrence mentioned, we recently brought the workstream leads, the Implementation team and the core program leads together in Dorking um to launch the next phase of the program. We felt that it was a successful day. There was quite a lot of energy in the room and a real keeness from people there to work collaboratively on the next stage together. John Metaf, the MHCLG senior sector adviser, was there sharing lessons learned from Cumbria

and it was an opportunity to set expectations around ways of working to hopefully Enable this program to be a success. So today, members of the committee are being asked to endorse three foundational sections of the implementation plan. These are included in annex 2. So we've brought here the draft vision that sets out what we aim to achieve through this transition. hopefully a seamless well-managed change that protects residents, staff and services through this process. Also, the working principles, they describe how All 12 councils will operate together as one pro, excuse me, as one program emphasizing collaboration,

transparency, and shared responsibility. And then the definitions of success provide clarity on what we hope a successful transition should look and feel like by vesting day. Endorsing these sections today give us the clear direction of travel necessary for the remaining elements of the plan um to be developed consistently and at pace. Turning to risk management Which is also covered in this report um we are developing a single programwide risk management framework. This will introduce consistent scoring monitoring and escalation arrangements across all of the themes. We've done some early identification to highlight several significant risks including

capacity pressures, contract related issues and the challenges associated with disagregating countywide services and transitioning systems and data from all Councils. These are expected at this stage of reorganization of this scale and we are already working through some mitigations um supported through the program board. Also in this report um members will recall that leaders and chief executives have agreed to a single um implementation fund of 35.3 million. To date um just over 8 million of that has been committed mainly to initiate the program management office and to prepare The detailed disagregation work. Further modest requests were

considered by the program board this month, including additional support for capacity across district and bowers in the program management office and for communications activities. We are starting an exercise now to refresh the overall cost estimates up to March 2027. Um, and from March this year onwards, we will be bringing regular budget monitoring reports back to the committee. As been mentioned earlier, also at members request, the committee will be presented with a baseline budget position once the budgets for all current councils have been agreed. It's it is anticipated that the county council's budget will be disagregated

across the west and east councils and also planning at the moment for a standalone combined fire and rescue authority. We expect this to be um relatively high level using the tax base As a proxy measure. Then annex 3 sets out the developing communication strategy. This is vital to ensure that residents, staff and partners understand what is happening, why it is happening and how they may be affected. The strategy covers both internal and external communications as well as branding channels and supporting materials. We hope that this strategy helps to build confidence, increase transparency and help minimize

Uncertainty as the program progresses. So then finally the report also covers next steps. So as you'll be aware we will continue to build out the implementation plan drawing on contributions from all work streams. We'll continue to work on risk budget and communications content and um as we said more further detail will be brought to the next committee meeting in March. Thank you chair. >> Uh thank you Terrence and um Nicola. Um Just a a sort of point of uh of uh clarification if if I could just ask first and then I'll I'll come to council

McDonald. Um in relation to the strategic authority there's a point on uh page 16 of the report point two and you've just referred to it um Terrence I wonder if you you could just explain for clarity exactly what's going to be happening in relation to this. So what is being taken forward on that theme? You mentioned a March date which I Wasn't familiar with before. What exactly is going to be happening in relation to that strategic um authority potentially in the future? >> Um so government have said to all councils going through reorganization that they

can express an interest um in applying to become to create a foundational strategic authority and the deadline for those is the 20th of March. So that's when government would like to receive those expressions of interest. The reference made earlier is we had always penciled in a strategic authority theme because when we set about this exercise last year, it was to um unlock further devolution. So we stand ready as a theme to stand up work should sovereign council leaders support that expression of interest and we are then chosen by government to take that forward. >> Thanks

for that clarity, Ed. That's that's helpful. Um so what's the uh Process for that to then be decided by uh leaders before the 20th of March who isn't very far away. I'm not aware of any uh piece on any council agendas to make that decision. Where does that come from? >> So the um uh government haven't specified what they they would just like to see an expression of interest from areas. We had a discussion at the implementation team or we had an early discussion at the implementation dean Noting the deadline and my understanding is that

all chief executives have gone away to speak with their leaders about their thoughts on expressing an interest and the implementation program board at their next meeting will bring that information back. >> Okay, thank you. That hasn't reached me yet. Anybody know looks like nobody else has has had that yet. So I think we do need to have a look into that but we we'll come back to that outside the Meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, okay. Uh, Council McDonald. >> Yeah, thank you. Could I just first note on the record that there's obviously

a huge amount of work gone in and we really appreciate that. So, thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think there were rave reviews from the meeting in Dorking. Um, so so so well done to all involved uh in that as well to bring everybody together. Um, I actually was going to ask a similar Question with respect to the update that Terrence gave. Um, I don't remember seeing a letter from the minister landing in in my inbox, although they do seem to be sending letters like it's confetti at the moment. Um, do we

actually have anything of substance in terms of this direction of travel or is it just words? Because to be honest, unless it's going into the parliamentary pipeline, I at the House of Common, I don't trust anything at the moment I'm Getting from from the ministers. And I I appreciated very much the comments from uh I think it was the conservative leader of Kent Council concerning uh the relevant minister and his behavior over some of these matters recently. >> So thank you Ty and thank you very much. >> Yeah I'll start Nicola can come in. Um

yeah a letter was sent to all um uh leaders so you should have it. Um and statue instrument would need to be laid for this to take place. Uh we have been Promised by MHCG that there will be further clarity. Um but it is a sovereign authority responsibility. So um as chief executives we're not able to and wouldn't uh uh presuppose to know what it is you're thinking. But um it is a matter for you to instruct um and for that um to be made to government and then it actually be for the shadow authorities.

um to follow through um after May. >> Could Could I come? >> Yes. Sorry, Councilman. >> Yeah, could I please come? Um and Marie, I thought one of the things that worked really well in our previous meeting was that we went to first names because it emphasized the collaboration. I don't know if it's because we're in this grand uh edifice here and and we're so distant from each other, we defaulted to the formality. But I think in terms of this committee and the work we're doing, I think it does does set the set The right

tone. So I don't know if that's something you could consider as chair, but uh I'll leave that to you. Um with with respect to that in on previous occasions, as far as I remember, we have potentially defaulted back to Surrey leaders as the as the right forum for us to ensure alignment. And I'm sure that that will potentially be discussed at the uh at the the east meeting or whatever as well. that could be the place where we try and look for Consensus. Um just just on a a technicality point because it's coming through in

all the papers. Um I note that we are getting comments from section 151 HR lead monitoring officer. This joint committee has not appointed those people. They have no authority uh at this committee. Now, I don't want to make too much of a a an issue of it apart from to say could I propose that the deputies uh get the chance to comment on those papers. I think we've Got two of them here present today, Susan and uh and Sally, but I think the other one might be Vicki. um that they get a comment, they get

the opportunity to comment on those and then we see the consistent balance in how we've been approaching these matters just to ensure that members are getting uh the complete picture from from all perspectives. >> Uh thank you Sean Terrence. >> Thank you chair. Um okay. Uh so I think that it's given and You've asked for everybody to use the first names and that's the culture and the approach that we're taking in the joint committee. Uh you'll allow me to speak as freely as possible. Um the uh officer core at uh Siri um county and D's

and B's have worked very hard um over the last number of months um to work collaboratively um to a shared outcome. Um, and I think I well I'll let um Karen and I'll let Nick speak for themselves, but I believe that um the Work that's going on um and the information that comes to the joint committees um are signed off and agreed um by all of the chief executives and all members of implementation board. So I don't feel that it's necessary or appropriate um for us to uh delineate um which is county and which is

a D&B um piece of advice um because it's all agreed um and signed off uh and um members of the implementation board are encouraged um welcomed and encouraged Indeed um to get involved um and the 151 mo um comments ments um uh are um defined by the workstream leads and they're asked to decide um uh uh what um comments come forward. Karen works stream lead um uh for governance and HR. Um Karen is a district in Burough chief executive. Um so I don't know Nick Karen is there anything you want to add to that >>

in terms of if I if I take the MO side Um the papers are signed off by the uh lead of the uh governance services I think this time it was asmat that signed them off depending on availability it might be asmat or it might be the co-lead who is pro for EPS renewal, but it will purely boil down to who's available. >> Thank you very much. Uh Karen Sean, >> I'm I'm very happy to take that clarification. I'm just responding to the words that we see on the document Which specifically says monitoring officer. It

says section 15 officer. It doesn't make that clarity that it that it's coming from a pool of people. But now we've had that. That's fantastic. If the template could be updated, then I'm right on I'm on the same page. Thank you for your clarification, Terrence. >> Thanks very much. I've got Liz and then Lance. >> Sorry. Thank you, chair. Um, just coming back to the report and the uh the risk Register and you mentioned about pulling out some of the the risks there. Um I was a little bit disappointed um in points um 11 and

