Agenda item

Full Council is asked to agree the recommendations of the Constitution Working Party held on 28 June 2021 on the suggested amendments to the Constitution following implementation of the Committee style of governance and following the first round of Committee meetings. 

The Chair of the Constitution Working Party, Councillor Bower, presented a report from the Interim Monitoring Officer requesting the Council to agree the recommendations from the meeting of the Constitution Working Party held on 28 June 2021.

The recommendations suggested that amendments be made to the Council’s Constitution following the implementation of the Committee style of governance and following the first round of Committee meetings.

In proposing the recommendations, Councillor Bower suggested that each recommendation be debated and voted upon separately.

The first recommendation to be debated was Recommendation 2 in the report [Agree to the name changes of Committees set out in Appendix 1, Part 1.]

Councillor Bower explained that the Working Party had received a request to consider changing the names of 4 out of the 6 new Service Committees to provide better understanding of what that Committee did and to make those Committees more understandable to members of the public. 

The changes presented were:

Current Name                                                     New Name

Corporate Policy & Performance                    Policy and Finance Committee

Residential & Wellbeing Services

Committee                                                           Housing and Wellbeing Committee

Environment & Neighbourhood

Services Committee                                          Environment Committee

Economic Committee                                        Economy Committee

Councillor Bower outlined that at the Working Party meeting he had been disappointed to learn that no change of name had been proposed for either the Planning Policy or Planning Committee and that he strongly believed that the Council should not have two Committees containing the word ‘Planning’ which was confusing for the public and could cause misunderstanding with regard to each Committee’s functions.  In view of this, Councillor Bower confirmed that he had proposed an amendment to change the name of the Planning Committee to the Development Management Committee based upon recommendations contained within the Hannaby report reviewing the Planning service.  The Council therefore also needed to consider this additional change in name.  The name changes of Committees were then seconded by Councillor Cooper.

In debating this there were Councillors who disagreed with the change in name proposed for the Planning Committee since the Council was the Planning Authority and that the Planning Committee determined planning applications.  Its name was therefore not misleading.  Other concerns were expressed in terms of the name changes proposed for the Residential and Wellbeing Services and Environment & Neighbourhood Services Committees.  The new names cut out reference to other services which could cause confusion and did not therefore provide the full benefit of what each of those Committees did.  These proposed changes in name should not therefore change as they were seen to be a misrepresentation of what those Committee’s functions were.

Following further debate, the Chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Chapman, asked the Interim Monitoring Officer is there was merit in considering deferring making a decision on the future name of the Planning Committee as the recommendations from the Hannaby review would be considered at the next meeting of the Planning Committee on 21 July 2021, one of those recommendations covered what the name of the Planning Committee should be. The Planning Committee could consider this and present its recommendation to the next meeting of Full Council in September 2021.  The Chief Executive responded stating that this would make logical sense. 

In view of the many issues presented on the suggested name changes, the Chair asked Councillor Bower if he would consider referring this matter back to the Constitution Working Party for reconsideration.  Councillor Bower confirmed that he would be prepared to propose this referral back.  Councillor Cooper, as seconder, confirmed that he would be happy to propose but urged Councillors to conclude this matter swiftly so that the remaining business on the agenda could be concluded.

            The Interim Monitoring Officer was asked to provide advice.  He reminded Councillors that there were four recommendations to consider and that it was Recommendation 2 that was now being proposed be referred back to the Working Party.  The remaining three could be debated and voted on.

            Following Points of Clarification raised, the Chief Executive confirmed that Recommendation (2) [Agree to the name changes of Committees set out in Appendix 1 Part 1] had been withdrawn and would be referred back to the Constitution Working Party for further discussion.

            This meant that Recommendations 1, 3 and 4 could now be discussed and voted on.

            Councillor Bower then formally proposed Recommendation 1 which was promptly seconded by Councillor Cooper.

            The Council

                        RESOLVED

That it agrees to revise the general Terms of Reference as set out in Appendix 1 Part 2 so that Committees are required to have regard to their value for money not ongoing savings and efficiencies.

Councillor Bower then formally proposed Recommendation 3 which was seconded by Councillor Cooper.

            The Council

                        RESOLVED

The changes to the Articles set out in Appendix 1 Part 3 be agreed.

Councillor Bower was invited to present Recommendation 4 and he explained that the Working Party, after much discussion, had agreed to defer the proposal to introduce a Member Question Time as a standing item on each Service Committee agenda.   This was because it had been felt that the increased attendance at all meetings from non-Committee Members seemed to be a by-product of virtual [Zoom] meetings and so it had been felt prudent to delay this proposal to allow time to assess the return to physical meetings and how this may impact non-Member participation.  The proposal would be reconsidered by the Working Party in six months’ time.  Councillor Cooper then seconded this recommendation.

            There was much debate on this item with some Councillors disagreeing the proposal to delay this option.  It was felt that this needed to be introduced now.

It was felt that this proposal would secure allowing non-Committee Members the opportunity to ask question at Committee meetings which currently was subject to the permission of the Chair and so there were instances when some Councillors did not get the opportunity to ask question as meetings.  Comments were also made with regard to the suggested procedure in place for the management of this process where it was felt that to have to give 5 working days’ notice was too great, this should be shortened along the lines of Member Questions for Council meetings. 

            Debate continued where it was strongly felt that this option was necessary so as to allow non-Committee Councillors the opportunity to ask any question at a Committee meeting with that question not having to relate to what was featured on the agenda for that meeting. With these points in mind, Councillor Dixon confirmed that he wished to make an amendment which was to read as follows – deletion have been shown using strikethrough and additions have been shown using bold.

“The option to (a) add Member Question Time as a standing item on each Service Committee agenda be deferred  agreed. for  period of six months to allow time to assess the impact of non-Committee Member attendance at physical meetings and (b) when reviewed in six months’ time, the procedure set out in Appendix 1 Part 4 be considered.

This amendment was seconded by Councillor Coster.

            The Committee Manager brought to Members’ attention that should the amendment be approved, then it was necessary to ensure that a procedure be in place for its management.  This had not been debated by the Working Party and so would require debate and agreement as part of the amendment just proposed.

            In response, Councillor Bower confirmed that he would be prepared to withdraw this item for further consideration by the Constitution Working Party.

            This statement triggered Points of Order in that there was an amendment that had been proposed and duly seconded. Councillor Dixon as the proposer to the amendment confirmed that in response to the Committee Manager’s observation he would be happy to add to his amendment the words “the process for Member Question Time be based on the process in place for Member Questions at Full Council”.

            Councillor Bower reconfirmed his wish to have Recommendation 4 withdrawn.

            Following a range of Point of Orders raised, the Chair was advised by the Interim Monitoring Officer that in line with Council Procedure Rule 11 [Duration of Meeting] – Rule 11.2, the Council needed to determine if it wished to adjourn the meeting at 10.30 pm or whether it wished to extend the meeting to 11 pm, at which time it would then stand adjourned.

Having undertaken a vote to extend the meeting to 11.00 pm, this was declared LOST.

The meeting was therefore confirmed as adjourned by the Chair.

(The meeting was concluded at 10.31 pm)