Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were submitted from Parry Batth, Anne Chadwick, David Cornish, Phil Cunnington and John Kaiser.

To receive any declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To answer any public questions

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the item on this Agenda only.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can only relate to the item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

In accordance with the agreed procedure the Mayor invited members of the public to submit questions to the appropriate Member.

Question

In the calculations for the costs of running elections, the standard “How Much will it cost / save” statement on the attached papers is zero for Years 1 - 3, yet in Appendix A there's a cost of just over £4 million allocated to “Disruption”.

Please can you help the public understand exactly how the £2.032 million cost per year figure has been arrived at?

Answer

I think you are referring to this table here?  None of these things that we are talking about tonight are going to happen in the current financial year, the next financial year or the following financial year.  So how much it will cost/save, the answer is indeed zero for those.

In answer to your question about how did we get to the £2.032 million, all I can say is that how did we get there?  The number that was calculated as a tangible saving from three elections over a four year period versus one every four years, which is £316,000.  This equates to £79,000 per year.  The figure includes such things as the cost of staffing and the facilities needed to run events, including polling stations and printing costs.  However, there is an estimate of a less tangible cost at £1million per year.  This is the approximate cost of the opportunity of the Council not moving forwards with the Council’s overall business as a result of disruption caused by having annual elections.  I am informed that the less tangible costs were made from a high-level estimate made in consultation with the Council’s Corporate Leadership Team.  It is an estimation of the impact on Council business that is not taken forward as a result of the focus on Elections in the months building up to them, including the period know as Purdah, and similarly the focus after the elections formulating and orientating the new Administration of Councillors.  This figure should be taken in the context that it is only 0.2% of the Council’s annual size of business and that it is only an opportunity cost and therefore it actually does not translate into real cash.  We also need to respect that the Council is not a commercial business and lots of its functions are not done for financial gain.  It is here to serve the needs of our residents and must remain fully accountable to the public that it serves.  Therefore, we cannot accept financial savings as being the only motivator to change our current system.

So, for clarity, the amount per year of tangible combined with less tangible costs, is just over £1 million not £2.032 million per year.

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for providing the answer to my question on behalf of the Council.  You use the words ‘estimate’ and ‘not real’ as well as ‘tangible’, so my question comes almost in two parts based on those two items. 

On the one hand if it is real then why did the Council not put in place an improvement programme to save that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.1

To receive a report on potential changes to the Electoral Cycle.

RECOMMENDATION: The Council is recommended to change the electoral cycle to all out elections every four years from 2024.

Please note that in order for the recommendation to be agreed, it requires two thirds of those Members present at the meeting, to vote in favour.

The Council considered a report regarding the Electoral Cycle.

The Mayor reminded Members that in order for the recommendation to be agreed, it required two thirds of those Members present at the meeting, to vote in favour.

The report was proposed by Clive Jones and seconded by Stephen Conway.

Clive Jones commented that the meeting marked the end of the process of considering whether the Council wished to move from elections by thirds to all out elections, every four years, which had begun prior to the Election.  He found himself in the unusual position of proposing a recommendation which he would be voting against.  Clive Jones felt that that elections by thirds provided a greater level of accountability, reduced the possibility of wholesale changes and losing a lot of experience at the same time, and gave the electorate more involvement in decision making.  He was of the view that all out elections disadvantaged smaller parties and independent candidates, and highlighted that retaining elections by thirds required all wards to be of the same size with three ward Members.

Andy Croy disagreed with the proposal to move to all out elections.  He highlighted the importance of moving to larger wards, which he believed created greater equity.

Keith Baker commented that 3,067 responses had been received to the consultation, only 1.08% of the Borough’s population.  In addition, the results had been close.  He referred to the number of comments made under each option.  He was of the view that cost should not be an influencer on how democracy was run.  Keith Baker believed that whilst Wokingham was only one of sixteen unitary councils which elected by thirds it was important to do what was right for residents and that elections every four years weakened democratic accountability.

Prue Bray expressed concerns around the consultation and many people’s understanding of it when responding.  She emphasised that four yearly elections tended to favour larger parties and highlighted some of the benefits of retaining elections by thirds. 

Gregor Murray felt that the consultation response highlighted that residents wanted to move to all out elections, and that this should not be ignored.  He emphasised that all residents had been given the opportunity to respond to the consultation. 

Gary Cowan commented that research into the benefits of the different electoral cycles was limited and that which did exist was from some time ago.  He disagreed that there was confusion amongst younger voters and those of black and ethnic minorities around the voting systems.

John Halsall emphasised that the Council could not continue with its current system.  He commented that it was more difficult for Councillors to be known by their residents within a larger ward and that they should be local champions.  He believed that moving to all out elections was in residents’ best interests and would save money.

Rachel Burgess felt that moving to all out elections would erode democracy and accountability.  She was of the view that the consultation material and consultation process had been flawed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.