Queries regarding proposed constitutional amendments to the Roehampton Partnership

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Wandsworth Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

The following questions are regarding the Roehampton Partnership document “ROEHAMPTON PARTNERSHIP, CONSTITUTION AND RULES FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS, March 2013, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 28 JUNE 2016” received from the Council on 14 July 2016.

General questions
1. What is the explanation from the Council that it was fair to RP members to provide them with the suggested constitution amendments the night before the June 28th RP meeting?
2. Does the Council believe that this one evening’s notice was enough time for participating RP members to have discussions with their members regarding the proposed constitution amendments? Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, please provide a justification for the response.
3. What is the geographical boundary covered by the RP?

Current Section 3/Proposed new section 3
4. The suggested maximum number is now 19 and not 20, what is the reason for the proposed amendment?
5. How is the ‘Councillor’ position chosen? The Roehampton & Putney Heath Ward (RPHW) borders three other wards (these being East Putney, West Putney and West Hill) hence there must be a process by which, for instance, Councillor Sutters has gained a place on the RP.
6. How is the ‘Health’ position chosen?
7. What is the justification for amending the criteria for 3 ‘Roehampton residents’?

Regarding point (d) at the Western Area Housing Panel (WAHP) in June 2016 the position for the 3 Roehampton residents came up for election, though this moved to September due to constitutional queries regarding the RP. Each of the 3 Roehampton residents members were to come from the WAHP are ALL accreditation Resident Associations (RAs). At the June WAHP meeting there were the following accreditated RAs in attendance;

• Ashburton Sheltered Housing Residents’ Association
• Manresa and Minstead Sheltered Housing Residents’ Association
• Lennox Sheltered Residents’ Association
• Cadnam Point Residents’ Association
• Crown Court Residents’ Association
• Finchdean House Residents’ Association
• Glenthorpe Residents’ Association
• Hersham Close Residents’ Association
• Innes Gardens Residents’ Association
• Putney Vale Residents’ Association
• St Margaret’s Court Residents Association
• Stockhurst Close Residents’ Association
• Stoughton Close and Greatham Walk Residents’ Association

The following questions come from this;

8. What is the reason for giving a Sheltered Housing RA a preference over any accreditation association? All accredited RAs currently have a 1 in 13 chance, now the Sheltered Housing RA has a 1 in 3 versus 1 in 10 chance for other RAs, assuming these others remain as chosen form the WAHP.
9. Why has this amendment, and for that matter this proposed constitution, not been shared with WHAP for discussion?
10. Was this amendment discussed with other Council members? If yes, please detail whom was contacted regarding this amendment and what was the outcome.
11. If the Resident Participation Officer for the Western Area did not have this proposed amendment discussed with them, then what was to reason?
12. Is the Council now suggesting an accreditation association member can now come from other than the WHAP?
13. If so, how will this be put in place?
14. If a no Sheltered Housing Residents Association was nominated at the 11th July WAHP meeting and the proposed constitutional changes go through, then how would this have been handled at the WAHP given this new constitution would have, it is assumed, overridden the WAHP election results only three months earlier?
15. Referring to the previous question would a Resident resident then have to make way for the Sheltered Housing Resident Association nomination?
16. What is the Council’s justification for not being joined up between the RP and WAHP, both of which are Council bodies?
17. How are the 2 Voluntary/community sector or faith groups selected?
18. How are the 3 local business representatives selected?
19. Shouldn’t the Roehampton University be one of the 3 local business representatives selected?
20. If the answer to question 11 is no then why not?
21. Why is the Roehampton NUS member given an automatic seat at the Roehampton Partnership?
22. Given that the Alton Estate makes up effectively half of the Western Area Housing Panel (circa 3,300 properties out of 7,156) by number does the Council believe that the Alton Estate is under represented on the Roehampton Partnership?
23. If the answer to question to the previous is no, then please explain the reason for this being the case.

Current Section 4/Proposed new section 4

24. Regarding text “Membership of the Partnership shall be reviewed at least every three years, as part of a regular review process” does this mean that any member of the Roehampton Partnership is guaranteed a seat for three years?
25. My understanding, for instance, is that if a Roehampton resident, such as Manresa and Minstead Sheltered Housing Residents’ Association is selected to be on the Roehampton Partnership, it means that the role of Roehampton resident is in place for three years, though a different Residents Association can represent as a Roehampton resident over each of the three years? This is very important to be clear as this has an impact on the September WAHP meeting which will vote on Roehampton representatives?

Current section 5/Proposed for deletion
26. What reason does the Council have for removing this criteria?
27. Does the Council believe that attending four meetings per annum is too onerous for a group which has the important task of “The purpose of the Partnership is to engage key stakeholders in advising on the development and delivery of regeneration and other development programmes aimed at making Roehampton a better place to live and work”?
28. Does the Council consider is unreasonable to remove a member if they miss 3 consecutive meetings (i.e. 75% of the meetings per annum)? This is even with a warning after 2 consecutive meetings.
29. Regarding text “the member’s absence from two consecutive meetings shall be drawn to the attention of the member by the Secretary (in writing to the duly appointed representative) who shall be reminded of the foregoing provisions regarding absence from a fourth meeting” has the Secretary provided this notification to each RP member that this rule applies to?
30. If the answer to the previous question is “no”, then please provide an explanation as to the reason for not doing so.

