To consider the above report

Members considered amendments to a number of sections in the council constitution to improve clarity, consistency and transparency, avoid duplication, and ensure efficient use of resources.

 

Councillor Johnson proposed the motions in the report.

 

Councillor Rayner seconded the proposals. She explained that, as Members would be aware, the last full review of the constitution was undertaken during 2018, with a revised version in place from May 2019. As the council had operated under the revised constitution for over a year, it was now an appropriate time to review corporate governance arrangements.

 

In relation to employment functions, the purpose of the amendments to the terms of reference of the Employment and Member Standards Panel was to increase efficiency, largely by removing duplication whilst ensuring appropriate consideration of decisions relating to staffing. The Head of Paid Services already had responsibility for staffing matters within the council. The changes would lead to swifter decision making in response to business needs. The key change was the introduction of a five Member Appointment Committee to appoint Directors. In the case of the Managing Director (Head of Paid Services) Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) and Monitoring Officer, the Committee would make a recommendation to full Council. Recruitment of Heads of Service would be delegated to the Head of Paid Service. A number of items would be considered for approval by the Head of Paid Service in consultation with finance as appropriate. These included payment of discretionary payments to an employee other than those under a contract of employment. The Head of Paid Service would make Group Leaders aware of amounts in excess of £50,000 and all Members aware of amounts in excess of £100,000. New or significant changes to staffing currently required a Panel decision for groups of five or more employees where the total cost was more than £25,000.

 

Where relevant, data on policies for staff including corporate health and safety, equal opportunities and training and development would be published via the weekly Members’ Update. The annual pay policy statement and proposals for any staff award were already contained in the annual budget papers considered by full Council.  The Trade Unions would be invited annually to a formal meeting to discuss pay with relevant portfolio holders. Any other representations by the Trade Unions would be considered by the Head of Paid Service. The Employment and Member Standards Panel would become a Member Standards Panel going forward.  The Employment Appeals Sub Committee would be a sub committee of the new Appointment Committee.

 

Councillor Rayner explained that in March 2020 the Employment and Member Standards Panel had considered and approved for recommendation to full Council changes to the Members Code of Conduct and complaints process, detailed in Appendices D and E. She drew Members’ attention to the fact that two updates had been issued following publication of the agenda. These changes to the membership arrangements for the Members Standards Sub Committee were approved by the Employment and Member Standards Panel In March but unfortunately were not reflected in the appendices. They therefore formed part of the officer recommendations in the report.

 

A number of changes were proposed to strengthen both the Members Code of Conduct and the complaints process. The complaints process was considered to be overly complicated and it was felt that more decisions should be made by a Member Sub-Panel including an Independent Person, rather than by the Monitoring Officer alone.  The Member Sub-Panel would also have wider powers of sanction. Other changes included introduction of a rule about breaches of the equality regulations and a new section to deal with Members failing to co-operate with the complaints process

 

The report also included a review of Overview and Scrutiny and full Council procedures. In addition, changes to the financial rules were proposed, which she knew the Lead Member for Finance would talk about.

 

In proposing the recommendations in the report, Councillor Rayner proposed an amendment relating to Motions of no Confidence, to include reference to Vice Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Panels:

 

C12 Motion of No Confidence

 

Motions of no confidence in the Leader, a Cabinet Member, any Member holding a Special Responsibility, or any Vice Chairman of an Overview and Scrutiny Panel must be signed by ten Members and must be delivered to the Head of Governance no later than 10.00am on the seventh working day before the meeting (excluding the day of the meeting). The wording of the Motion shall be “That this Council has no confidence in the [insert relevant post]”

 

No amendments will be allowed to the Motion at the meeting where the matter is discussed.

 

Motions of no confidence can be accepted at any Council meeting, including Annual and Budget Council meetings.

 

If following a Motion of no confidence the majority of Members of the Council vote to remove the Leader or any Member with a Special Responsibility (other than a Lead Cabinet Member, as the power to remove a Lead Member is within the remit of the Leader), a Motion, under Rule 13(t), to nominate a new Leader or Member with a Special Responsibility may be moved without notice. If a Motion to nominate is not moved then the election of the Leader of Council or re-appointment to the role with the Special Responsibility will take place at the next Council meeting.

 

If a majority of Members of the Council agree a motion of no confidence in a Chairman or Vice Chairman of an Overview and Scrutiny Panel, the Panel will be required to consider the appointment of a Chairman or Vice Chairman (as appropriate) at the next scheduled meeting of the Panel.

 

Councillor Johnson confirmed that he accepted the amendment.

