Agenda item

Report of the Monitoring Officer

The Monitoring Officer presented the Amendments to the Constitution report which had been prepared following an annual review of the constitution. She explained that the Council had a statutory duty to keep its constitution under review to ensure that it was relevant, up to date and fit for purpose. She said that, as minimum, the Council must undertake a review of its constitution on an annual basis, which this report demonstrated compliance with. She noted that this was her first review of the constitution since joining the Council and that she brought her experience from elsewhere and also her review of best practice in neighbouring local authorities.

 

The Monitoring Officer referred Members of the Group to Appendix 1 which set out the proposed amendments, which followed on from feedback from Councillors, Officers and members of the public. She said that the first two amendments related to matters of clarification, the first in respect of situations where the ombudsman were to consider complaints against the Council from members of the public and the second in relation to the scheme of delegation to Officers in respect of planning matters covered by the Local Development Order. She said that the remaining changes related to rules that governed Council meetings and were intended to assist with the efficient running of those meetings, and also to address accessibility issues in the current rules.

 

The Monitoring Officer said that subsequent to the publication of this report, the Council had received a report from the Local Government Association who had undertaken a review of the Council’s last meeting held in December 2024. They had considered this good opportunity for the Council to review its arrangements for the running of Council meetings.

 

The Chair clarified that Members of the Group were asked to consider the proposals put forward in the Amendments to the Constitution report.

 

Councillor Birch said that he thought that opposition Councillors required tools to be able to provide scrutiny of the ruling Group and thought that recorded votes were a part of that. He said that opposition groups were disadvantaged and had the odds stacked against them and said that the proposal in relation to recorded votes was counter to democracy and transparency.

 

The Chair suggested that the Group focus on and consider the proposals one by one.

 

Citizen’s Rights

 

The Chair suggested that the Council should have opportunity to review a complaint through its formal procedure before consideration by the Ombudsman. Councillor Birch asked whether the Council had time limits for completion of complaints. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there set time periods for completion of the different stages of the complaints procedure. She confirmed that the amendment did not change the right for members of the public to complain to the Ombudsman, only that they would need to go through the Council’s formal complaints procedure first as required by the Ombudsman. She confirmed that the Council’s complaints procedure would need to be followed fully before the Ombudsman would consider a complaint.

 

Members of the Group agreed the change in relation to Citizen’s Rights.

 

Note: Director Development and Economic Growth

 

The Chair said that this related to the Local Development Order (LDO). He noted that there was mechanism within existing process for Ward Members to submit their objections. Councillor Billin welcomed inclusion of the phrase ‘as required under the LDO’ in the wording of the additional text. The Monitoring Officer said that the change was to provide clarity that the existing delegation to the Director applied also to the LDO, to provide clarity as to who the decision maker would be. She explained that the Supplemental Planning Guidance could be any that applied to that particular application.

 

Members of the Group agreed the change in relation to Note: Director Development and Economic Growth.

 

Recorded Vote, paragraph 4.24.

 

Councillor Birch said that he thought recorded votes were a vital mechanism for opposition parties. He noted that different councils had differing requirements for how many Councillors were needed to support a request for a recorded vote but thought that what was important was to do what was right. He noted that his political Party had requested recorded votes regarding Bingham car parking and kerbside glass collection. He said that recorded votes were not about scoring political points but were about what was good for democracy and said that he had never requested a recorded vote gratuitously. He called for the number of people required to call for a recorded vote to be in line with the number of Councillors in the smallest political party.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that the decision today was to agree what Members of the Group recommended be taken forward to Full Council for debate and approval. She confirmed that every Councillor had the right to request that the way they voted be recorded in minutes and added that as a council was only required to keep minutes for six years, the record of vote would not be recorded indefinitely. She said that she had benchmarked the proposal against other local councils and noted that two required fewer than five nominators and four required five or more.

 

Councillor Polenta said that during her time as a Councillor over the past two years she did not think that recorded votes had taken up a big chunk of meeting time and as such did not perceive them to be a problem. She recognised that this Group was not decision making but appreciated it being able to scrutinise and explore the proposal. She supported the proposal made by Councillor Birch for the number of requesters to be in line with the membership of the smallest Group and said that Full Council was a public space and the aim should be to have transparency and accountability. 

 

In response to questions from Members of the Group, the Monitoring Officer said that a request for a recorded vote would be made at the point of voting, with the Chair then asking if there were the required number of supporters for the request.

 

Following discussion over the wording of ‘or more’, the Monitoring Officer suggested amending the wording to be ‘at least five’ rather than ‘five or more’.