27 that the specific um risk of debt within West Surrey has not been pulled out um to be honest and I know that there you know there have been other members here that have also concerned about that and I do think that we do need to specifically um add that into point 11 and also point 27. I mean that there does show on page 28 as well That it says the risk register shows no critical unresolved issues at besting day and I kind of don't agree with that. I don't think that we have bottomed out

where we're going to be with debt and I think it would be remiss of us not to have some mention of the actual debt in West Surrey in particular. Um you've made some inference but it isn't pointed enough. I think we owe it to residents and we owe it to this this group of members here to to to show that we are Cognizant of those debt levels and I think that does create a significant risk um to the west the new west sorry council. Thank you. >> Um thank you. Yes, it is an emission. I

think I know several people have raised this. Uh Terrence is going to respond. Thank you Terrence. >> Go ahead. >> Can can I apologies Nicola will respond. Thank you. >> I thought I was going to but you got >> I guess just so we can take that feedback back to the finance and property theme in terms of considering that for future iterations of the risk register. We are though looking at a distinction between the transition risks and not anticipating a future risk register for the new authorities. So the new authorities will want to set out

their risks in their risk register and we will look at this in the context of the transition. So I think we can take It back to have a look at the next iteration of this with that feedback. But I just wanted to draw that distinction between the two things because there were many risks that we could put in here that we are not putting in here because they feel like they're the jurisdiction of the new councils. >> I'm afraid I vehemently disagree. Those risks exist. They are not going to be um just for the new

council. They exist now On paper and I think it's really important that those are not glossed over and I don't to to to be fair I don't want you to take it to a future iteration. I want it to be in this iteration because we have very few of these meetings and we've got very little time and um um you know to recognize that debt is a risk that we are taking on in West Surrey. I think I think that it is it is wrong to actually overlook that and I can appreciate you saying About

you know that that it's for a future unitary to decide what to do with that debt but equally we have to be cognizant of and aware of that risk and put it forward. Thank you. >> Thank you uh Liz. Yeah, I think it's a it's a risk to the success of the transition at the end of the day and going into that new authority. Uh but Terrence would like to comment. Thank you Terrence. >> Thank you Shar. um the implementation Team and that that is that is who we are. We're the implementation team and that's

the reason that we're sitting here um in front of the joint committee are acutely aware um because of our day jobs what the likely debt profile is going to be um for West Sur. There isn't any attempt whatsoever um to ignore it um or indeed to hide or obuscate it. Um but the the implementation team is bringing forward reports to the joint committee pertinent to the terms of Reference and the role of the joint committee um and at such time um whenever the shadow authorities um are um in place um as Nicholas says it'll be

a matter for them um to consider um the debt and the the transformation. Um it is not yet at the point um where um we know exactly what that day is going to be. Um and it's not the role of the joint committee um uh regardless of requests for um uh knowledge of what the the debt is going to be um for that to Be considered at this point in time. That won't in any way um uh stop us from um drafting the plan. Sorry if I could come back, chair. Apologies. I mean, I think

it's a disagreement on what you think is pertinent and what I think is pertinent. And I think that that's fair enough. But I think that it should be within this report. You don't think it's pertinent, but I think other members here do think it's pertinent and do think and perhaps We just need to vote on whether or not we want it contained within this report and recognized as as a risk. That's all we're asking is the recognition that it is a risk and it's a risk of implementation as well. It's not just a risk on

vesting day. So on my request, I've got a second for that is to include within the risk register the debt particularly for West Surrey which is obviously the the the area that this particular committee is concerned about. >> Thank you. Um Liz, did you want to speak on this point? just just just a clarity on on maybe a halfway house in this. Obviously, I I can appreciate the secretary chief's exposition that we we're not deciding what to do with the assets and debt, but I absolutely agree with Liz on that there is a an implementation

risk here if that runs away with us particularly around understanding a the amount of debt and where it's at it's at, but also not Fettering the future authority because things have have sort of taken over ourselves there. So maybe really that's the specific here to to actually understand in the transition what is the specific risk of that rather than bettering a position for future authority. >> Can I just go to Katherine and then let you come back because perhaps there'll be a point you might you want to pick up on Terren. Sorry. Thank you very

much For your patience Katherine. Thank you. Thank you, Amary. And and and I agree entirely with what Liz has said, and I did obviously raise some of these issues before today's meeting. And I think what's really pertinent is when you read the section 151 officer statement which obviously um Sean referenced earlier and you look at 27 paragraph 27 it reads both east and west s will operate in very challenging financial environment with significant budgetary pressures and Limited financial resources from 2728 coupled with an increasing demand for services and cost of services. both the new unit

trees will be increasingly reliant on council tax as a primary source of income. I see absolutely no reason why the there cannot be a reference to the high levels of debt that we all know exist currently in the West Surrey councils within that same statement and then at least it is recognized within this report. somebody Picks this report up with no understanding of the situation in Surrey, they wouldn't even know there was debt in West Surrey. And I don't believe that that is an open and transparent document for the residents of Surrey. And I really

would like us to address it. And I agree with Liz, it is a transitional risk because the debt has to transfer from one council somewhere >> and and therefore it is a transitional risk. It's not just something that the New councils will have to pick up. Thank you. I'm Mary. >> Thank you. Um I had um Paul to speak. Is that on this point, Paul? >> I agree with >> Right. Okay. That's fine. So I want you to speak in a moment um on that point. Um yes and um we've got um I think Mark

is that speaking on this particular point. Yeah. Do you want to speak now then please and then I'll come back to you in a minute as well. Lance. Yeah. >> But my my only comment I mean I suppose a bit like Robert trying to sort of hit some sort of middle ground here. It does sound like you want two risk registers because what Nicola has quite clearly stated is this is the risk res risk register which totally deals with the transition the disagregation and aggregation into the new council. What you are talking about is the

risks that that council will face once it is formed i.e what it inherits from us as a county Council and you as a burough council. Now how far do you want that risk register to go? I mean there's a risk that burough councils get rid of all their assets before the transfer comes along or use re or their their reserves in which case it will be in a financially worse position again. There does seem to be two different levels of risk here. This risk is about the job we're doing here today which is about transitioning

the council. Your risk is About what that council then will hold in respect of what is left from the finances of the bur and districts and the surance council. Uh thank you um Mark Lance did you want to speak on this point? >> I do now. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um so so the issue is the whole point about this transition is to have a viable council uh when we vest. Uh if uh the shadow council is not able to set a Balanced budget i.e. effectively we have a bankrupt council on day one then

I can't see how you can say the transition has been successful if that is the case and the 4.2 billion of debt or thereabouts held by West Surrey is a risk to the transition i.e. You will not be able to transition to a successful council on vesting day if you don't take into account what's happening with this debt. >> Thank you, Lance. Joe, >> I'm not going to regurgitate what Lance has just said, but uh yes, you're taking the words out of my mouth before I had the chance to speak. So, thank you very much

indeed for saving my breath. But it's absolutely fundamental uh that we absolutely understand where we are before we um obviously uh lose our sovereignties. uh and indeed um understand specifically how West Surrey will operate. Uh and also I would just like to say at this point what Robert Proposed earlier if you don't have a second I would love to second that because I think that's absolutely the right way to move forward. Thank you. >> Uh thank you Joe. Did you want to come back on that tone now everyone's spoken? Thank you. Um so as has

been asked for by uh councelor followed um there will be um some uh budget information um which is whatever is available um will be brought to the next joint committee. Um the uh Commissioners at Wing and Spellthornne um have offered and are um preparing a briefing for joint committee members um on the debt. Uh separately I've met with Leslie Siri and Sir Tony uh Redmond um who um have stated um that um it's uh their responsibility um and they will become engaged um fully um with the Shandu authorities and the joint committees whenever it comes

to um working out the debt profile uh and that engagement is there. Um it is a live Issue. it is known um you want the um transition risk um um to be uh uh to be written differently. Um I'm sure we can do that. Um but I will come back to the same point that the joint committee's responsibilities are not the same as the shadow authorities and whilst the success of the shadow authorities will be um uh will be understood uh better um after vesting day um uh there will be a transition and a successful

