Agenda item

To consider the Member Motion – Annual Accounts and Governance Statement.

As the meeting had passed the two hours’ mark, the Chair asked Council if they were content to proceed. Council assented to proceeding.

The meeting was adjourned for a comfort break at 9.00pm.

The meeting was reconvened at 9.10pm.

The Chair asked Councillor Caton to present his motion on the Annual Accounts and Governance Statement. He noted that the motion requested that the Chief Executive divulge information that was currently under investigation. He asked Members to speak carefully throughout the debate.

Councillor Caton said it had been 25 years since Lord Nolan outlined the ethical standards that those in public life should be held accountable to. He said such principles were above party politics, and he was disturbed that the Annual Accounts had not been signed off by the external auditor due to concerns surrounding good governance. The purpose of the motion was not party political, but rather to protect the reputation of the Council as a corporate body and to provide clarity to the public. He said it was the duty of every councillor to ensure due process was followed and good governance adhered to, and proposed the motion as set out in the agenda papers.

Councillor Criscione seconded the motion.

Councillor Khan said silence in this situation was not “golden” and Members were complicit in the potential damaging of the Council’s reputation by not revealing details of the investigation. The Nolan principles were vital to good governance.

Councillor Jones raised a point of order and said an investigation was ongoing and therefore details were held in confidence. Due process must be followed and he highlighted the legal right of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Councillor Asker raised a personal explanation and said Councillor Khan was speaking out of turn by casting collective judgement on the Administration as a whole.

Councillor Criscione asked Members to consider whether contributions to the debate constituted legitimate points of order.

Councillor Gregory raised a point of order and cited the Code of Conduct, specifically relating to the general obligation of Members to not “intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely to be a complainant, a witness, or involved in the administration of any investigation.” He requested that Councillor Khan retract his previous comments in breach of the Code.

Councillor Asker raised a further personal explanation said the investigation was confidential and it was only right that such confidentially was respected. Furthermore, the financial stability of the Council was not in question and there were more pressing matters at hand.

The Chief Executive said the motion was valid and Council had a right to debate the subject. She said Councillor Khan had made his statement in good faith, and it would be for councillors to reject his allegations. Furthermore, it was for councillors to judge their own and each other’s behaviour, and procedures were in place if a formal Code of Conduct complaint was to be brought forward.

Councillor Khan said the Governance Statement was an important component of the Annual Accounts, and an endorsement of the Council’s financial figures. He said the Administration had stood on a mandate of good governance and said the public would not forgive them if they did not support the motion.

Councillor Sell said Members had no choice but to put forward this motion in order to protect the Council’s reputation. Good governance was vital; the auditor’s refusal to sign off the accounts was not simply an “outstanding procedural matter”, and high ethical standards were required to win the hearts and minds of the community. Councillors should always put the interests of the Council’s before their own, and he asked any individuals under investigation to stand down. He urged Members to support the motion.

Councillor Criscione agreed and said the Council was bigger than any one person or political group, and he questioned how councillors could vote against the motion before them. He said it was not about the legal right of innocent until proven guilty, but rather about putting the Council first and upholding the Nolan principles of ethical standards in public life.

Councillor Freeman, under Procedure Rule 12.10, moved the motion that the question be now put to Council.

Councillor Jones seconded the motion.   

The Chief Executive said it was a valid motion that required no notice and would be put straight to a vote. If the motion carried, Members would move to a vote on the substantive motion.

 Councillor LeCount requested a recorded vote.

The motion that the question be now put was carried 23 for, 11 against with 3 abstentions.

Councillor Caton said he was greatly disappointed that the debate had been stifled. He said the upholding of standards in public life was not a trivial matter and he urged Members to support the motion. 

The Chair moved to a vote. The motion was defeated 10 for, 25 against, with 2 abstentions.