To consider one Motion on Notice, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, submitted by Councillor Ellis.
Minutes:
Councillor Ellis moved, and Councillor Lidstone seconded, the motion:
“The new Cultural and Learning Hub be officially named, in full, the Amelia Scott.”
The following points were raised by Councillor Ellis in moving the motion:
· The concept of the Cultural and Learning Hub was strongly supported.
· Other institutions, whilst using an abbreviation for branding purposes, were formally named in full. For example, the ‘V&A’ was formally the Victoria and Albert Museum.
· The meaning behind a relatively common name such as ‘Amelia’ could be lost over time. Branding could be refreshed regularly whereas formal names tended to be permanent.
· The full name had been used by the Council and by the press and had enjoyed much public support. This had subsequently and quietly been changed.
· Even if services were branded ‘Amelia’, the formal name should be ‘Amelia Scott’.
Caroline Auckland, Vice President of Tunbridge Wells Soroptimists, had registered to speak in support of the motion, which included the following comments:
· Conservative party local election material used the full name.
· Amelia Scott’s work was reflected in many aspects of the current project and she deserved full recognition.
· The motivation behind the change of name was questionable.
· A motion passed unanimously by the AGM of the Tunbridge Wells Soroptimists supported the use of the full name.
Carol Wilson, Tunbridge Wells Labour Party Women’s Officer and Chair of the Labour Women’s Forum, had registered to speak in support of the motion, which included the following comments:
· The change of name on the grounds of unspecified advice was disappointing.
· In a recent survey of members, the name ‘Amelia’ received 1 vote whilst ‘Amelia Scott’ received 73 votes.
· Whilst of significant local value, Amelia Scott was not sufficiently well-known to be recognised by first name alone.
· A lack of consultation, particularly with women, and a lack of transparency of decision making was concerning.
Janet Sturgis, of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, had registered to speak in support of the motion, which included the following comments:
· A recent meeting of the Civic Society had voted unanimously to support the use of the full name.
· Considerable consultation and engagement with stakeholder groups had lead to the name Amelia Scott, there had been no such effort with the new name.
· Experience as a school teacher would suggest that trying to use an abbreviation would not stick, nicknames were organic.
· Amelia Scott’s contribution was one of the greatest of the 42 people commemorated by burgundy plaques, yet there was no other memorial to her. She deserved to be recognised.
Michael Holman, of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Town Forum, had registered to speak in support of the motion, which included the follow comments:
· Following a presentation to the Town Forum, members were dissatisfied both with the name ‘Amelia’ and the process by which the name had been decided.
· Until the change of name, the cultural hub was perhaps the only significant development in the town centre that was universally welcomed.
· Initial consultation was welcomed and appeared to be genuine but had not been followed up or repeated with no engagement on the shortlist or final choice of name.
· Amelia, was a lovely, light, soft word but on its own insubstantial and insufficient for such an important central building in the town. Amelia Scott, by contrast, had weight and substance.
· Use of the single name diminished the achievements of the individual.
· Reconsidering the name would bring wide support at a time when it was needed. Failure to do so would be another example of the Council failing to listen.
Councillor March moved, and Councillor Nuttall seconded, an amendment to add and remove words so that the motion read:
“The new Cultural and Learning Hub be branded the Amelia but that the building through its exhibits, interpretation and promotional material should respect and commemorate the life and achievements of Amelia Scott.”
The following points were raised by Councillor March in moving the amendment:
· The concerns of the speakers were acknowledged and it was the intention to recognise the contribution of Amelia Scott.
· Over 1,200 people had been engaged in the process of producing the funding bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). During which, there had been no clear name identified but key themes had emerged which focused on the community and various local historical figures.
· On this basis the Project Board commissioned a local branding agency to produce options. Following consultation with HLF and fundraising experts the Board decided on the name ‘Amelia’.
· The Council was party to a legally binding collaboration agreement with Kent County Council.
· The centre would need to attract a new audience from all aspects of the community and the new name put one foot in the past and one foot in the future.
· It was a condition of the funding from HLF and Arts Council England that the centre reach as wide an audience as possible, the ‘Amelia’ softened the image of a formal institution and may encourage new visitors.
· The name did not denigrate the achievements of Amelia Scott and the centre must more than just a museum.
· Culture should not be held back by history but should embrace change and the future, a sentiment Amelia Scott would have supported.
The debate on the amendment included consideration of the following additional matters:
· Failure to call the centre ‘Amelia Scott’ would be a failure to honour election promises.
· Greater recognition of feminist issues was to be welcomed and the views of feminist groups on this matter should carry weight.
· If something is to be named on the basis of the achievements of a particular person, the full name should be used.
· ‘Amelia’ alone was too ambiguous, people searching for the reference may not necessarily find the right one. Ambiguity over a name lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
· The amendment changed the purpose of the motion and should be voted down to allow a debate on the original motion.
· The change of name appeared to be a rash decision by the Board. The impression had been given that it was to be named Amelia Scott and the sudden change had upset many people, particularly women.
· Branding and exhibits changed over time, the building’s name and the recognition of Amelia Scott’s achievements should be permanent.