transition to West Sur um how the finances impact On that will be known after vesting day but your point is taken and um we will consider how the 151 um uh report is written. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, chair to interrupt, but we did have Robert put forward and I think it was seconded and I'd like to vote on it, please. >> Thank you. I was just coming to that point, but thank you eth for clarifying that. So, if I could just ask Robert to Uh repeat his his proposal if you can remember what he

said. >> Um I think it was obviously understanding not fettering two authorities future positions. It was understanding specifically that transitional risk of death asset management um in terms of exemplifying that for committee members and the layman or woman on the street that would obviously read read into this there. So for that explicitly to be stated in a in A in a report and whether we call that a risk register or not I'm I'm I'm less uh less concerned about. >> Thank you Robert. So that's been proposed by Robert and seconded by uh by Joe. Um,

are we happy to accept that proposal to move us forward on this point? >> Is that agreed? >> Thank you. Okay, great. Um, I'll now move on to um I've got uh Lance to speak on a separate point I believe and then Paul and then Sean. >> Uh I have two separate points if I'm allowed chair. Um the first one is on communications. Um so the communication section in the paper is is very good uh but rather general. Um we do have elections on May the 7th. Uh clearly um part of the communications uh about

local government reform needs to go out to our voters to better explain what's going on. Um because I do A lot of canvasing, one of the questions that keeps coming up or I have to explain is the fact that uh voters will get to get two votes on the day, not one. Uh most people don't seem to be aware of that. So my question is whether any uh written communication is going to go out to voters before the elections on the nature of local government reform and what they have to do i.e. they have the

opportunity to vote for two candidates uh when they go to vote. Thank you, Lance TS. Thank you. >> Uh as um members no doubt are aware um responsibility for communications for elections rests with the returning officers um and uh the returning officers will be drafting communications um uh and um those coms will um will go out um um in good time. Um, I can ask um I can ask both returning officers to progress that. Nick, do you want to add to it? >> Yes. Thank you. If I may, Chair, uh, Just to confirm, uh, there

are drafts of leaflets that will go up the council tax information that refer to the elections, how to register, and obviously further information around voting will be on the relevant websites. >> Is that on this point? >> It is. >> It is, chair. Thank you. Um just on that point Nick um just to how that's going to be branded. Um you know I just want you know concerned that it will just go Out with all the Surrey branding on and nobody will realize really and also on on a separate point before probably could answer this

as well for me on um page 31 it says that the communications work stream consists of representatives from district and burough councils and the county council on a voluntary basis. Um I just wondered if you could clarify is is what the voluntary basis is within that just slightly confusing. Thank you. Um I believe that all of the districts And burough uh comm's leads come together. So they all meet together but they do it on a voluntary basis but they have a regular kind of I think it's a weekly if not for not a fortnightly meeting

where they come together. So it's all agreed. Yeah. I don't know about the branding so perhaps somebody can answer that. I think that's me again. In terms of the branding, uh, conventionally what happens with the council tax leaflet is There is a a burough specific leaflet that goes out uh and that goes out in conjunction with a county leaflet as well at the same time. Pugely efficient and save postage costs. >> Yes, I was just concerned I I saw the branding about uh sorry, I saw the um comment about there's going to be an insert

to go into the um district and bars leaflets. I was just what is that going to the leaflet going to be branded with? Thank you. >> Uh good question. Um having seen it but can't recall it in great detail, I understand there is the the there we are. Thank you. Nicholas pointing to the correct thing. There is the relevant branding within the materials. So you'll have effectively three brands. You'll have the county council brand for the information that it puts within the bundle, the the specific burough council, and then you'll have the the new West

Surrey interim branding as Well. It's >> the future Surrey branding, isn't it, Sean? >> Yeah, thank you. Um, having um spent quite a lot of effort proofreading our own document that's going out and trying to reassure residents around a lot of this, I realize that I have made a school person error of failing to note the fact that there are the two votes. So could the officers just specifically Ref take note of Lance's comment and make sure that the information that comes out via the returning officer and via the leaflet covers that specific point because

it is a nuance that's different that we won't have had before. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, I have Paul and Katherine. >> Uh thank you chair. Um so first of all, can I just also thank Nicola and the other officers who put this together. I'm just going to talk about some more general points now. Um, I don't have any major issues with the vast majority of the content. Certainly, the work stream breakdown is is absolutely fine. The vision is absolutely fine. I have no issues with any of that whatsoever. Um, I've got one minor

question that's come up from things that have been spoken about and then one more general one. If madam chair, you wouldn't mind me asking just the brief one first. Um, you Mentioned about um the the council tax being the proxy for some of the split. Can I just understand why you've picked that over other theoretical splits such as population >> if I if I can come in. Thank you. Um so in in our work um as as we move forward we're looking at a whole range of different pro different ways of disagregating depending so if

it's assets it might be geography. Um if it's how how we split the staff then it's Where they're dupy to. Um if we don't have any other way then it might be tax base or it might be population. Nothing none of that has been finally agreed. So it will depend on circumstances. >> Yep. >> In which case then I will park further discussion of that pending an assumption that there'll be some kind of briefing to this committee about the ways that you're breaking that kind of process down. >> We we can do that. Yeah. >>

Right. Okay. Okay, in which case I'll just carry on then with the the other bit I was going to mention already. So there are a number of areas in this though where there is an undertone if not an explicit reference to the leadership team, the implementation team having a decision-making role that goes beyond the the election effectively. Um, and I just wanted to double check that's that is what you're intending to say in This document because for me realistically surely all of the authority that comes with the the SRO and with the joint committee etc.

all of this should end at the point that there's the election and you have a shadow authority. Um, and there's lots of references to the SRO but surely at that point we'll have an interim chief executive. And so for me the fact that there seems to be some cases inference in some cases direct statements that Decision- making on staffing particularly extends up to vesting day for me that really should be amended to following the election of the shadow authority and end at that point and and that's the assumption that should be baked in going forward

as well. I don't see why that authority extends beyond the election up to vesting day. we've we've we've stopped many many times to say we need to leave things to the new authority and then there are there are a Few cases where we just seem to abandon that principle whatsoever and and carry on. Now just before I hand over to to Terrence I'm sure I know for a fact because I can feel the vibe in the room that many of the officers here and possibly some of the members are thinking that you know we're being

incredibly awkward about some of the points here and I'm sure the other committee might not have lasted as long etc. But we're doing this because we Have a we believe I am sure all of us here a duty to our burers and our residents to do this properly. It's certainly one I take seriously. I apologize if people are finding this awkward and non-constructive but it is something I feel obliged to do and I'm sure my colleagues here do too. >> Thank you Paul. Thank you. the um conversations that have been had with MHCJ very clear

that the SRO and the implementation team run till vesting Day. We're acutely aware that the shadow authorities whenever they are constituted um will have um a view on the implementation team um and we have asked MHCG um to follow up with a clear briefing note on the intent behind the SEO but that's what we have been told the interim chief executives and the SRO of the implementation team have got very different roles the interim um head of Paid service of uh West Surrey will be focused on setting up um the culture and the um structure

senior management structure etc of the new authority. The SRO of the implementation team is responsible for the program of work up until day. >> Without wanting to drag this out, could I request a short briefing note on that subject? Would the MHCG guidance be provided for the next iteration of this committee? >> I'd love to be able to say yes. However, I have been waiting on MHLG providing me with that information. >> Absolutely. >> So, presumably it can be shared with members once you have that information. Thank you very much. Um, so I've got Katherine

and then Sean. Thank you, Katherine. >> Thank you very much, Amber. I love the fact that we're all waiting on the same organization for different pieces of Information, but I'm sure we'll get there in the end. Um, so um, just a couple of things. Um, obviously Nicola, an awful lot of work has has gone into this and I appreciate it's been generated in a very short period of time. I noticed that Terrence when he introduced the paper used the terms that I had been using in some of the concerns that I had raised that you

know when we go through these documents it is about supporting staff but also residents, Businesses, partners and the third sector all the way through this change and it's not entirely consistent through all of these different documents. So if we could make it consistent I think that's what we all mean. I think that when you say staff that's what you mean. you mean all of those different groups, but I think it would be really helpful and beneficial for that to be updated through the documents if we could do it. Um, the other thing that I reflect

