Issue - meetings

It was proposed by the Chair and the Vice-Chair seconded, that the recommendations as detailed in the report be adopted, namely:

“That Council amend the Council Procedure Rules as follows, which is in accordance with the recommendations of CRWP and Standards Committee:

1. Council Procedure Rule 14.6 - That the bullet point ‘- related to a matter which has already been raised as a Standards Complaint against a member and which has not yet been concluded through the Code of Conduct procedures.’ be added to the list of reasons that would invalidate a question.

2. Council Procedure Rule 14.8 - That the following sentence be added at the end of the existing paragraph: ‘The question must be a question and not a statement, and arise directly out of the response.”

Councillor Everitt proposed and Councillor Rawf seconded an amendment that removed the last seven words of recommendation two.

After some debate the following amended motion was put to the vote and declared carried:

“That Council amend the Council Procedure Rules as follows, which is in accordance with the recommendations of CRWP and Standards Committee:

1. Council Procedure Rule 14.6 - That the bullet point ‘- related to a matter which has already been raised as a Standards Complaint against a member and which has not yet been concluded through the Code of Conduct procedures.’ be added to the list of reasons that would invalidate a question.

2. Council Procedure Rule 14.8 - That the following sentence be added at the end of the existing paragraph: ‘The question must be a question and not a statement.”

Cllrs Garner and Bailey spoke under council procedure rule 20.1.

Estelle Culligan, Director of Law and Democracy, introduced the report. 

During discussion it was noted that:

• This report was considered by the constitutional review working party on 23 February 2022;
• It had arisen from recent questions asked at council about operations or things the council has little or no control over such as bigger govt. matters;
• The operational questions were not part of the proposal from CRWP as there was an app in the making to improve communication with members and officers. The question of operational questions at council would be revisited once the app had been rolled out and in use for some time;
• Support was shown for not allowing questions relating to ongoing standards complaints;
• Comments were made that supplementary questions were frustrating as they were often wordy statements, not questions;
• Desire was expressed for quantitative and qualitative analysis of how the hub worked. It was noted that this was not in the remit of the standards committee, but officers would take suggestions to the relevant people;
• Members commented on the need for time to consider a supplementary question and the recent robust manner of the Chair in not allowing this.

Recommendation 1 - Members unanimously AGREED the recommendation.

Cllr Bayford proposed, Cllr Crittenden seconded and members AGREED to recommend to Full Council that:

‘Council Procedure Rule 14.6

• There should be no restriction on questions relating to straight forward operational matters at this time. This would be reviewed in six months, following the implementation of the members’ portal.

Recommendation 2 – Members unanimously AGREED the recommendation.

Cllr Crittenden proposed, Cllr Fellows seconded and Members AGREED to forward the report to Full Council.

‘Council Procedure Rule 14.6

• That the bullet point ‘- related to a matter which has already been raised as a Standards Complaint against a member and which has not yet been concluded through the Code of Conduct procedures.’ be added to the list of reasons that would invalidate a question. 

Recommendation 3: Members who voted in favour were 4 and those against were 5. The recommendation was LOST.

Cllr Crittenden proposed and Cllr Scobie seconded an amendment to the wording that:

• That the following sentence be added at the end of the existing paragraph: ‘The question must be a question and not a statement, and rise directly out of the response.’ An introduction to the question can be given but should be very brief.

Comments were made that:

• ‘Brief’ was too subjective; 
• Why would an introduction be needed if it was relating to the original statement?
• Answer: “If you need to explain why the response was insufficient.”

Original recommendation 3: When put to the vote, 7 Members voted for and 2 voted against. The recommendation was CARRIED.

Cllr Fellows proposed, Cllr Jill Bayford seconded and members AGREED to put to Full Council that:

Council Procedure Rule 14.8

• That the following sentence be added at the end of the existing paragraph: ‘The question must be a question  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13