a)     Local Government Boundary Commission For England Electoral Review

 

It was moved by Cllr. Esler and seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the recommendation from Governance Committee that the timetable of the electoral review and the formation of a working group to advise Council, be noted.

 

Cllr Esler spoke to the motion.

 

Resolved: That

 

a)   the timetable for the electoral review being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, be noted; and

 

b)   a working group, set up by the Governance Committee had been formed to advise Council on the electoral review as it progresses, be noted.

 

 

b)     Review of the Scheme for Members’ Allowances

 

It was moved by Cllr. Esler and seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the recommendation from Governance Committee to adopt the Members’ Allowance scheme as amended, be approved.

 

Cllr Esler spoke to the motion. Members discussed the scheme, and thanks was given to the Working Group for their work.

 

Resolved: That

 

a)   the recommendations of the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel be agreed subject to the following changes:

i)  The Deputy Leader continue to be remunerated at £14,023 but this allowance be frozen until such a time as the JIRP determines the sum to fall within 10% of the Kent Councils Deputy Leader Allowances mean; 

ii)  Opposition Group Leaders continue to be remunerated at £298 per group Member;

iii) Subsistence allowances be maintained at the £9.86/£12.21 for lunch/evening meal, subject to the Member being on Council business out of the District; and

 

b)  The next review of the allowances by the JIRP, be requested to be undertaken in advance of the next election cycle.

 

c)     Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules

 

It was moved by Cllr. Esler and seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee to adopt the revised appendix C and part 5 of the constitution, be agreed.

 

Cllr Esler spoke to the motion advising that the revisions were to clarify and update the sections of the constitution so they were less ambiguous when it came to call-in. 

 

It was moved by Cllr. Streatfeild and duly seconded by Cllr. Leaman that the revised appendix C, paragraph 18.4 be deleted and insert with the following wording:

 

“Members can call-in a decision for one or more of the following reasons:

(a) The decision is not in line with the Council’s Policy Framework,

(b) The decision is not in accordance with the Council’s Budget,

(c) The decision was not taken in accordance with the principles of decision- making set out below, and/or

(d) The decision was not taken in accordance with the Constitution of the Council.

The relevant principles of decision-making referred to in (c) are:

(a) Action proportionate to the desired outcome.
(b) Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers.

(c) Respect for human rights in all its forms.
(d) A presumption in favour of openness.
(e) Clarity of aims and desired outcomes.
(f) Explanation of the options considered and giving reasons for decisions.”

 

Cllr Streatfeild spoke to his amendment advising that this was the wording from Kent County Council’s constitution, and in his opinion the Scrutiny system worked well. Debate continued on the amendment, with some Members suggesting that the amendment would change the system for the better and allow non-key decisions to be called-in.

 

Cllr. Esler in her right of reply to the amendment, reminded Members that the Scrutiny Committee was an important mechanism to ensure the discharge of functions by the Council. Call-in was not a mechanism that should be used to delay the implementation of decisions, and further stating that the principles of what was being amended had already been proposed in the revised appendix.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

 

At 10.20 p.m. it was moved by the Chairman that, in accordance with rule 16.1 of Part 2 of the Constitution, Members extend the meeting beyond 10.30 p.m. for as long as was necessary to enable the Council to complete the business on the agenda. The motion was put to the vote and it was

 

Resolved: That the meeting extend beyond 10.30pm

 

It was moved by Cllr Leaman and duly seconded by Cllr. Robinson that paragraph 18.6 be deleted and the following be inserted “When considering a decision that has been called-in, the Scrutiny Committee may:

(a)  make no comments,

(b)  express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision,

(c)  require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration of the matter by the decision-maker in light of the Committee’s comments, or

(d)  require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by the full Council.”

 

Cllr Leaman spoke to his amendment, detailing that it could improve the scrutiny process and be more constructive. Members debated the amendment, noting that government guidance considered scrutiny a healthy part of good governance and its importance of acting as a critical friend. Members discussed other local authorities and their scrutiny functions. It was also raised by some Members that scrutiny was a healthy tool.

 

Cllr. Esler made her right of reply to the motion reminding Members that reports that went to the Executive for decision had already been through the Advisory Committee process, allowing Members to consider and give their views. In responding to points raised in the debate, amendments a, b and d were already included within the proposal, and any views from a call-in Scrutiny meeting would de detailed in the minutes and provided to Cabinet.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and it was lost.

 

Debate continued on the original motion. It was raised that although comparing to KCC’s scrutiny procedure could be helpful, it was noted that KCC’s Cabinet Committees only advised individual Cabinet Members rather than the Cabinet as a whole and then it could be subject to call–in. Sevenoaks already had a two stage process to advise Cabinet, where KCC was more of a single stage process. The revisions helped to clarify the process and the decisions that could be subject to call-in.  Other Members were concerned that the process did not fully allow engagement from opposition Members within the Advisory Committees.

 

Cllr Esler, gave her right of reply stating that the process was not to minimise opposition involvement but clarify the process to enable the Council to function.

 

As there was no further debate the Chairman moved to take the vote. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 2 paragraph 24.4, five Members of the Council stood and demanded a recorded vote.

 

 

For	Against	Abstention
Abraham
	Alger
Baker
Ball
	Barker
Barnes
Bayley
	Camp
Clack
	Clayton
Cole, Penny
Cole, Perry
P. Darrington
Dyball
Edwards-Winser
Esler
	Granville
	Gustard
Haslam
Horwood
Hudson
Kitchener
Layland
	Leaman
	Lindop
Malone
	Manamperi
	Manston
Maskell
McArthur
	Morgan. J
	Purves
Reay
	Robinson
Scott
	Shea
	Silander
	Skinner
	Steatfeild
Thornton
	Varley
	Waterton
White
Williams
25	19	0

 

 

Resolved: That Appendix C (Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules) and Part 5 (Scrutiny Function) of the Constitution, be adopted.

 

d) Protocol on Webcasting and Electronic Voting

 

It was moved by Cllr Esler, and seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the recommendation from Governance Committee to adopt, as amended the draft protocols on webcasting and electronic voting.

 

Cllr Esler spoke to the motion, stating she was grateful for the amendment that had been agreed at the Governance Committee. The electronic voting system was actively being tested and would soon be in place.

 

Resolved: That the draft protocol on Webcasting & Electronic voting (as amended), be adopted.

 

e)     Motions on Notice at Full Council

 

It was moved by Cllr Esler, and seconded by Cllr. Penny Cole that the recommendation from Governance Committee to authorise the Monitoring Officer to insert a new paragraph 20.6 into the constitution be approved.  

 

Cllr Esler spoke to the motion, stating that it was important to keep Council meetings constructive and other local authorities also limited the number of motions.

 

Members discussed the motion with some expressing concern that opposition groups would be restricted to making proposals to full council only 3 times a year. During debate it was raised that the Advisory Committee process allowed for topics to be added to their work plans, this was debated and some Members’ felt they did not have the opportunity to add things to the work plan and by reducing motions would not serve the democratic process. Members further debated the need for good decisions to be taken. Previous motions which had been discussed and voted through was raised and the positive impact they had had.

 

In response to the debate, Cllr. Esler gave her right of reply.

 

The motion was put the vote and it was

 

Resolved: That, the Monitoring Officer be authorised to insert a new paragraph 20.6 into the Constitution, substantially in the terms of the report.