on Very much is I completely understand and it's I'd dread to think how many times Terrence has already said this today that we are here for transition, but all of us also have a a duty to spend public money. Well, so whilst we are here for transition, we are also here to ensure that we are set up or we are setting up the the new authorities for transformation that the data that we gather the way we gather it sets us up not only to ensure that we have a Successful transition but that they have the

information they need in the format they need it for transformation. And I think it would be helpful if if the documents that you've prepared could reflect both those things because you know we are spending large amounts of public money in doing this. I think everyone in this room is well aware of what that money could have been spent on in other ways to fill other gaps that we all know exist. So, I think if you could Consider that, Nicola, and if the committee was willing to support those two things, um, then I would very much

appreciate that being done in a future iteration of this document, um, if at all possible. >> Uh, thank you, K. I think that's good good points. I don't know if it kind of allies a bit to sort of page 26 and the the draft uh vision, which I have no general issue with, but I'm a bit puzzled by the the term of customers uh That we've used here. And I think some of the the phrasing that that Katherine's just suggested might be more useful there. So I'm not really sure who customers are. There's lots of

interactions and different things going on, but I'm not sure that customers really uh really sums it it up. >> Sure. >> I can explain. Um uh customers is often a term which is used in adult social care. Um so it is a very large um Important um and uh uh it takes a little amount of budget but it's a term which is widely used within that sector. >> Okay. But it's probably not appropriate for the the wider piece is it they are customers there but you know a business isn't a customer. It's probably a stakeholder

in things. A resident isn't really a customer. I think we're trying to please an awful lot of different vest interests, but we'll take your feedback and we'll Factor it in. >> I accept it's used in in social care. Absolutely. And it is a big part of things, but we need clarity, don't we? Across I've got Sean and then Chenade. >> Thank you. So, my comments do relate to the um the vision, the principles, and the definitions of of success. And I I I note what Paul said because I think I had to say something similar

in a previous meeting that it's better to be a critical and supportive friend inside The the greenhouse than outside the greenhouse throwing stones. So I hope it's taken in that spirit. I I think there are a few I think there are a few things that could be tweaked in each of those documents or each of those pages. And what I'd you know based on on on members input what I'd like to suggest is anybody has those uh potential enhancements. We picked up on one of them there around the customers versus stakeholders as an example that

maybe They're fed into the chair and they could work with the head of PMO just to make any adjustments that everybody thinks is is appropriate. There's one air so unless there's any objection to that you can maybe feedback in a minute chair uh or other members. Um but just one thing specifically to pull out is that um on the um the draft vision of for the program it talks about the transition will be well governed. Um I think it's missing the and Memberled um because this is we are ultimately responsible here for uh representing uh

the residents. So I'd like I'd like that uh specifically um identified and enhanced. And then similarly under collaboration on the working principles um that potentially it's added we recognize members primacy as the voice of residence in our transition. Uh the fact that none of these documents uh Reference members I think was was an oversight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh thank you Sean. >> Do you have any comments on that at all? Can we get those updates made? just to say thank you for the feedback and that we can look to take that on board.

We do know that it doesn't yet read as a single document because we bring bring through the chapters kind of at pace but we will certainly do that read through so that there is some consistency. >> Thank you Nicola uh Chenade. >> Thank you um J very straightforward question from from me you'd be pleased to hear. Um I I uh enjoyed looking at this actually the the different appendices. Um I thought they were uh quite clear. I agree with some of the comments made by colleagues in the chamber. Some of them not all. Um I

just wanted to ask about the communications plan and the themes and work streams. with the uh comm's Plan, are you going to be measuring how the engagement is going um as that that uh comm's approach is rolled out? Um and I also wanted to ask about themes and work streams that there seems to me some fairly big differences between the program for adults and children's social care and I'm just wondering um uh why that may be the case. Uh if you look at um the themes for children's services in the work stream, we've got commissioning

and quality. Um I'm I'm not uh sure that I could see that in the adult side. I wondered where community safety fits into these work streams and also um whether um the voluntary um community sector team or group um of organizations are included in the work streams as well if there's a place for them. Thank you chair. >> Thank you Shade Nichol. >> Yes, thank you for your question. So um yes, we will be measuring the impact of the communication strategy. Um Communications teams across all councils currently do that. So we will be looking at

um and then monitoring and and making changes as needed based on that. in terms of the um work streams. So each of the themes have been asked to group together their work for the purpose of the transition into between three and five. Um it's difficult with very large areas like children's and adults in place to do that. So a fuller scoping exercise is taking place to ensure that Everything is captured. Um but I would view these as kind of groups or buckets that people are coming around to do the work. But everything in adults will

be captured in there. they've just selected their titles for the purpose of kind of planning the work but can assure you that the detail sits behind it. um in terms of community safety. So we anticipate that will be within the housing and communities workstream and the lead there David Ford is currently Working with his group of subject matter experts more councils to look at exactly but I think it will be in that community's well-being and engagement but there'll probably be a subsection to that um and likewise the voluntary sector that also sits within that theme

as well um and again and a a group assembled um formemes across all councils to work within that we have then recognize that there are links in so there's a lot of interdependencies Here. So conversations are happening at the moment for example between the adults theme and the housing communities theme to clarify um the crossover there with things like the commission voluntary sector services etc. >> Thanks very much U just very quick point and question on that the question is Nicola um where is the member oversight within the work streams uh or if there isn't

um is there going to be mechanisms for feeding back? And I just wanted to Make the point because I think there clearly has been a lot of work that's gone into this um uh from officer representatives from the county council and the district and burough councils and I'll just note in here it's on a voluntary basis and I think we should acknowledge that with the day jobs that you all do as well. Um so I just wanted to echo some of the thanks that's been given on that that particular point. Thank you. >> Thanks Shanned.

Um was there another point to respond to there? Thank you. >> So the member oversight comes through the joint committees and through the shadow authorities. So there isn't a mechanism to build that into um the themes and the work streams. The implementation team as represented here bring that into the joint committees. Just while we're on that point before I go to the other speakers I have, I just wonder if we might add it would be Useful to know who the uh the theme and theme leads and uh subject matter experts are. I know we've got

all the themes listed here now, but obviously every I think everyone's in place now pretty much. So it' be good to have that shared with the joint committee. >> Yes, it hasn't changed from when we presented it at the last meeting, but we can reshare it round. >> Perhaps wear a few caps at that point maybe. Yeah. Will we share it now so that everybody has it? Thank you very much. So I've got Lance and then Sean. >> Thank you chair. So this is a just a very practical issue with regard to implementation. Uh there

are a number of political assistants who are on fixedterm contracts that end on 31st of May. uh the earliest the inaugural meeting of the new shadow authority is going to be late May which makes the timing rather critical for those Contracts. Uh would it be useful if we had a motion passed at this joint committee that um indicated what our preference were to do with these political assistance? >> Is that something you can respond to? I'm not sure. Um, if they're employed by one of the sovereign authorities, then it would be for that sovereign authority

to um decide as to whether they wish to um take account of the joint committee's um um comments. >> Um so the sovereign is Sur County Council obviously because they are employed by them. Well, sorry, they're contracted by them. So my proposal was that the uh the uh the joint committee recommends that at the inorgan meeting of the uh shadow or council that the political contracts are uh reviewed and recontracted potentially on a 12-month basis. It just gives them some comfort that we are thinking about them because otherwise they could leave in the Meantime. So

that's my proposal. Thank you, Thomas. >> Thank you, chair. Um I'm going to have to defer to um an HR expert on chupy issues um and whether that whe whether that an extension to a contract which is due to expire at the end of this year etc. But but we will come back at the next joint committee um with a clear um well with clear briefing on on uh what the HR um issues may well be. Um but it I think if you're saying that uh the sovereign authority should um ensure that their uh contract

is extended, I would need to go back and get advice on that. >> Uh no, no, I absolutely understand that. It's just uh obviously the individuals involved are own awkward position. It is the nature of political assistance their contracts come to an end at the political cycle. I understand that. But this is a rather unique situation. So if You could come back at the next meeting uh with a suggested way forward so as we do not lose the political assistance during machinations. Thank you. >> Thanks Lance. Uh Sean and then Katherine. >> Yeah. Two two