Current section 6/Proposed for deletion
31. What is the reason for deleting this section?
32. Does this mean for instance the nominated person for the seat has to attend and not a replacement even if they come from the same group? For instance, if the Roehampton Forum representative Mr Horrocks is not able to attend, does that mean, for instance, that the current Chair Mr Bishop could not attend in his place?
33. If the answer to the previous question is “yes”, then this has to be more carefully considered by RP attendees, then this would seem to be more about the person attending the RP rather than the role of the organisation. What is the Council’s view regarding this?

Current Section 7/Proposed section 5
34. Please outline the reason(s) for the change.

Current Section 8/Proposed section 6
35. Please outline the reason(s) for the change.
36. What is the purpose for granting the Chair more constitutional power over the RP members with regards to suspension or termination powers?
37. As it stands the Chair could be said to have failed to have lived up to acting in accordance with the constitution, in this example with regards to the suggested amendment how does the RP sanction the Chair?

Current Section 9/Proposed new section 7
38. Now that there is a requirement to provide written notice of non-attendance, what happens if this written apology is not granted?
39. What is defined as the ‘Roehampton area”?

Current Section 18/Proposed new section 14
40. Regarding the text “The responsibility of the Chairman will be an annual position and nominations and the re-election of Chairman will take place by the end of March each year, or in the event of there being no meeting in March, at the next meeting of the Partnership to provide continuity” can it be confirmed whether or not this has been followed?
41. If the answer is ‘no’ then please provide an explanation for this.

Regarding the comment “The Chairman of the Partnership will be a Cabinet Member of Wandsworth Council in order to provide direct representation and clear communication of Roehampton matters in Cabinet”, I have the following queries;
42. How will this communication to the Cabinet be conducted?
43. As a resident of Roehampton I would like to see evidence of these discussions had by the Chair with the Cabinet, how will I be able to see these evidence?
44. What is the reason for a member of the Cabinet having to be the Chair?

45. Where is stated “The term of appointment is one year” it is not clear whether this applies to both Chair and Deputy Chairman, can this be clarified?

Current Section 24/Proposed new section 20

46. The power to dissolve the RP has been removed from the RP itself, what is the reason for the Council in providing itself sole responsibility for this power?

Yours faithfully,

Steve Fannon

Freedom Of Information, Wandsworth Borough Council

Request for Information - 2016/13439 - Roehampton Partnership Constitution

 

Thank you for your request for information received on 02/08/2016.

 

This will be processed in accordance with the appropriate access to
information regime.

 

Regards

 

Corporate Support and Information Team

[1][Wandsworth Council request email]

 

IMPORTANT:
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above
named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you
must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to
anyone. Please reply to this email and highlight the error.

Please visit the Council's website at: [2]www.wandsworth.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Wandsworth Council request email]
2. http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/

Freedom Of Information, Wandsworth Borough Council

1 Attachment

Request for Information - 2016/13439 - Roehampton Partnership Constitution

 

I refer to your request for information received on 02/08/2016.  Please
see the information below in response to your request: -

 

The vast majority of the information requested below is for an opinion and
is not a request for recorded information, as such this is not held by the
Council.  In so far as the information you request has been recorded, it
is contained in the applicable minutes of the Roehampton Partnership.
Minutes are publicly available at:
[1]http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/d....
Please note that a paper presented to the Finance and Corporate Resources
Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 24 April 2013 has been attached
(13-242). This refers in part to the 2013 revision to the Partnership’s
Terms of Reference. The procedural matters you refer to are covered by the
Terms of Reference of the Roehampton Partnership (March 2013).

 

The minutes of the June 2016 Partnership Meeting are currently in draft
form and are being withheld under section 22 (Information intended for
future publication) of the Freedom of Information Act. These are due for
publication once they have been approved by the Partnership Meeting on 21
September 2016. The minutes will be placed on the above website
approximately one week after that meeting.

 

I hope this information meets your needs. If you do not understand the
information provided or wish to discuss anything further, please feel free
to contact me and I, or another member of the team will be able to assist
you.

 

Please note, all material provided by Wandsworth Council in response to
your request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use.
Wandsworth Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information
provided. Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information
without express written confirmation from Wandsworth Council may
constitute an infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this
information commercially may require consent. Please forward any requests
for re-use of information to the FOI officer.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request you may make representations to the Chief Executive. 
Correspondence should be addressed to: 

 

Room 149, Wandsworth Town Hall, Wandsworth High Street, London, SW18 2PU

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

 

Regards

 

Kirsten Hawkins

Deputy Corporate Support and Information Manager

[2][Wandsworth Council request email]

 

 

show quoted sections