 

In response to discussion about changing the number of supporters required to trigger a recorded the vote, the Chair expressed reluctance to put forward an amended number and suggested that the Group vote on the number recommended by in the report.

 

Members of the Group did not agree the proposal, as amended to be ‘at least five’, in relation to Recorded Vote.

 

It was proposed that the number of requesters be changed to be two and Members of the Group did not agree the proposal.

 

It was proposed that the number of requesters be changed to be ‘at least four’ and Members of the Group agreed this proposal and for this amendment to be carried forward as the recommendation to Full Council.

 

Questions on notice at Full Council.

 

Members of the Group agreed the amendment.

 

Response

 

Members of the Group agreed the amendment.

 

Notice

 

Members of the Group agreed the amendment.

 

Scope, paragraph 4.40

 

Councillor Birch said that there could be value in bringing motions not within the remit of Council as they could lead to interesting discussions with an educational value and said that there was no financial impact on the Council in doing so. He said that having the facility to do this was valuable and good for democracy. He suggested that an annual limit could be set for the number of motions that could be brought regarding matters outside of the remit of Council. Councillor Polenta supported this proposal and said that the Council Chamber was the Councils’ sovereign body and provided a direct link with residents and neighbourhoods. She said that the Council did not operate in a vacuum and was affected by wider events taking place and which could have an impact on residents.

 

The Chair said that proposals for Motions went to the Chief Executive for approval before being brought to Annual Council and referred to calls at the last Full Council for the meeting time to be extended past 10pm to debate business, which was an impact, and as such meeting time needed focus on matters relevant to the business of the Council.

 

The Monitoring Officer said that the amendment was proposed on the basis of feedback from Councillors and members of the public and was about deciding how, as a Council, it wanted to spend the time within Council meetings. She confirmed that the Chief Executive was the decision maker for acceptance of motions and that they were impartial and not political.

 

Members of the Group agreed the change in relation to Scope, paragraph 4.40.

 

Scope, paragraph 4.41

 

Councillor Birch said that he thought the word ‘frivolous’ was ambiguous and vague, and suggested it be removed.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that that was current wording and she was not aware of anything being rejected on that basis. She said that it was standard wording in most constitutions and was there to serve a purpose. She confirmed that the Chief Executive was apolitical and would take advice from the Monitoring Officer.

 

Members of the Group agreed the change in relation to Scope, paragraph 4.41.

 

Motions Not Moved

 

The Monitoring Officer said that the rationale for this addition was for instances where a motion had been put forward properly but was not deal with within Full Council due to the meeting running out of time. She said the currently the motion would carry forward to the next Full Council meeting but due to there being some length of time between meetings, a motion may no longer be relevant. The suggestion was therefore that motions not heard would not be carried forward. She clarified that they could be resubmitted to the next meeting if wanted.

 

Councillor G Wheeler asked whether motions not heard and resubmitted could be considered with priority. Councillor Birch asked whether wording could be added that a motion not heard, be heard first at the next Council meeting. After discussion over possible additional wording, it was agreed that the recommendation, if not supported, should not be recommended for approval rather than adding additional wording to try to cover every eventuality.

 

Members of the Group agreed that the amendment in relation to Motions Not Moved was not supported by the Group.

 

Recorded Vote, paragraph 4.80

 

Members of the Group agreed the additional wording to be ‘at least 4’.

 

Standing to Speak

 

Councillor Regan said that it would be unfair for someone with a disability to have to make a request every single time and thought that if they made the request once it should apply for future meetings and that they should not be disallowed to speak if they did not inform the Mayor prior to every meeting. Councillor Billin suggested amending the wording to say that a Councillor needed to give notice, rather than notifying the Mayor before the meeting.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that the rationale had been to provide clarity to members of the public as to why a Councillor may be sitting down and dispel any misunderstanding that they may be less involved or more dispassionate. It was also to ensure that the protocol to stand was followed unless there was a valid reason not to do so. In relation to notifying the Mayor, she confirmed that this could be done just before the meeting and did not need to be in writing or made in advance. She said that she would incorporate wording to ensure that it was clear that someone with a disability need not to make a request at every meeting.

 

Members of the Group agreed the amendment in relation to Standing to Speak, incorporating wording to clarify that a request could carry over to future meetings where applicable.

 

It was RESOLVED that Governance Scrutiny Group considered the proposed amendments to the Constitution at Appendix 1 to this report and recommended them with the agreed changes as detailed for adoption by Council.