quick things. So, first of all, I very much appreciate Chenade's uh catch on the community safety piece. Uh, and I think if we're calling out things such as libraries, then we really need To call that one out as an individual item. It may not be so obvious to um the county colleagues, but it's a massive issue at the at the district and burough level. uh where we do a lot of hard graph to to to oversee that and work with relevant other partners in our communities but also with the county and with the uh police

and crime commissioner. Um so but just one consideration in that in that regard. Um for me it isn't in housing and Communities. It's probably more in place but maybe that's something officers officers could just discuss where where the best place is for that as well. If we could call it out, I think it's important that the residents see that. In terms of the updating of us of the named individuals by workstream, uh could we ensure that that that that includes the the deputies or or co-the leads or whatever the terminology was? Um because if if

that's not finished by Now, then to be honest, we probably should be giving you a little bit of a nudge to say that you should be finishing it by now. That's part of our scrutiny role. So, it would be great to see the the full deck of the team. Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Katherine, >> I was going to ask the same question that Sean just asked. So, we're obviously on the same page. >> Good stuff. Okay. Um, I think that I Think we've had a good and full discussion uh there. If anyone has any further

points on the uh the implementation plan, I think they could share them uh outside the uh the meeting if that's okay because we need to uh to move ahead. So I'm going to put the uh the recommendations to the uh meeting uh which is that we endorse the draft vision working principles and definitions of success for the devolution and local government Regulation program as set out in annex 2. Uh we note the approach to risk management and budget monitoring for the program and note the approach to communication and engagement as set out in annex 3.

um obviously in relation to the various points that we've asked for additional details as we've gone through this um process. Are those recommendations agreed? >> Thank you Robert. Yes. Okay. Let's move on to item five uh which is the interim Statutory officer designations for the uh the West Surrey Authority. Um you'll find this on page 35 to 45 in the pack. Um I do have to correct an error in the published papers for this meeting. Uh so councelor Katherine Powell was described as representing Farnum residents association. Uh whereas this is clearly incorrect. She represents the

Farnum residents group. Uh and this correction will be reflected in the minutes of this meeting with apologies to Katherine for That mistake. Um I'm now going to hand over to uh Karen Brimikum who's going to introduce this report and she's also supported by Sally Kipping as well who's here today. Thank you Karen. >> Chair, if it's okay with you, I'll ask Sally to introduce it. And if I could personally apologize to to councelor Pile because I think that was my mistake in the paper and I had just realized I'd made it. So sorry about that.

Thank you, Sally. Thank you chair. Um Follow this paper follows on from the last joint committee on the 16th of January and it steps sets out the proposed next steps for members to consider in relation to options for appointing the interim statutory officers for the west Surrey shadow authority as required by the structural changes order. Um the January meeting agreed to create a working group of four counselors which are currently proposed as councelor Sha McDonald, councelor Paul Follows, councelor Katherine Powell um and councelor Chenade Mooney. I believe that Katherine Powell uh councelor Powell has um

nominated the substitute councelor Sexton. The joint committee is asked to confirm the appointments of those four members and the substitute and also to nominate any other substitutes um that that are required. The voluntary joint committee is also asked to confirm that the member working group will present its Recommended candidates for the interim statutory roles to the shadow authority for endorsement in their first meeting in May 2026. um which will facilitate the enactment of the structural changes order. Um included in the paperwork is annex one which sets out a proposed process and timeline for the interim

appointments. Um fully appreciate that these appointments are incredibly important to counselors. Um and we want to absolutely Get those recommendations right. So would really appreciate your feedback and also appreciate that the shadow authority themselves will have their own views. The structural changes or sets out the time frame and it's helpful to consider that the appointment process should therefore be proportionate and within that time frame. Um the proposed officer pool already exists. Obviously we have existing statutory and deputy statutory roles. Um and that should Facilitate meeting those timelines. The proposal at this stage is that the

process timelines and the draft role profiles will be discussed and agreed at the first working group meeting which will be facilitated by myself and also Shella Smith who's the people workforce and culture lead and we're planning in that briefing to include um a short briefing on legal and best practice recruitment requirements. Um we've asked name substitutes to attend that meeting. I understand Simon is busy setting up that meeting at the moment. Um, and I've offered to meet with any substitutes separately to that meeting if they can't if they can't meet that meeting because I know

member time can be quite tricky to pull together. Um, one of the recommendations I know you'll be particularly interested in is the suggestion that interim applications have broadened to deputies as well as existing statutory officers. The reason We've made this recommendation is to provide counselors with the widest possible highquality pool to consider a good choice of applicants. Um, and you know, obviously our concern is that we won't meet the timelines outlined in the structural changes order um or be able to recommend to the uh shadow authority in May uh who your preferred candidates are. And

that's something that we're minded of. Um to mitigate this risk, one option is to consider delegating Authority to the people work stream um to consult with the member working group. Um and then to open the candidate pool beyond the current statutory post holders and their deputies if no applications are received from the initial eligible group. I'm sure you'll want to discuss this. Um, and I'm looking forward to receiving your feedback on that. Um, one point I would ask just all counselors to note is that applicants of the pools must be directly Employed by one of

the relevant councils either on a permanent or interim contract. So, we won't be including temporary or agency staff in the pool. We very much welcome your thoughts and questions and look forward to your feedback. Thank you very much, Sally. Um, so I'll just mention I'm coming to Chenade in just a moment. I know indicated first. Um, I'll just mention that the uh Liberal Democrat uh reserve for the uh Panel is Councelor Julia McShane. So, just to add that in there and then I'll come to Chenade and then to Paul. >> Thank you, Chair. The conservative

group sub is councelor Matt Furnis. >> Thank you very much. uh Paul. >> Okay. Um I'll try and do this in a semistructured way so I don't meander all over the place. Um but first of all, thank you very much uh to Sally and to Shella and to everybody who's worked on this. Um obviously these are things we Need to get cracking on and there's a lot of detail that has to be dealt with through this process. Um my understanding and please do correct me if I'm wrong, uh the reason that Cumbria for example extended

to deputies was because they could not fulfill the requirements for the applications. Now, not only are East and West Surrey individually much bigger and have more constituent authorities, um I at the moment don't see it appropriate to go Out to deputies when that was the fall back at Cumbria. It it could I think be the fall back for us, but I don't think it should be the default. And the reason I would put that forward is is is severalfold. Firstly, deputies may not cover the entirety of a remmit held by that director or that statutory

officer. Two, they have not been through the same process as that director or statutory officer through the full council or otherwise through that process. And Three, because deputies are hired to that position or appointed to that position at will by that statutory officer or director, somebody could be rendered eligible or ineligible by the actions of one of the existing directors, which I don't see as appropriate in this process. So I would I would propose to the committee that we keep the deputy option as a fallback if we don't have sufficient applications but it should not

be the default. Um I Have a number of other points but I'd like to start with that one. >> Thank you uh Paul. Um Mark, >> well whilst accepting what Paul says surely is better and we all sit around here as a an inclusive bunch of people looking for the best possible option is to have the best possible pool of people to pick from. There are a very small cohort of officers that are going to be in the situation one to apply for these roles and two who are qualified to Actually carry those roles out.

Um and I I would imagine many or some will not want to apply for the Israel. So we will need and rather than wasting time, why don't we just open it up to the big co this is not a lot of people >> um in the in the first place. So I don't really see what the the issue is there. >> Thank you Mark Sean. >> So on a theoretical basis I agree with Mark on a theoretical basis. However, listening to what Paul has said, he he Is right that um the deputies have not gone

through the same uh process as the lead officers. Um they haven't had the same member scrutiny panels in their selection. They have typically appointed by the head of paid service. So I don't feel comfortable uh extending it to the deputies until such time as um the first pool have been uh reviewed for their interest in the roles and and Paul just to re-emphasize Paul is correct there is twice as many people in our pool as was In in Cumbria more or less. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Sean um do you want to hear from

Chenade first or you want to speak? I'm just going to Terrence and then you >> uh just uh for clarification um Karen uh Nick can speak on behalf of their authorities uh at the county council as I'm sure you're aware council follows. Um not only is the head of paid service um but executive directors and directors are appointed by PPDC. So they are all Subject to uh member appointment panels and the scrutiny that comes with that. Uh Chenade, >> thank you chair. Um and councelor Follows and myself actually sit on that that committee at Sar

County. So you'll recognize that as fact. I just want to make a point um that um we've spoken uh about this unitary having uh very significant challenges uh ahead of us. Um and I think we need to uh take every opportunity to appoint the Very best officers into these roles. Now um I have concerns about what councelor Follows is suggesting and one of the reasons I have concerns is we don't have a permanent chief executive here at Spellform. Um we're in the process of looking to recruit an interim chief exe. So that that's one of

the burrows out. That's one potential candidate out of the equation. if you follow councelor Follow's model um and then you start to get into really small and narrow numbers Um if we weren't in the opportunity to appoint somebody then we have to go back out through the process and I think that's uh quite time consuming I should imagine that there are current chief executives we focus on that particular role who may have made a decision not to apply for this role for different reasons so I think we're really narrowing uh opportunities that we have um

and given the challenges ahead, we should open This up uh to uh deputy roles as well. I I support that for those reasons. >> Paul and then Katherine, >> I just come back to something the SRO said. Um I accept that those people go through the PPDC process but not their deputies. I think you've highlighted the point that I was trying to make which is the pool is sufficiently large without incorporating their deputies that have not been through that process. I think you've made the point for me. >> Sorry, chair. I jumped the gun there.