 

Councillor Jones proposed three amendments:

 

Amendment 1:

 

Employment Appeals Sub Committee

 

B53.2 Membership 

 

3 selected (including one member from an Opposition group) from the existing members (including substitutes) of the Appointment Committee

 

Councillor Jones explained that the Appointment Committee was politically balanced therefore it seemed sensible that a sub committee would also be politically balanced.

 

Amendment 2

 

A16  d) Call-in

 

Those Members requesting call-in should specify the reason for the call-in when making the request. Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances.  These  are  where  non-Executive Members have evidence that suggests that the Executive did not take  the  decision  in  accordance  with  the  principles  set  out  in Article 12.2. (This includes, but is not an exhaustive list):

 

Councillor Jones explained that she had been advised by officers that the intent had been to provide guidance rather than to restrict.

 

Amendment 3

 

Part 4 - Overview and Scrutiny

 

A6.1 

 

The Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of each scrutiny panel shall be appointed by that Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of each scrutiny panel must be appointed from different political groups.

 

Councillor Baldwin seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that he did not accept the amendments proposed. Therefore Members debated each amendment in turn.

 

Councillor Jones confirmed the first amendment read as follows:

 

Employment Appeals Sub Committee

 

B53.2 Membership 

 

3 selected (including one member from an Opposition group) from the existing members (including substitutes) of the Appointment Committee

 

Councillor Jones explained that the Appointment Committee was politically balanced therefore it seemed sensible that a sub committee would also be politically balanced.

 

Councillor Werner seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Bhangra, seconded by Councillor Bateson, proposed a closure motion as per Part 2C 14.11 ii), that ‘the question be now put to the vote’.

 

Councillor Werner commented that it was unusual as Council had not heard any reasons why the administration did not wish to accept the amendment. He could not understand why the clarification on the membership of the sub committee would not be useful, when the main committee was politically balanced.

 

As there were no other speakers, Councillors Bhangra and Bateson agreed to withdraw the closure motion.

 

Members then voted on Amendment 1 proposed by Councillor Jones. The amendment was not accepted.

 

Members moved on to discuss the second amendment proposed by Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones confirmed the amendment read as follows:

 

A16  d) Call-in

 

Those Members requesting call-in should specify the reason for the call-in when making the request. Call-in should only be used in exceptional circumstances.  These  are  where  non-Executive Members have evidence that suggests that the Executive did not take  the  decision  in  accordance  with  the  principles  set  out  in Article 12.2. (This includes, but is not an exhaustive list):

 

Councillor Jones explained that she had been advised by officers that the intent had been to provide guidance rather than to restrict.

 

Councillor Werner seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that he was concerned that an amendment could not be accepted but there was no requirement to debate the proposal. He and others would welcome Councillor Johnson providing reasons.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that he did not accept the premise of the amendments and he did not wish to accept motions during the meeting when they could have been discussed with himself or the Lead Member in advance.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that the amendments seemed like common sense to tidy up some sections so they were fit for purpose.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa echoed the comments by Councillor Knowles. The proposals were simply to tidy up some wording so that there were no restrictions in the future. It may have been preferable to have discussed in advance but Members had the opportunity to do so at the meeting.

 

Councillor Werner commented that it was always better to have decisions taken in the open for transparency. The constitution was a key document of the constitution; it was better that decisions were not taken in smoke filled rooms hidden from the public gaze.

 

Councillor Johnson responded that talk of smoke filled rooms was ridiculous. All discussions should be in the open for public debate. He did not believe that bulldozing an amendment through on the night was appropriate.

 

Councillor Jones stated that she wished to respond in relation to the comment about ‘bulldozing’. Members had had a week to look at the entire proposals. She was working full time therefore only had the weekend to look at them. She felt that, if the administration had used the Constitution Sub Committee, or the report had been published earlier, those conversations could have taken place.

 

Members then voted on Amendment 2 proposed by Councillor Jones. The amendment was not accepted.

 

Members moved on to discuss the third amendment proposed by Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones confirmed the amendment read as follows:

 

Part 4 - Overview and Scrutiny

 

A6.1 

 

The Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of each scrutiny panel shall be appointed by that Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of each scrutiny panel must be appointed from different political groups.

 

Councillor Jones highlighted that the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) Good Scrutiny Guide (June 2019) included four principles of good scrutiny:

 

·         Constructive critical friend challenge

·         Amplifying the voices of the public

·         Led by independent people who took responsibility for their role

·         Driving improvement in public services

Three further key areas were accountability, transparency and involvement. These principles relied on a supportive political and organisational structure to allow robust scrutiny to develop and thrive. The administration had made a lot of collegiate working and transparency. It had been suggested by the CfPS that Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Panels should be from opposition groups. The structure suggested in the amendment would support collegiate working in the important area of scrutiny and governance. CIPFA and the external auditors had said that the council’s governance was not up to scratch. This would be an important way of ensuring cross-party working. 

