Issue - meetings

To consider the procedure for moving amendments at Council Meetings.

Councillor Oliver presented a report proposing changes to the Council’s procedure rules for moving amendments.  The report had been considered by Governance, Audit and Performance Committee on 8 February and 17 May 2018.  After consideration at the meeting on 17 May, the Committee had recommended the changes proposed in the report for adoption by the Council.   Councillor Oliver therefore proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Jones. 

Members discussed the report in detail.  Points were raised in relation to various aspects. 

Councillor Artus said he agreed with the recommendation, but considered there was a need for an omission to be clarified.  Whilst the report stated there was also the safeguard that, if the Council was of the view that it made sense to consider an amendment despite these rules, it could do so by majority agreement, this provision was not stated in the appendix. 

The Chairman said the Council could suspend standing orders.

Councillor S Barker asked what would happen if immediately before the proposed deadline the legal officer decided the motion was not fit.

The Assistant Director - Governance and Legal said he would encourage members to talk to him in advance if considering an amendment, to avoid the issue of submitting suitable wording at the moment before a deadline.  Members could speak either to him or to the Democratic Services Manager to avoid encountering procedural issues. 

Councillor R Freeman said he had served on the Council when its governance had been the committee system.  He had found the committee system to be more inclusive, although not so efficient.  He was concerned that this proposal further degraded the democratic practice at the Council.  Politicians engaged in debate, and last time a debate had taken place was on the motion regarding balloons.  In contrast, major decisions were not debated, but were taken by small groups.  He cited the decision on the local plan as an example, which he said had been taken by three executive members.  He said the Cabinet system was problematic and that his views had not influenced the executive.  The Cabinet system could be changed if enough people requested it by referendum. 

Councillor Hargreaves made a number of comments.  He said the recommendation was wider than that which had been considered by the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee, as recommendations followed different rules to motions.  The Committee had twice considered the proposal, and on the second occasion he had supported its adoption, but he had not appreciated the distinction regarding recommendations.  

The Assistant Director – Governance and Legal said the recommendations in the report to the Council were exactly those which the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee had approved for recommendation to Council. 

Councillor Hargreaves apologised. 

Councillor Ranger responded to a point Councillor R Freeman had made.  He said that it was incorrect to state that the decision to submit the local plan to the regulation 19 stage had been taken by three executive members.  The Cabinet had ratified the recommendation from the Planning Policy Working  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6