Um so uh currently um we have Richard Wiggley um in the room who was appointed by PPDC um who not only um is uh uh um uh not a member of the corporate leadership team is is tear down. Um Nicola also been appointed by PPDC. Um so I I you know this completely a matter for the joint committees who they decide um to uh put in the pool. Um but um I think for u various reasons um you would not want to Delay um the opportunity um to interview as many of the right people as

possible. Um and the learning from Cumbria is that you want to get your interim um uh appointed as quickly as possible. >> Thank you. Katherine, >> may I try a compromise? Um since the name of the game is going to be compromised, I suspect if a deputy has been appointed by a member's appointment panel, then I think they should be considered. If they have not been Appointed by a member's appointment panel, then I don't think they are should be eligible to apply. I think that's a compromise position that would widen the pool beyond current leaders

in those roles, but wouldn't widen it so far that there has been no member input and it addresses the concern that Paul was raising about deputies that have only been subject to appointment by the um the chief exec. I think it's a compromise. So, I'd like to Propose it. >> Second. >> Uh, thank you, Karen. Um, so we've got a second, a proposal from Katherine and a second from Paul. Um, sorry, Mark. Thank you. >> Thanks. Yeah. I I just I mean, we're sitting around this table. I know we come from a different political divides.

We come from burers and districts. We come from councils. I do feel that there is a certain amount of obstruction at Times going on here and we are getting into the minute detail on some of this. Surely it's better to have a bigger pool of people to to come from whether they've gone through PPDC or not if they're deputies at a higher level and they are used to running this. No disrespect or with the greatest respect to a lot of officers stepping up into this role is going to be a huge task. So I am

presuming rightly or wrongly and with uh the work streams that we've got In place a lot of executive offers have got much plenty to do at the moment. So I you know we do need to be a little bit more constructive working together maybe overlook some of the detail and look at the bigger picture. >> Thank you Mark. So I think we've had a useful uh proposal there from uh from Katherine. Perhaps you don't narrow it to PPDC which I don't actually know what it is but people places development I don't know what it is.

Perhaps someone from county could clarify for me. So a me if a member's appointment panel has appointed the person then the deputy is eligible to stand. Apologies PPDC is a sorry phrase my apologies must avoid using acronyms because they don't mean the same thing to everyone. >> Yes, exactly. No I I g that's what it was. So I think that amended proposal is fine. We've got a second but I've got Karen who wishes to speak so I'm just Going to go to her. Thank you. >> Absolutely. This is a member decision. I just wanted to

point out that districts and bur simply because of process tend to have a different approach to appointing deputies. So they won't be appointed on the whole. There may be some some exclusions but by making that decision you are automatically excluding most deputies from a um for our district. Uh Sean. >> Yeah, I I agree with the uh the the amended proposal. I accept um Karen's feedback as well. Uh looking at from from my perspective, which I think might be similar to the other logistics envir that means the statutory officers and are in the pool probably

means their deputies aren't, but I'm okay with that. >> Uh Julia, thank you. I've I've listened to all the comments and I I'm just feeling that that doesn't seem fair on the other deputies and I think I don't See any issue with going through the process the correct way in doing the first pool of people and if we can't recruit from that then we go to the next level and I get that people are trying to offer um compromises but I'm I'm just not feeling that that's the right thing to do. I'm sorry to disagree

with others on the committee. >> Vote. >> Okay. Well, we have the proposal on the table before us, which is that the Initial branch certainly would be open to uh the uh the lead person, the postholder, and the deputy if uh selected by member selection. Um I think we've still got then the option to go out to a a wider pool including those that you mentioned um Julia if uh if necessary and that could be done at the earliest possible stage. So I'm going to put the proposal made by Katherine and seconded by um Paul.

Was it Paul or Sean? Sorry it was Paul. Sorry. Seconded By Paul uh to the uh the committee. We'll take a a vote on that. So those in favor of Katherine's proposal. Thank you. And anyone against that? Okay. Thank you very much. So we will go ahead on that uh basis. Uh do I have any further speakers on this? Sean, >> thank you. I am conscious of Mark's feedback on getting into the weeds and Chana's comments on timekeeping last time. So I'll try and I'll try and be swift. I I think members would recognize That

last time I tried to emphasize the need for this process to be seen to be fair uh and and clearly demonstrate that it's fair and therefore I would like to suggest a couple of uh amendments in in the role of the of the independent oversight. Um specifically under the guiding principles the last bullet relates to the independent oversight. It says where appropriate. I think just making a link back to the members uh preeminence here um that all requested By the working group chair um could be a sensible uh amendment um so that's in the guiding

principles if we moved on further down it talks about the independent adviser who's not an officer of any sur council I would like to suggest that we add nor has had any pri prior private or public dealings with the candidate pool um because Surrey is quite an incestuous place I have found um when it comes to these kind of relationships. Um and also in that same Paragraph that the uh working group chair would approve the appointment of the independent person obviously working very closely with the relevant officers. um if in the same in the same

um vein under 3.5 um that the independent person to be present for key elements of this activity and follow-up which I think is the uh detailed selection process. Um and just a point for clarification, I apologize to uh Sally for uh not getting This all these kind of questions to her first is um could we just confirm that everything apart from the interviews will be virtual because time is a bit precious and we're spending a lot of time in what are moderately dry meetings as I think we would all agree. Um and I think that's

it. if the members could consider those small enhancements in terms of uh in terms of the process. Thank you. >> Thank you Sean. Uh Mark, Couple of points. Um w with respect to what Sean has said there. As with counselors, I'm guessing that officers know a lot of officers around the country. You meet at vary conferences. your work streams etc. So we are again making life potentially quite difficult to find an independent person to come because they're bound to know somebody within the pool. Um especially if officers have been around for some time um as

we all know counselors from across The country I'm sure officers know many officers around the country. So that could again make life slightly tricky. I have an issue with virtual meetings in this respect. This is an important role and I do think as is with our PPDZ our interview panel at Surrey County Council always meets in person um so that we can see that person face to face get a feel for them get a feel for how they're going to actually be able to communicate to staff and you can't do that virtually It does not

come across in the same way so I would actually potentially vi towards having a more certainly for the final interviews maybe for the selection process but when it comes down to the crunch. I think you've definitely got to meet them in person. >> I believe that's what was being recommended. It was just about getting the panel together and preparing, but the actual interview would be in person. So, thank you, Mark. I've got Chenade, Then Sean, then Paul. >> Yes. Uh, thank you, chair. I uh just Sean and Mark uh have covered what I was going

to ask. Um I I think uh I just wanted to touch on inclusive process uh 3.2 of this paper. just looking around at the members of the joint committee um were inclusive in some elements but not all. Um so I think that the membership of the working group is probably as inclusive as it can be. Um I don't know if officers have a particular View on that because I'm looking at the unfair disadvantage towards candidates um and potential outcomes under the Equality Act. Um the other point I I wanted to make was um there's four

members of this group. I believe in the east unitary there's five. Um if there's a draw Yeah. who who makes a decision. >> Thank you for that. We'll let the other speakers and they get some uh clarity on that. Uh so Sean then Paul >> I was going to come back on the previous Point but I agree with Chenade in terms of the diversity inclusivity and making sure we're being equitable in in how we approach this. Um I think the paper says that the chair would have uh the casting vote but equally I think we

need to get to a stage where we don't need to have a casting vote. We need to have consensus. We need to have scoring matrices. We need to make this as fact-based as possible which I'm sure is what the officers will drive us towards. And to Be honest, independent of time, Chenade, I think we stay in that room until we get consensus. Thank you. >> Please do shade. Thank you. >> Who is the chair of the working group then? >> Working group will elect his chair >> at the first meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >>

Um Mark, this on the same point, >> a similar point around conflicts. It Just suddenly crossed my mind and I know this is probably going to be impossible to do but you've got an interview panel of four members here who potentially will be interviewing their leader let's say for example where they have a close relationship with. Does that come across as a conflict and and in that instance should that person be removed from that vote and the um the deputy come in play? Uh yes, that probably is the best approach deputies required in that Sense.

Yeah, members will need to decide whether they've got that conflict, won't they? Exactly. Um Sean and then I have got Paul afterwards. >> I I I kind of agree with Mark, but we're now adding a layer of complexity that's going to be very difficult to cope with because as you may appreciate, you know, you've got three here. How how is that how is that going to work practically? I I think the other thing that we probably just um emitted in our discussion is That the independent person would be in the room as well as part

of the process and I certainly would be wanting to lean on them quite heavily in terms of their expertise and what they're seeing in in in this process as well. But I I accept I accept Mark's point is a risk. >> Uh Paul, >> I also accept Mark's point. I think we're in the same position where even if it's not your direct chief executive or or monitoring or saw or whatever, you Quite likely met or interacted with these people in the process of doing the job that we all do. So, we're going to have to

manage that. I completely understand. Um, just a couple of uh small points. Well, one small point and one bigger one. The first one, if I can just ask this one quickly in terms of are you foreseeing any uh recruitment agency or outside body involvement in this process? >> Thank you. Uh Karen, >> no. So we are uh talking about the independent chief exec who we have um mentioned and also in the room will be a senior HR officer maybe two. Um you'll certainly have Shella and or Sally or both. >> I'd certainly be very happy

to have both in the room personally I have to say. Um just in terms of if there was a point where a recruitment agency or other others from outside were being brought in or instructed I would certainly be Asking that it be subject to the approval of the working group as that's not the case that's absolutely fine. And just one other thing that I probably will need an HR person just to advise on um in terms of um equity of access to positions or the theoretical positions. I think you're in a position where a county

employee could apply for the equivalent job in East and West whereas a burough employee would only be able to be eligible within their jurisdiction. Um, can I just ask possibly a really unfair question? Do you believe that that is fair and do you advise that the committee remediate that in some way if you do believe it's unfair? >> Can or Sally? Yeah. S Thank you, Sally. So um the reason for that I believe is due to the wording in the structural changes order. So it's it's something that we're legally required to do. The structural changes

order says that in the east um the interim officer can be Appointed from the one of the count councils in the east or the county and the same wording applies in the west. One of the officers in the west or an officer from the county. So we absolutely have to revert to the um wording of the uh structural changes order for that. So it's not really a question of whether it's fair or not. It's a question of what the structural changes order says. I think >> thank you then. Uh Paul then Liz >> very very

short one. Does the structural change order override existing HR legislation that exists then? because surely there's not there is not the same equality of access to the roles for burough versus county officers and I know the order says that but then I'm would be pretty sure there's other legislation that would go against that position. >> I think Karen was looking to answer that. Is that okay? Not not wishing to get into the legalities of it um because I haven't taken a legal view because I didn't know this question was coming up but um the structural

order the I have the wording of structural changes order in front of me. It simply says that you the shadow authority at its first meeting must designate an officer from the county or an officer from the west as described by Sally. Um it doesn't say ex officer can only apply or whatever. It simply says You have to designate. Um I suspect there may be an issue of equity if you can say to if you if you say to an officer of the county council who in the structural changes order could be appointed in either uh

but you can only apply for one. Um, I was also thinking about it because it was muttered to me before the meeting about this might come up. Um so I was thinking about it from a practical point of view because unless The east is equally minded to go the same way as you are and say that a county officer can only apply in one way then it would be very messy because the east would be saying um the count uh we welcome all applications and the west would be saying oh but if you've already applied

to the east then we're not allowing you to apply to us you know Fundamentally, this remains a member decision. Whoever you come, whoever comes in front of you in the Day, you can choose to appoint them. You can choose not to not to appoint them and recommend. Well, you're not even appointing, you're recommending to the shadow authority. Um, if you want to go with this, if you do want to pursue this, I would ask for an opportunity to take some some probably specialist legal advice. >> Okay? because I was going to suggest we bring it

back to the committee otherwise >> so I think we've covered that one so I Had Liz and then Katherine >> my point's been covered now thank you chair >> Katherine >> I think the my question comes from what's just been discussed if the two appointment panels sit and they decide that the best candidate is the same person um what happens then um because there there is the reality of that could happen right um and and presumably probably they can't do three jobs. I Mean, it's bad enough as as as Terrence and and Nicola know and

and all of you know that doing two is bad enough. Um, but I I do think that we do need to get some guidance on some of these more nuanced things that whilst they may well not happen because the interview panel is different, it's not beyond the realms of possibility. >> Thanks, Katherine. Uh, Terrence wanted to speak on this. Um I I Don't have a crystal ball. Um if I did, I perhaps wouldn't have taken the Siri chief executive job if I this was coming along. Um I would uh I would think that it is

highly unlikely that you're going to get um uh someone from the county applying for both um of the posts. Um, so yeah, I don't have fingers crossed because you don't want them to or you do want them to cart. >> Time will tell. Terrence, >> there's a risk that we need to be aware Of. Okay, so I'm going to bring this item to a close now if we are all uh done. Does anyone have any further contributions to make on this? Uh Sean, >> could I just check that my proposed amendments are broadly accepted by

members in terms of the increase in the independent oversight and involvement in the process? >> We agreed to that. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so we then just need to uh note The uh the recommendations um before us. Uh so we've confirmed the members and the substitutes from all the groups. Uh the member working group will present to the uh final meeting of the joint committee in May. uh note the proposed timeline that we have. Uh we've just discussed the eligibility as to who can stand and um delegating authority to the people work stream lead

and uh consultation in consultation with the member working group. Is that all Agreed? >> Thank you very much. Uh we'll move on to our final agenda item then which is the uh setting of member allowances. This is on pages 47 to 53 in the uh pack. Um and I'll look to who's going to introduce this one. Is that going to be yourself or Susan? Right. Welcome. I'm going to welcome Susan Sale then. And Susan is the constitutional and shadow authority co-work stream lead. That's a mouthful of a title, isn't it? She's also Strategic director for

democracy law and people and monitoring officer at Guilford and Wavely Burough Councils. Wow, that's a lot, isn't it? When when you're ready, Susan, perhaps you could introduce this for us. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, chair, and good afternoon, councilors. Um so the joint committee uh will be aware that we're expecting the structural change order that comes into force in March uh to require each of the shadow councils to Adopt a members allowance scheme for the shadow period um up to resting day so that the shadow council is able to pay their members uh

for their service. In adopting such a scheme, it's a statutory requirement that the shadow council councils need to take account of the recommendations of an independent remuneration panel established for that purpose. And what we are proposing in the report before you today is that the joint committee authorizes the Preparation of an independent remuneration panel report to come back to this committee in due course. Members are being asked to approve the creation of a joint panel of five members from within the existing SAR council's independent remuneration panel members and to delegate the appointment to uh the

theme sponsor for people and governance work stream. It's anticipated that the panel members will require a refresher training session and then Potentially two to three half-day sessions to be able to complete their work stream. And the proposal is that a payment would be made to them from the LGR fund um of approximate of60 pounds per day plus expenses uh for the work that they do and there would also be an a small cost in terms of training provision. Um the IRP will be commissioned to prepare a members allowance scheme to come back to this committee

hopefully by April but if not Definitely by May and then this committee will be asked to recommend that to the inaugural meeting of the shadow council. It's likely that the uh panel will consider basic allowances and also special responsibility allowances for known roles that that we are aware of at that time. But just to be clear, their work may need to flex during the shadow period depending on what roles and what governance structures and what Committees are established by the shadow council. Uh so we're likely to need further input from them during that shadow period.

Um and just to to flag as well that there will need to be a separate members allowance scheme ready for vesting day which will take effect after vesting day for all counselors. that may include the same independent remuneration panel members. It may be the same scheme, but that will be a decision for later by the Shadow councils. So all we're proposing at the moment is authorization for the preparatory work for the initial member members allowance scheme for the shadow council. Thank you chair. >> Thank you very much uh Susan Paul and then Joe. >> Thank

you very much chair and thank you Susan for all the work that you and your colleagues have put in on this. Um, I was originally going to be coming here and suggesting that we should have Separate ones for east and west, but I think realistically there's no need at this point because at the point of incorporation they will be the same. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will diverge in structure very swiftly considering potential nature of both councils. Um, and so I completely support the recommendation as is. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mark. Oh,

sorry. I had Joe on there, Mark. Sorry. >> Thank you. If I may, I just want to just have clarification please on page 47. Um, recommendation three, you said£60 per day. I just wanted to check. It was 60 pound a half day. I just wanted to make sure whether the papers were correct. That was all. >> Apologies chair. That that was my error. It's£60 per half day session that we are proposing. >> Thank you and thank you very much indeed for your report. Thank you. Mark, >> thank you chair. I totally agree with the recommendation.

What it did want to high I did want to highlight though and it's something that hasn't been discussed is around whether it's this committee or whether it's a work stream that needs to go out there is is about advertising the role of counselor. Um we have got a whole new cohort of people potentially standing for election burough counselors some existing county counselors and obviously new counselors. Now normally we would run programs running up to election on explaining exactly what was involved. Now, I know we don't know what the shadow council will actually do. We've got

some idea, but do do you or this committee think it's a good idea in some shape or form to advertise the role as a council so people have some awareness of what they are actually standing for election for? >> It's quite Yeah, it's quite a quite a challenge, isn't it? Uh Liz, >> I think I think that you know to be fair that comes out of the um you know it's beyond the remit of this which is a recommendation of a members allowance scheme. I think you know that advertising it I think it would be

up to you know you as a political party and your political parties to advertise for candidates and get candidates. >> So I wasn't suggesting amending this motion. I it it pointed me to suggest that we ought to look at that. That was All. Otherwise, as has happened across the country, we've had mass resignations in certain councils because they didn't understand what they were actually going to go into. >> Well, no comment on that one, but um yeah, no, it's a good point. It is a good point to be thinking about going forward. I think we

need to be cognizant of it, don't we, Paul? >> So, I mean, I think a few of us here over the other side um the LGA obviously Do some of these things as well. I think most of our sovereign authorities still do the sort of be a counselor kind of sessions as well that are quite generic. Um, I do reflect on the fact that if somebody had told me all the things that it would involve being a counselor, I would have run an absolute mile. Um, so there's only so far I think it would be

wise for us to go if we want anybody to stand in this election at all. So, but I understand where you're coming from, Mark. >> Uh, I've got to Karen and then and then Sean, I'll come to you. Um I can't offer any information about in advance of the elections but just to reassure members that the shadow authority workstream which is being led by Mary Roberts Woods from Ryate and Banstead um one of the their key priorities is looking very much at induction including that very vital period between the day of the election And the

um AGM. So there are there are plans for a lot of a lot of meetings, a lot of training over the over the vesting period. >> Thanks for that to Karen Sean. >> Yeah, thank you. I think Karen's made the point, one of the points I was going to make. So thank you. Um I don't have a problem per se with the proposal, but I just want to revisit my point around Surrey actually being quite a small pace even with 1.2 two million People um and that in the appointment of the panel due consideration is

given that they don't have any conflict of interest with an existing uh council because I know from my own experience and I won't name name it that our panel there are then subsequently connections so I think we need to be mindful of that and then I think the second thing is because we are looking at panel for the whole of Surrey it it would be interesting taking on board Mark's point And others about making sure we have the be very best people and a diverse population as well. Um that we've considered geographic spread as well

so that we are uh representative of of the uh of the whole area. So yeah, no major problems but if we could just consider that and I don't know whether maybe one of the panel should be considered from outside the area just to bring in different and new ideas but I'll leave that to the officers to consider. Thank You. >> Thanks Sean. I believe often that the uh people do come from other areas, but I think Susan's going to give us some clarity. Anyway, thank you, Susan. >> Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think several of

the existing ILP members are from outside of the Surrey geographical area. In any event, um but thank you for the feedback, Councelor McDonald. We will certainly ensure that the point about conflicts is addressed um in the Selection process. Um and we are very keen to ensure that we uh select a panel who have um both include both county and district and burough experience and also that they are geographically spread. So we will certainly take that that comment on board. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll just come back to you Sean and then Joe. >> Yeah,

thanks ever so much for that feedback. I've realized I missed one thing. Sorry. And I think it might link To what Paul said. The list of potential SRAAS is is very long. Um uh especially for a body that will want to set its own direction, its own ways of working. So my um humble suggestion is that list is looked at in terms of the be BEM legal minimum that is required uh and and the initial uh group focuses on that and then any subsequent work um I think can be a tweak on that because as

as as uh councils evolve over time typically it goes back to the panel for for a refresh For those additional roles uses the same model and just changes the percentage of the whatever the highest allowance is. So, I I don't think it's a major thing to do, but I think it would it would send the right message that we're not uh as as Terrence has reminded us, we're not dictating to the shadow authority how they should be organized. That's very much for them to decide. >> Thanks, Sean. Joe. >> Joe, it's not on this point,

but I'm Mindful there is a OB and I didn't want you to close. I have a point that I'd like to make, but it's not on on this point. >> Okay, that's fine. Yeah, I must admit I was keen to make that point about that long list of the uh the roles and would agree with uh with Sean that uh yeah, just the the call really seems necessary and we've got things there like chair of neighborhood area committees which we Haven't even decided as a council that we'd have neighborhood area committees. So, it seems a

little presumptuous to to put those sorts of things in there. I think just keeping to the uh the basics would be clear. I did have one question actually for for Susan or for Karen. Usually uh when we have a um panel looking at independently renumeration they will do a survey of councilors and find out what work they're doing at the moment what the level of work is what Their input is and then they'll base their um recommendations partly on that. How will information be gathered by this independent panel in this situation? >> Thank you for

the question chair. I think ultimately that'll be a decision for the panel themselves as to how they want to gather their information. But um you're right that normally they do um uh interview uh members. They may want to interview some of the joint committee for example, but I think primarily They'll be taking their information from other authorities that have gone through this experience previously such as Sumbria, Cumbria, North um North Yorkshire etc. where they will be able to glean some information as to the reality of the workload of a shadow council member as opposed to

postvesting day member. >> Thank you very much for that that clarity. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of that discussion then. Um so We're recommending that uh we approve the creation of a single independent reinumeration panel along with the uh east. Uh we're delegating that to um the uh people and governance theme sponsor that's Karen uh in consultation with the uh the chairs of the joint uh committees. Uh we're approving the payment per half day of £60 plus reasonable expenses and uh we are delegating then to the constitutional and shadow authority workstream

leads The authority to commission the panel and produce a report to the committee. Is that agreed? >> Thank you. We don't actually have any other business on the agenda, but we do have a whole five minutes left. So, I'm sure we can't make any actual formal decisions on anything, but as Joe has an AOB, I'll I'll let her uh raise that whilst the committee is here or anybody else who has an AO. So, I'll hand over to Joe. >> I'm very grateful. Thank you, chair. Um I just want to bring to members um that West

Surrey and South Middle Sex Council as a new name change that we have spoken about this previously but not in the public domain is gathering momentum and specifically with uh Russell Grant. Um I think it's really important that we are very clear in terms of the name change um where we are at this moment in terms of the structural change order because obviously the name is included in that Um whether or not this committee will consider what is gathering momentum and indeed whether or not it will look at this at a later stage and I

just wanted just to get some clarity because I think we need to be very fair uh to those residents um and obviously this Facebook page that seems to be gathering momentum. >> Thank you for for that, Joe. So, as I understand it, the the name is actually set down in the structural change order. So, we have no power to to change that. It would need to be a decision of the uh the shadow authority. So, that's why Does anyone else have any other business at all before I close? No, he's just moving around slightly. Okay,

great. Well, that brings us to the end of the meeting. Uh I would like to thank uh all of the officers for their contributions today. Uh particularly obviously Terrence for his huge role and and Nicola for all the huge work she Does to pull all of this together. But all of the the officers leading and working on the uh the work streams. Really appreciate all of your help and and Nick as our deputy here. uh and then for all the the counselors and your contributions. Um today our next meeting will be on the Friday the

13th of uh March and we be held in uh Elmbridge. Um look forward to seeing you all again then. And you've got four minutes of your