 

Councillor Baldwin seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that he agreed with the CfPS proposal that Chairman should be from the opposition. All Members were ordinary residents who cared for the borough and wanted the best. There was nothing to lose other than an SRA, which may or may not be insubstantial but should not be relevant. A collegiate approach would give better results.

 

Councillor Davey commented that as Vice Chairman of the Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Panel he thought that this was obviously the way to go. If true scrutiny and accountability did not take place, he suggested the council would end up in a place where one party made all the decisions all the time. He felt it was impossible for the administration to properly scrutinise the decisions it made at Cabinet. In his role, he would be making sure the Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Panel did great things during the year.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that there were a number of new councillors but as individual critical thinking matured and the panels developed, it could only be a good thing to have a divergence of opinion in scrutiny. The Panels had sensibly called-in a number of issues and helped to limit problems down the line. This was the role of scrutiny, to look at things in a different way. He had been more involved in planning panels than scrutiny, and felt that they worked in a collegiate way. This should be the same for scrutiny. A compromise would be to have the Chairman and Vice Chairman from different parties.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that he valued the role that scrutiny played and it was accurate to say that the function needed to be strengthened. The amendment was premature because the issues would be discussed under the CIPFA report item at Cabinet later in the week. The report would then be referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The Panel would make recommendations to come back to Cabinet for consideration and implementation. If appropriate, the recommendation could therefore be brought forward to a future full Council meeting. He felt it would be premature to make the change before discussion had taken place on the full implications of the CIPFA report.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that he had always said overview and scrutiny was important. The council was going through a process where it was improving; it was on a journey. Membership of the Panel should be based on the best people rather than from being from the opposite party.

Councillor Price commented that if robust scrutiny had been in place and it had been listened to, the council would not be in the financial situation it was in. She supported the motion and felt that it should be in place as soon as possible otherwise another year would be wasted. The council did not have another year given the financial situation.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that the administration should not fear scrutiny; if all worked together it could make the administration look better and stop errors of a legal or financial nature.

 

Councillor Hill commented that the borough had ended up in an appalling financial position; all had seen the CIPFA report. One of the key reasons was inadequate scrutiny and governance. He welcomed Councillor Jones’ amendment. All should agree to submit to the most severe and intense scrutiny of every decision. In Parliament Opposition members chaired scrutiny panels, but it did not happen at RBWM. It was a key reason that the borough had ended up where it had.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that in his Lead Member position he was of the view that the role of Overview and Scrutiny was very important. He had often asked officers to proactively bring issues forward to scrutiny.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa thanked Councillor Carroll for his support of scrutiny. She hoped that all the talk that had been heard would lead to action. For example a Vice Chairman was still to be elected on the Adults, Children and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that the first training course he had attended as a councillor was on the effectiveness of scrutiny. The presenter of 23 years’ experience as a councillor emphasised that effective panels actually avoided conflict and call-ins. He also stressed the need for them to have councillors with an independent train of thought and who could effectively manage meetings so that the important matters were discussed and were not ignored. The council was in the midst of something of a governance crisis. Increasingly urgent items appeared on agenda at extremely short notice, amendments were presented during council, and cabinet papers were excluded from the Forward Plan. Nobody disputed that the majority party had the legal obligation to have the majority on the Overview and Scrutiny Panels, but being able to influence the agenda and working with officers prior to the meetings as Chairman or Vice Chairman was an enormously important component in holding the Cabinet to account. It had been mentioned that the CIPFA report would be discussed at Cabinet but there was no guarantee non-Cabinet Members would be allowed to speak. This was within the rules but it did not give a good impression to residents when Members were not allowed to speak.

 

Councillor Jones concluded by commenting that she had made similar proposals a number of times over the years; it was not the first time.

 

Members then voted on Amendment 3 proposed by Councillor Jones. The amendment was not accepted.

Members returned to debating the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Hill brought forward the motion on notice in his name listed in item 14 on the agenda, by proposing an amendment:

 

‘To reduce the number of signatures required for a petition to be debated at Full Council from 1500 to 1000.’

 

Councillor Knowles seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that he did not accept the amendment, therefore Members debated the proposal.

 

Councillor del Campo commented that her first foray into local politics was when she had brought a petition to full Council, therefore she knew how important the opportunity was, even if the outcome was not what was hoped for. If the signatory level was too high, the council would only hear about issues that impacted a large number of residents or where campaigners had a particularly good marketing campaign. An issue that only impacted part of a ward or a small school for example would not be heard. The level used to be 1000; she felt that it was a high enough level to screen out frivolous petitions but low enough that people with genuine concerns would be able to get enough signatures.

