Agenda item

To consider the recommendation of the Executive to launch a consultation to move to whole Council electoral cycle.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council launch a consultation with stakeholders on moving to a whole council (all-out) electoral cycle.

The Council considered a report regarding Whole Council Elections.

It was proposed by John Halsall and seconded by John Kaiser that the recommendation set out within the report be agreed.

John Halsall emphasised the importance of representing the views of local communities.  He commented that elections by thirds came with a cost and disrupted Council business for some time because of Purdah.

John Kaiser emphasised that the money spent on elections by thirds could be spent elsewhere on other services. 

The following amendment was proposed by Stephen Conway and seconded by Rachel Burgess.  Changes are shown in bold italics.

RECOMMENDATION That Council be recommended to:

1)    Launch a consultation with stakeholders on moving to a whole council (all-out) electoral cycle or maintaining the existing electoral cycle;

2)    The consultation document (Appendix C) be changed by deleting the wording in sections “Benefits of all-out elections” and Benefits of Elections by Thirds” to be replaced by the following:

“The Benefits of all-out four-yearly elections

Holding elections once every four years for all councillors is easier for the electorate to understand. All out elections would make a financial saving, in that there would be one election rather than three (but the one election would be all-out and therefore more costly than in any year of elections by thirds). A four-yearly cycle would reduce the distraction of elections three years out of four, enabling officer time to be devoted to other duties and councillors to take a longer-term perspective.

The Benefits of elections by thirds

Electing by thirds is the current electoral system of the council. A major benefit of this system is that it provides greater accountability than four-yearly all-out elections.  Electing by thirds gives the electorate a greater opportunity than all-out elections every four years to be involved in decision-making at the council and so furthers local democracy.  It also means that there is greater stability for the Council in terms of its membership. Electing by thirds reduces the risk of wholesale change within the Council and allows for succession planning because there is always a mixture of new and experienced councillors on the Council.”

3)    Agree that the consultation should be for a minimum of six weeks.

Stephen Conway commented that he would prefer a balanced picture.  He felt that the amendment offered a balanced assessment of both options and removed a reference to greater fairness in the all out option, which he felt was incorrect.  He emphasised that he was not pre-judging the outcome of the consultation.

Rachel Burgess explained that there was no scenario where there would be an inequality in the chances to vote.  She was of the view that the amendment presented a more balanced view of both options.

The amendment was not accepted by John Halsall the proposer of the report.

Pray Bray stated that consultation should be carried out fairly to ensure that results were valid.  She felt that the Administration had already made up their minds as to which option they would like implemented. 

Jim Frewin emphasised that residents should be provided with all the options to make an informed choice.

John Halsall indicated that the wording of the consultation had been drafted by the Monitoring Officer and that he had had no input.  He was of the opinion that the amendment was inaccurate.

Stephen Conway requested a point of personal explanation under Section 4.2.13.14 of the Constitution, relating to John Halsall’s suggestion that the reference to the greater stability of the Council in terms of its membership, should be removed.  He indicated that these were the words of the Monitoring Officer.

Voting on the amendment was as set out below.

The amendment was declared to be lost.

Stephen Conway felt that the Liberal Democrats could not support a proposal which contained a material inaccuracy regarding one of the options.  They supported the idea of a consultation.

John Halsall responded that the consultation had been drafted by Officers which were independent.

Voting on the original recommendations was as follows:

RESOLVED:  That a consultation with stakeholders on moving to a whole council (all-out) electoral cycle, be launched.