13
The Committee received report ES/1782 of Councillor Dr Anthony Speca, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Constitution Review Working Group. The purpose of the report was to summarise the work of the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) and set out the initial review of the Council's Constitution.
Councillor Speca introduced the report and stated that he was bringing this proposal forward on behalf of the CRWG which included councillors from all parties. All decisions and changes in the report were made on a unanimous basis, and the group specifically agreed in their terms of reference that a vote would be a last resort. The aim of the group was to ensure that the constitution was democratically sound and accessible. The constitution should be accessible to all councillors, officers and the public. Some of the council processes were very confusing, for example the procedure for motions being debated by Full Council, and it was hoped that the revised Constitution put all parties on even footing. Councillor Speca added that several officers were also included in the working group, and their views were taken into account. Many of the changes had been identified by officers in the previous four years.
The Chair invited questions.
Councillor Gandy welcomed the change to motions to ensure they were heard equally at Full Council. Regarding the allocation of motions and the time limit for motions, how would this work practically, as it could be possible for two parties motion to take up all the time, and therefore the third party could continually be pushed back. Councillor Speca stated that this had been discussed at length. This referred to motions on notice, and normally motions bought forward here were bought forward only by the opposition parties. The time limits were suggested, and could be flexed if the Chair believed it was appropriate. The limits here were to ensure that more motions were heard, not less.
Councillor Lynch asked why there was a limit on people only speaking once, sometimes Councillors had multiple questions for areas they were interested in or had knowledge on. Councillor Speca commented that this had been done as in practise members often introduced debate into the period set aside for questions. This change was intended to remove the artificial barrier between questions and debate which was ignored. People would be allowed to make one substantive speech, but would be allowed to ask questions for clarification as these often got lost. It was already the case that councillors could only speak once. The chair should not stand in the way of discussion and should not allow certain people to speak more than others. This rule was intended to provide the chair with a way of moderating this debate. It could be flexed if needed but there had to be some sort of limit. Councillor Speca stated that Councillors should be prepared to make their point in one speech.
The Chair asked if the discretion of the Chair was stated in these rules. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the principal of chairs discretion was reflected in these rules, this could be made more explicit based on feedback. Councillor Speca stated he sympathised with these concerns and the issue could be reviewed further down the line if further flexibility was needed.
Councillor Gandy stated that the question process was about understanding what motions were intending, although it was misused for political purposes. She would like to see more questions encouraged, and less speeches, as most people should come to the meeting with an understanding of what they thought about a motion. Councillor Speca stated he agreed with this point, and that it had proven to be difficult to balance the need to limit people making continued speeches, and the desire to encourage good questions. This rule was movement in this direction, and there could be further work done here.
Councillor King stated he had found these procedures very difficult as a new councillor, and asked if there could be a diagram to explain some of them. He added that the process for questions from members of the public had been clarified but more could be done to provide help to the public themselves. Councillor Speca stated that the Constitution should cover the rules only, and there was a plan for there to be a supplementary document which explained certain parts of the Constitution (for example submitting a question or a motion). Training for Councillors would also be held to ensure people understood what they needed to do. Most members of the public would therefore interact with these higher level explanatory documents rather than the constitution to itself.
Councillor Lynch referred to the petitions scheme, and asked if more information would be provided on this to ensure that petitions would be relevant and within the Council's realm of influence. Councillor Speca stated that the petitions scheme would be rewritten, but during this interim period the current petition scheme would apply. The Strategic Director added that the current petitions scheme did state that petitions should be something that were within the councils control, but this could be made more explicit.
On the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Reeves it was
RESOLVED
That Audit and Governance Committee recommends to Full Council that the substantive changes to East Suffolk Council’s (ESC’s) Constitution proposed by the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG), as summarised in this report and as shown at Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C of this report, be adopted as East Suffolk Council’s Constitution pending the CRWG’s completion of its full review of the Constitution.