Question
At the November 2021 Full Council Meeting, the Mayor, responding to a Members’ query about the previous meeting’s draft minutes, was advised by Democratic Services that the minuting of a written answer to a Supplementary Question (about Members’ use of private email addresses raised at the September meeting) was not required because clause 4.2.9.9 “Written Answers” in the Constitution did not extend to written answers to Supplementary Questions.
The first two words of 4.2.9.9, which specifically deals with Written Answers, are “Any questions...” and I consider that the advice given to the Mayor, (which he duly endorsed and thereby dismissed the Member’s query) was patently flawed.
To prevent this occurring again, in the interests of transparency and openness (otherwise written answers to Supplementary Questions will be hidden from both public and Members’ view), will this Full Council Meeting tonight urge the Constitution Review Working Group to revise the wording of 4.2.9.9 to ensure that Democratic Services in future advises the Mayor and Leader of the Council (both of whom I trust, on reflection, will agree with me) that written answers to Supplementary Questions will be included in the minutes of the related meeting?
Minutes:
At the November 2021 Full Council Meeting, the Mayor, responding to a Members’ query about the previous meeting’s draft minutes, was advised by Democratic Services that the minuting of a written answer to a Supplementary Question (about Members’ use of private email addresses raised at the September meeting) was not required because clause 4.2.9.9 “Written Answers” in the Constitution did not extend to written answers to Supplementary Questions.
The first two words of 4.2.9.9, which specifically deals with Written Answers, are “Any questions...” and I consider that the advice given to the Mayor, (which he duly endorsed and thereby dismissed the Member’s query) was patently flawed.
To prevent this occurring again, in the interests of transparency and openness (otherwise written answers to Supplementary Questions will be hidden from both public and Members’ view), will this Full Council Meeting tonight urge the Constitution Review Working Group to revise the wording of 4.2.9.9 to ensure that Democratic Services in future advises the Mayor and Leader of the Council (both of whom I trust, on reflection, will agree with me) that written answers to Supplementary Questions will be included in the minutes of the related meeting?
Answer
Resident participation in the work of the Council is at the heart of our approach and we strive to encourage transparency and openness. Section 3 of the Constitution sets out the various ways in which residents can participate – asking questions at a meeting of Full Council is just one of the many ways in which residents can get involved.
Dealing with your specific concern about the minuting of the answers to supplementary questions, I do not agree with your assertion that the advice provided to the Mayor was flawed. Clause 4.2.9.9 applies specifically to substantive, written questions that cannot be dealt with during public question time, either because of lack of time, because of the non-attendance of the questioner or because of the non-attendance of the Member to whom it was to be put or because the Member answering the Question requires further information not available at the time, will be deemed to have been put, and shall be the subject of a written reply within seven working days to the person asking the question. The answer shall also be recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. However, this provision does not apply to supplementary questions, which can take longer to respond to, due to the often, complex nature of the subject matter.
Officers have researched your request further and confirmed that Wokingham’s practice is consistent with other Berkshire authorities. However, I am prepared to bring your query to the Constitution Review Working Group so Members can give this further consideration.
Supplementary Question
There are elements of your reply that I appreciate, particularly what you said at the end. But most of it I found a remarkable complacent answer to a question which I think is quite straightforward. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Executive wants to spend £150k on market research to find out why Wokingham residents are not in raptures with the achievements of the Council. My supplementary question, therefore, is quite simple, and I have a reasonable expectation that you will answer this evening please. Is what you have said tonight, as Chairman of the Constitution Review Working Group, really, totally and completely consistent with the highest standards of conduct in public life, which Wokingham aspires to and mentions at least 10 times in the Constitution and in the standards set out in Chapter 9.2 Conduct: Appendix A – Principles and Appendix C – Practice? Yes or no Councillor Munro?
Supplementary Answer
No. I totally agree with you. That is why I said that we would take a look at it at the next meeting of the Constitution Review Working Group. Before I did the research it made sense to me, so I think it is worth looking at again. So that is the answer. The answer is yes.