Agenda item

Report attached.

Members considered a report of the Executive Director (Legal and Democratic Services) on a review of the constitution.  The Council was required by law to have a written constitution.  The Council’s written constitution was reviewed regularly and a copy of the constitution was available on the Council’s website. 

 

A review of the constitution was undertaken annually to:

 

(i)    ensure the constitution accurately reflected the Council’s political management arrangements; and

(ii)   ensure the constitution reflected changes to the law, staffing structures and best practice guidance;

 

As a result of the annual review a number of amendments to the constitution had been proposed for approval as follows.

 

Finance Procedure Rules

 

These Rules had not been updated for a number of years.  The existing Rules had recently been reviewed by the Head of Accountancy Services and confirmed to still be substantially up to date, accurate and fit for purpose, with only minor clerical amendments being made (largely to reflect changes to job titles and typographical errors or to make the document easier to read.)  These amendments had been made and the revised version was set out as Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Standards Committee – Procedures for Dealing with Standards Complaints

 

Until late last year the Council had not had a complaint about a councillor progress to an internal hearing for over 10 years.  The number of complaints about councillors had also risen considerably over the last two municipal years.  This recent experience had highlighted the need to clarify the Council’s procedures so they were both more comprehensive and easier to understand, both for the councillors concerned and for complainants.  In addition, the procedures for dealing with complaints after completion of a formal investigation to the internal hearing stage were shown to be overly complicated and this element of the complaint process had been significantly simplified in the draft procedures now proposed.  Also, the procedures to be followed at the Council’s Standards Hearing Sub-Committee had been rewritten to make them clearer and easier to follow.

 

A revised procedure had been set out at Appendix 2 to this report.  The Council’s basic approach to handling member complaints remained largely the same and reflected the approach of most other local authorities, with more minor complaints dealt with informally by the Monitoring Officer and more serious complaints referred for investigation.  The process had hopefully been explained more fully and in plainer English and, if approved, full details of the revised procedures would be made available on the Council’s website.

 

Civic Protocol

 

This had not been reviewed or updated for a number of years and had become out of date as local practices, procedures and staffing arrangements had changed.  The revised protocol set out at Appendix 3 to the report had been amended in particular to:

 

• Reflect the changed arrangements for organisation of the Mayor’s Ball;
• Reflect practice in recent years for the offer of free places to the Mayor Making and Mayor’s Ball (with the number of free places at the Mayor Making having been reduced to enable the event to remain within budget); and
• Provide a payment to the Deputy Mayor of £5,000.00 to reflect the costs and expenses associated with that office.  A payment was already made to the Mayor.

 

Overview & Scrutiny Procedure Rules

 

Revised Overview & Procedure Rules were set out at Appendix 4 to the report. These contained the following minor amendments to the version currently in force:

 

• The proposed new rules had a common procedure for the selection of scrutiny co-optees, with all nominations being considered by the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee before they were presented to Council for approval, whether the nomination came from a councillor or a member of the public; and

 

• The inclusion of a new provision confirming that, if there was a dispute about which Overview & Scrutiny Committee should deal with a call-in item, the dispute would be resolved by the Executive Director (Legal & Democratic Services), who would make her decision having regard to the terms of reference of the Committees to determine which had the better claim to jurisdiction; and

 

• The inclusion of a requirement for an annual report to Council giving details of all call-ins over the preceding 12 months and the outcome of the same (rather than these being reported individually to the next Council meeting after the call-in, as happened now).

 

In relation to the Civic Protocol Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP highlighted the proposal to make a payment of £5k to the Deputy Mayor.  He recalled his year as Deputy Mayor, prior to his mayoral year in 2014/15, and was of the view that he the level of events attended would be insufficient to warrant such a payment.

 

Amendment 1

 

An AMENDMENT was MOVED AND SECONDED as follows:

 

“That in respect of recommendation 2.1 (iii) the following wording should be deleted:

 

‘…and also agrees to establish an annual payment to the Deputy Mayor of £5000 in respect of the costs and expenses associated with that office (such payment to be in addition to the payment already made to the Mayor to cover the costs and expenses of his / her office)’.”

