Decision details

Review of the Constitution

Decision Maker: County Council

Decision status: For Determination

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

5.1        The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance on a number of minor changes to the Constitution (copy appended to the signed minutes). The Senior Advisor, Democratic Services introduced the report and sought members’ comments on each section.

 

5.2        Some members were concerned about the proposals for streamlining Council processes summarised in paragraph 2.2 of the report. In relation to the minor change to emphasise the need for questions to avoid duplicating other parts of the agenda, members were reassured that the change was only to make the paragraph clearer and not to introduce a new restriction. The point was made that questions had become rather long with multiple parts and consideration could be given in due course to limiting them to a single question.

 

5.3        The other main concern raised by some members was in relation to the proposals for limiting the number of motions to be debated per meeting to two. Whilst there was general consensus that action was needed to rebalance the format of Council meetings as, in recent years, motions had been taking up too much of the agenda, there was disagreement over the best method to do so.

 

5.4        One suggestion put forward was that the decision on that aspect of the changes should be deferred to allow Group Leaders to discuss the format of Council meetings as a whole, including whether it would be preferable to move question time to the morning with motions being debated later in the day, thus avoiding the need for a limit on numbers of motions. Another option put forward was to add a time limit to motion debates rather than limiting the overall number. It was also suggested that if the full two hours was not available for question time at one meeting, question time could be first on the agenda at the next meeting.

 

5.5        Other members stressed that the decision as to which motions were debated at a meeting would be in consultation with Group Leaders at their regular meeting in preparation for the Council meeting. In addition, the Chairman had discretion to allow more than two motions. It was therefore felt that appropriate safeguards were in place to make sure the motions debated were those of most relevance to the County Council.

 

5.6        There was consensus that question time was an important part of the Council meeting and that changes were needed to try to ensure that the full two hours were available by rebalancing the agenda. There was also a need to ensure motions that were of most relevance to the Council were chosen for debate, whilst retaining the Chairman’s discretion.

 

5.7        It was proposed by Cllr Lord and seconded by Cllr O’Kelly that the proposed changes to written questions and motions in Standing Orders should be deferred pending further discussions on Council meetings more broadly between the Chairman and Group Leaders with a report being brought back to the September meeting of the Committee. The proposition was put the vote and was lost.

 

5.8        On paragraph 2.6 of the report, Good Governance Review developments and scrutiny committees, it was agreed that the first sentence of the paragraph describing the appointment of the chairmen of scrutiny committees on page 35 of Appendix 1 should be reworded for clarity prior to the recommendations being put to the County Council.

 

5.9        On paragraph 2.8 a query was raised about the wording in relation to Emergency Planning as part of areas of scope for scrutiny committees and the Senior Advisor said this would be clarified in the papers submitted to the Council for approval.

 

5.10     Concern was raised by the minority Group Leaders about the process for appointments to outside bodies where they had been unaware that they could submit nominations for consideration. It was proposed that the Member Development Group should be asked to consider this, to make sure that following the next election the appropriate guidance and information was available. It was agreed that the minority Group Leaders would also consider whether they could provide any nominations for the remaining outside body vacancies.

 

5.11     Resolved –

 

(1)         That the proposed changes to the Constitution set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the further changes set out above, be endorsed for submission to the Council for approval on 16 July 2021;

 

(2)         That the proposed changes to the Constitution set out in Appendix 2 to the report be approved; and

 

(3)         That the Member Development Group be asked to consider how best to ensure that minority Group Leaders are aware of the option of putting forward nominations for outside body appointments following the four-yearly elections.

Publication date: 23/07/2021

Date of decision: 28/06/2021

Decided at meeting: 28/06/2021 - Governance Committee

Accompanying Documents: