Agenda item

To receive a report from the Monitoring Officer setting out proposed changes to the Constitution as considered by the Constitution Review Working Group.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council agree the following changes to the Constitution, as recommended by the Monitoring Officer, via the Constitution Review Working Group:

1)       that Sections 4.2.9.5 Scope of questions [Council – Public Questions], 4.2.10.5 Scope of questions [Council – Member Questions], 5.4.29 Scope of questions [Executive – Public Questions] and 5.4.37 Scope of questions [Executive – Member Questions] be amended as set out in Paragraph 1 of the report;

2)       that Section 8.2.8 Rules of Debate, be amended as set out in Paragraph 2 of the report;

3)       that amendments be made to Section 4.2.1.1 r and Section 9.1.1 Composition and Membership [Standards Committee], as set out in Paragraph 3 to the report;

4)       that Appendix 11 Channel Panel be added to Section 10 Partnership Working, as set out in Paragraph 4 to the report.

The Council considered a report regarding proposed changes to the Constitution.

It was proposed by John Halsall and seconded by Chris Bowring that the recommendations set out within the report be agreed.

John Halsall outlined the proposals, referring in particular to the proposed amendments to the Standards Committee terms of reference and the appointment of Chairmen at Annual Council.  He outlined the role of the Standards Committee and the complaints process.  John Halsall was of the view that it would be beneficial for the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition to be part of the Committee, to help ensure Members abide by the Nolan principles.

It was proposed by Shirley Boyt and seconded by Carl Doran that the following amendment be made with regards to recommendation 1:

4.2.9.5 Scope of questions [Council – Public Questions]

The Chief Executive and/or Mayor/Chairman may reject a question if it:

c) is substantially the same as a question which has already been put at or submitted to the meeting or at a meeting of the Council or Executive or any other Committee, in the past six months;

4.2.10.5 Scope of questions [Council – Member Questions]

The Chief Executive and/or Mayor/Chairman may reject a question if it:

c) is substantially the same as a question which has been put at or submitted to the meeting or at a meeting of the Council or Executive or any other Committee in the past six months; or

5.4.29 Scope of questions [Executive – Public Questions]

The Chief Executive and/or the Leader may reject a question if it:

c) is substantially the same as a question which has already been put at or submitted to the meeting or at a previous meeting of the Council or Executive or any other Committee in the past six months;

5.4.37 Scope of questions [Executive – Member Questions]

The Chief Executive and/or Leader may reject a questionif it:

c) is substantially the same as a question which has been put at or submitted to a meeting of the Council or Executive or any other Committee in the past six months;

Shirley Boyt commented that the amendment would make the question process easier for members of the public and Members.

Carl Doran felt that original proposal was unnecessary and stifled the democratic process.

John Halsall, proposer of the original recommendations, did not accept the amendment. 

Gary Cowan commented that he supported the amendment.

Rachel Burgess stated that questions to Committees were often answered by the Chair of the Committee.  She felt that other members of the public should be able to ask a similar question to the Executive Member responsible at either Executive or Council.  She went on to state that the amendment would help to improve accountability of the Executive.

Phil Cunnington referred to the word ‘may’ and commented that questions already asked previously would not automatically be ruled out.

Chris Bowring commented that the original proposal was a tidying up exercise and that if someone asked a question that had previously been asked, they would likely receive the same answer.

Charles Margetts commented that the Chief Executive, Mayor and Chairmen had to use their judgment when considering whether to accept a question.

Prue Bray stated that people often asked the same question at a different meeting because they had not received a satisfactory answer to their original question.  She felt that the quality of answers provided varied, and that people should be able to ask a question again if they had not received a sufficient answer.

Jim Frewin felt that having to monitor the questions which were put to all committees would create logistical issues and place additional pressure on Officers.

Gregor Murray commented that Members and members of the public asking a question that had already been asked, would receive the answer previously given. 

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

Jim Frewin referred to 9.1.1 the composition of the Standards Committee.  He believed the Standards Committee should be as neutral as possible and felt that this would not necessarily be the case should the Leader and Leader of the Opposition be committee members.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey expressed concern regarding permitting the Leader to be a member of the Standards Committee and the election of the Standards Committee chairman at Annual Council.

Gary Cowan agreed that committees such as Overview and Scrutiny and the Standards Committee should be neutral.

Rachel Burgess emphasised that different members of the public may have different supplementary questions based on the answer received to their original question.  In addition, she was of the view that committees should be able to elect their own Chairman.

Pauline Jorgensen felt that it was unfair to suggest the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition were not sufficiently impartial to be able to be members of the Standards Committee.

Gregor Murray felt that the original proposal relating to questions would increase rather than decrease democracy.

A request was received to hold separate votes on recommendation 1, recommendation 2 and 4 together, and then recommendation 3.

RESOLVED:  That the following changes to the Constitution, as recommended by the Monitoring Officer via the Constitution Review Working Group, be agreed:

1)       Sections 4.2.9.5 Scope of questions [Council – Public Questions], 4.2.10.5 Scope of questions [Council – Member Questions], 5.4.29 Scope of questions [Executive – Public Questions] and 5.4.37 Scope of questions [Executive – Member Questions] be amended as set out in Paragraph 1 of the report;

2)       Section 8.2.8 Rules of Debate, be amended as set out in Paragraph 2 of the report;

3)       amendments to Section 4.2.1.1 r and Section 9.1.1 Composition and           Membership [Standards Committee], as set out in Paragraph 3 to the           report;

4)       Appendix 11 Channel Panel be added to Section 10 Partnership Working, as set out in Paragraph 4 to the report.