 

Councillor Judith Addison recalled a similar experience to Councillor Dad and suggested that a payment should be made, but of a lesser amount.  Councillor Peter Britcliffe reported that the current Mayor and Mayoress had attended a large number of events during their year as deputies. 

 

Amendment 2

 

A second AMENDMENT was MOVED AND SECONDED as follows:

 

“That in respect of recommendation 2.1 (iii) the following wording should be inserted after the words ‘…also agrees…’ and before the words ‘…to establish…’:

 

‘…that the Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to consider and make a recommendation to the Council, which the Council shall have due regard to, on the matter of a proposal…’.“

 

The Mayor commented that it had been a privilege to undertake the Deputy role and that it had not been undertaken for financial gain.  He considered that a £5k payment might be too much.   Councillor Dawson reminded Members that historically the Deputy Mayor had received a payment, but that currently it was only paid at the Mayor’s discretion from within his/her own allowance.  Councillor Zak Khan considered that it was right for a payment to be made, particularly where the Mayor was unable to accept an engagement and a Deputy Mayor had to take unpaid leave from work.  Councillor Munsif Dad commented that it might have been useful to hold cross-party discussions on this matter before the meeting.  The Leader responded that she would be happy to discuss the matter further with Councillor Dad.  She offered to refer the matter to the Independent Remuneration Panel for a view.  In the interim it was proposed that the £5k payment should be introduced.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule A16.5, six Members present at the meeting called for a recorded vote on Amendment 1.

 

Amendment 1 was then put to the VOTE.

 

For the Motion

 

Councillors Heather Anderson, Mike Booth, Scott Brerton, Steven Button, Jodi Clements, Munsif Dad BEM JP, Bernard Dawson, Melissa Fisher, Terry Hurn (Mayor), Abdul Khan, Colin McKenzie, Dave Parkins and Kate Walsh.

 

Against the Motion

 

Councillors Judith Addison, Dominik Allen, Josh Allen, Peter Britcliffe, Danny Cassidy, Loraine Cox, Peter Edwards, Marlene Haworth, Susan Hayes, Carole Haythornthwaite, Zak Khan, Sajid Mahmood, Kath Pratt, Steven Smithson and Mohammed Younis.

 

Abstentions

 

Councillor Noordad Aziz,Paul Cox, Joyce Plummer and Kimberley Whitehead

 

Accordingly, the MOTION was LOST.

 

With the consent of the meeting Amendment 2 was then withdrawn.

 

Councillor Noordad Aziz proposed a further amendment.

 

Amendment 3

 

An AMENDMENT was MOVED AND SECONDED as follows:

 

“That in respect of recommendation 2.1 (iii) the following wording should be inserted after the words ‘…also agrees…’

 

‘…that the Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to consider and make a recommendation to the Council about whether to make any payment to the Deputy Mayor and, if so, the amount of any such payment and that no payments be shall be made until the Panel’s recommendation has been discussed and determined by the Council.

 

and the following words should be deleted ‘…to establishan annual payment to the Deputy Mayor of £5000 in respect of the costs and expenses associated with that office (such payment to be in addition to the payment already made to the Mayor to cover the costs and expenses of his / her office)’.”

 

Councillor Addison suggested a monthly payment to the Deputy Mayor based upon the number of engagements undertaken, as this might be more flexible and responsive to the level of commitments.  Councillor Walsh endorsed this arrangement, in principle, but felt that it would be difficult to administer.

 

Amendment 3 was then put to the VOTE and was CARRIED.

 

The substantive MOTION was then put to the VOTE.

 

Resolved                                    -    That Council:

 

(1)   Agrees to adopt the Finance Procedure Rules set out in the report at Appendix 1;

 

(2)   Agrees to adopt the Standards Committee Procedures for Dealing with Complaints set out at Appendix 2 to the report;

 

(3).  Agrees to adopt the Civic Protocol set out at Appendix 3 to the report and also agrees that the Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to consider and make a recommendation to the Council about whether to make any payment to the Deputy Mayor and, if so, the amount of any such payment and that no payments be shall be made until the Panel’s recommendation has been discussed and determined by the Council; and

 

(4)   Agrees to adopt the Overview & Scrutiny Procedure Rules set out at Appendix 4 to the report