To consider and, if thought fit, to approve the recommendations set out in the associated report.
Minutes:
Councillor Dawlings moved, and Councillor Hamilton seconded, the recommendation set out in the report on the agenda.
The Chief Executive advised that the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices C, D and E to the report related to procedures for dealing with complaints against the Council’s statutory officers and as such said officers would leave the chamber during the debate on those items.
In relation to the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices A, B, F, G, H, I and J to the report, debate included:
· There was no need for the word limit on motions, this was solving a problem that did not exist.
· The accumulated effect of the changes was to transfer too much power to officers.
· Notwithstanding the honourable intentions of the current officers, the changes could reduce accountability in future.
· The Climate Emergency declaration was an example of a motion that was too long and encompassed too many different aspects.
· Motions should be more succinct and specific.
· The Climate Emergency declaration was one of the most strongly supported motions in recent business and, owing to the complexity of the subject, was an example of why a word limit could be counterproductive.
· The wording of the word limit on motions deliberately stated that motions should not ‘normally’ exceed 250 words, leaving that discretion where appropriate.
· Multiple short motions was preferable to long multi-part motions.
· Short motions would help public comprehension.
The Mayor took a vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution as set out in Appendices A, B, F, G, H, I and J by show of hands. Votes cast were 16 for, 4 against with 3 abstentions.
PART MOTION CARRIED
In response to several questions of clarification, the Monitoring Officer advised that it was not possible to define what might be considered as trivial in respect of complaints against the statutory officers but that it would be for the Monitoring Officer to determine whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious. Furthermore, there was no legal definition of ‘vexatious’ within the context of these proposed amendments to the Constitution. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer left the chamber.
In relation to the proposed amendments to the Constitution set out in appendices C, D and E to the report, debate included:
· It was unclear whether the Monitoring Officer would determine whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious before or after consulting Group Leaders and the Head of Human Resources.
· The wording relating to the sequence of consultation when determining whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious implied that consultation would occur before determination.
· Group Leaders should not be involved in the determination whether a complaint against the Chief Executive was serious.
The Mayor took a vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution as set out in Appendices C, D and E by show of hands. Votes cast were 9 for, 11 against with 3 abstentions.
PART MOTION NOT CARRIED
The Mayor took a vote on the motion by affirmation.
RESOLVED –
1. That the amendments to the Constitution as set out in Appendices A, B, F, G, H, I, J to the report be agreed;
2. That the Head of Legal Partnership and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make all other necessary and consequential changes to the Constitution to give effect to these recommendations; and
3. That the proposed arrangements relating to hybrid Council meetings referred to in Appendix J to the report, be kept under review by the Monitoring Officer, and the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make all other necessary and consequential changes to these provisions.
Supporting documents: