Decision details

1)            MOTION 572 (COUNCILLOR G BARNELL – 8 March 2021)

The Chairman had decided to allow this motion on notice out of time. He indicated at this point in the meeting that in relation to the motion only, part of procedural rule 16 be suspended to enable the motion to be discussed without the notice required under rule 14, referring specifically to the first few paragraphs of rule 16 and 16(a) in particular. 

Secondly, in relation to the motion and the report on the Governance Working Group, he MOVED that Procedure Rule 16.3 be suspended to allow members to speak more than once.

Upon a vote being taken (with regard to the suspension of procedure rules) the MOTION was declared to have FAILED.  However, the Chairman ruled that he intended to allow discussion of Motion 572 notwithstanding.

The Council had before it a MOTION submitted for the first time.

The proposals arising from the work of the Governance WG have not been sufficiently developed to be properly considered by the membership at today’s meeting. We propose that the Council postpone a decision on the recommendations of the Governance WG in order that changes can be:-

1.    More fully developed by members and considered by each of the Council’s non regulatory committees.

2.    Considered by the Council as an important contribution to forthcoming State of the District debate on the best Governance arrangements for the Council.

The MOTION was MOVED by Councillor G Barnell and seconded by Councillor A Wilce.

Consideration was given to:

·         Views that the Governance Working Group had not followed the remit set by Council and considered all models of governance available and had just recommended the improvement of the policy development groups.

·         The need for a State of the District Debate to involve the public in the continuation of the work started by the working group.

·         There was a need to look at reform and that this should be progressed by the groups themselves which should include how the Scrutiny and Audit Committees were best supported.

·         The working group should have considered a State of the District Debate within its work.

·         The fact that a petition could change governance arrangements.

·         The lack of involvement of all members in the work of the working group.

·         Whether the motion sought to suppress discussion of the report of the working group and that this would not stop a State of the District Debate taking place.

·         The lack of public involvement in the consultation process that did take place.

·         There did not seem to be overwhelming support for change.

·         Whether the working group had considered openness and transparency and the need for all members to take ownership of any decision for change.

·         The need for further and better engagement with the public in any event.

·         How the initial public consultation advertisement was worded and the need to think about democracy rather than governance.

·         How the State of the District Debate could be better used by focussing on important issues such as economic recovery post pandemic or climate change.

·         Changes to the governance system did not mean going back to a committee system but that there was a need to improve the current system.

·         The lack of options for governance provided by the working group within its recommendations and that no costings had been included.

·         The need to reform the current system and the need to widen the debate to include the public.

Following discussion and upon a vote being taken the MOTION was declared to have FAILED.