 

Councillor Bhangra proposed a closure motion that ‘the question be now put to the vote’.

 

Councillor Hill was ejected from the meeting by the Mayor for poor behaviour.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bhangra, seconded by Councillor Bateson and:

 

RESOLVED: That, as per Part 2C 14.11 ii), the question now be put to the vote.

 

Councillor Hill had left the meeting therefore Councillor Knowles concluded the debate. He commented that it was sad that residents could not hear more debate, such a high threshold denied residents access to be heard.

 

Members then voted on the amendment proposed by Councillor Hill. The amendment was not accepted.

 

Members returned to debating the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Reynolds highlighted the constitutional changes relating to full Council procedures. It was proposed that all public questions be dealt with by way of a written response. He felt that a better option would be to offer a bi-monthly question and answer session which would allow more detail and full debate without taking any time out of the full Council meeting. Each Lead Member could take it in turn to run lead the session. It was also proposed that all Member questions be dealt with in writing. Councillor Reynolds pointed out that if he wanted this he could just send an email to a Lead Member. If he brought a question to full Council it was because if was in a different format in an open forum. To refuse to answer the initial question verbally but then allow a verbal supplementary question seemed disrespectful.  A time limit of 30 minutes was proposed for Member motions. After a proposer and seconder had spoken this left very little time for others to speak. Councillor Reynolds felt the proposal was stifling debate. He suggested the whole section should be withdrawn and discussions take place as a group as to how to take things forward.

 

Councillor Bhangra proposed a closure motion that ‘the question be now put to the vote’.

 

Councillor Davey was ejected from the meeting by the Mayor for poor behaviour.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bhangra, seconded by Councillor Bateson and:

 

RESOLVED: That, as per Part 2C 14.11 ii), that the question now be put to the vote.

 

Councillor Johnson concluded the debate by commenting that the constitution was an ever-evolving document. Some legitimate issues had been raised which would give pause for future reflection. It would not be the last time the constitution would be updated. He highlighted that the administration had proposed restoring political balance to the appointments process for senior officers. He felt this was fair and equitable and it should have happened previously. There had been assertions that the report was issued late. The constitution had not fundamentally changed for a while; he was sure that all Members had had plenty of opportunity to review it based on some of the concerns raised about scrutiny. The council was operating under extraordinary circumstances; he did not regret bringing forward an urgent report to provide free parking as it was the right thing to do. He assured Members that the administration did value scrutiny and it was only fair that scrutiny had the lion’s share of the forensic investigation of the CIPFA report. He would take limited questions at the Cabinet meeting but he saw the Overview and Scrutiny Panel as the prime forum for Members to debate the issue. Any recommendations would come back to Cabinet at the end of July for consideration.

 

RESOLVED: That full Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)          Approves amendments to the constitution detailed in Appendices A-J, subject to an amendment to Part 2 C12 to read:

 

C12 Motion of No Confidence

 

Motions of no confidence in the Leader, a Cabinet Member, any Member holding a Special Responsibility, or any Vice Chairman of an Overview and Scrutiny Panel must be signed by ten Members and must be delivered to the Head of Governance no later than 10.00am on the seventh working day before the meeting (excluding the day of the meeting). The wording of the Motion shall be “That this Council has no confidence in the [insert relevant post]”

 

No amendments will be allowed to the Motion at the meeting where the matter is discussed.

 

Motions of no confidence can be accepted at any Council meeting, including Annual and Budget Council meetings.

 

If following a Motion of no confidence the majority of Members of the Council vote to remove the Leader or any Member with a Special Responsibility (other than a Lead Cabinet Member, as the power to remove a Lead Member is within the remit of the Leader), a Motion, under Rule 13(t), to nominate a new Leader or Member with a Special Responsibility may be moved without notice. If a Motion to nominate is not moved then the election of the Leader of Council or re-appointment to the role with the Special Responsibility will take place at the next Council meeting.

 

If a majority of Members of the Council agree a motion of no confidence in a Chairman or Vice Chairman of an Overview and Scrutiny Panel, the Panel will be required to consider the appointment of a Chairman or Vice Chairman (as appropriate) at the next scheduled meeting of the Panel.

 

ii)         Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to update as appropriate and publish the council constitution.

iii)       Delegates authority to the Head of Governance in consultation with the S151 officer and Lead Member for Finance and Ascot to review the arrangements for audit oversight and bring proposals to full Council in July 2020.