· Explanations for the change of name were unconvincing and in any case did not supersede the wish to recognise the remarkable achievements of an individual by using the full name.
· The wording of the amendment did not provide sufficient surety of purpose.
· Several compromises had been considered but consistency between the building and the services was preferred.
· The legacy of Amelia Scott would feature on a permanent basis in the new centre.
· The first name ‘Amelia’ was beautiful and welcoming. Appropriately, it traditionally meant industrious, striving and a defender.
· Tourism was particularly important to the town and visitors would likely see the name and ‘google it’. It was important that the outside of the building should be marked with the full name.
· The new centre had to be commercially viable and appeal to every generation and people who would not otherwise use its services, to do this it needed to be different. The choice of name did not just happen but was based on expert advice.
· Branding was important as it was the way a building or service gained recognition, it should be powerful, simple and make an impression.
· A strong brand inspired confidence.
· A clear brand will make marketing easier and more impactful.
· The choice of a modern name reflected the values of Amelia Scott.
· ‘Amelia’ would spark curiosity and encourage enquiry, who she was would be explained inside the building.
· Amelia Scott was a strong brand in its own right and it need not be overcomplicated.
· Branding experts were not infallible. A successful brand needed buy-in from the community and the community was clearly not in favour.
· The wording of the amendment offered no concessions as the centre would have featured displays about Amelia Scott anyway.
· Arguments that the use of Scott’s surname perpetuated the patriarchy were disingenuous as many of those using the argument were themselves known by their husband’s surname.
· It was not uncommon for names of buildings to change during the long design and build process, buildings often took on names colloquially.
· Once established, googling ‘The Amelia’ would result in more relevant entries.
· The centre was not a museum to Amelia Scott, the name had to reflect the diverse services.
· The purpose of the original motion was to ensure the official name recognised Amelia Scott, the branding was a different matter.
Councillor Ellis requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted in favour of the amendment: Councillors Backhouse, Hamilton, Jukes, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Noakes, Nuttall, Oakford, Reilly, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Weatherly and Woodward. (14)
Members who voted against the amendment: Councillors Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Chapelard, Dawlings, Ellis, Dr Hall, Hastie, Heasman, Hill, Holden, Lewis-Grey, Lidstone, Neve, Podbury, Pope, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Thomson, Uddin and Williams. (21)
Members who abstained from voting: The Mayor Councillor Horwood, The Deputy Mayor Councillor Scholes, Councillors Elliott, Huggett, Moore, Ms Palmer and Scott. (7)
AMENDMENT NOT CARRIED
Debate returned to the original motion.
Councillor Mrs Soyke sought clarification on an intended amendment to the effect that the full name should appear on the outside of the building. The amendment was not moved on the basis that the original motion would be sufficient.
The debate on the original motion included consideration of the following additional matters:
· The name Amelia Scott could cause confusion as the centre was not a museum to her.
· The Council and Kent County Council had a legal agreement for a Project Board which had made a decision. All the Council could do was to ask the Board to reconsider.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Council could not unilaterally decide on this matter and any resolution would be in the form of a recommendation to the Project Board.
Councillor Moore moved, and Councillor Ellis seconded, an amendment to add and remove words so that the motion read:
“Tunbridge Wells Borough Council requests the Project Board to reconsider that the new Cultural and Learning Hub be officially named, in full, the Amelia Scott and the services within be branded as the Amelia.”
The debate on the amendment included consideration of the following additional matters:
· The matter of branding and naming should be kept separate. It was important to use the full name on the centre. The use of full names did not give the impression of being museums to their namesakes.
· The opacity of the process by which the name was decided was of concern. There appeared to be a lack of transparency.
· Councillors did not micro-manage every decision being made, legitimate processes were in place to ensure competent decision making.
· Focus should be on completing the project and delivering services.
· The project had not come out of the blue but had been ongoing for several years. All members had the access to ask questions and inform themselves of the process.
· Amelia was short and easily remembered and the full name would likely be shorted in time anyway.
· Branding could change but the official name should be Amelia Scott.
Councillor Ellis requested a recorded vote.
Members who voted in favour of the amendment: The Mayor Councillor Horwood, The Deputy Mayor Councillor Scholes, Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Chapelard, Dawlings, Elliott, Ellis, Hamilton, Hastie, Heasman, Hill, Holden, Huggett, Jukes, Lewis-Grey, Lidstone, March, McDermott, Moore, Neve, Noakes, Nuttall, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Pope, Reilly, Simmons, Mrs Soyke, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas, Thomson, Uddin, Weatherly and Williams. (37)
Members who voted against the amendment: Councillor Woodward. (1)
Members who abstained from voting: Councillors Dr Hall, Mackonochie, Oakford and Scott. (4)
AMENDMENT CARRIED
The amendment became the substantive motion.
The Mayor took a vote on the motion.
RESOLVED – That Tunbridge Wells Borough Council requests the Project Board to reconsider that the new Cultural and Learning Hub be officially named, in full, the Amelia Scott and the services within be branded as the Amelia.
Supporting documents: