Agenda item

1)  From Councillor Alan Davidson

The Leader of the Council and the other Executive Portfolio holders must be accountable, both to other members of South Kesteven District Council, and to the people of South Kesteven as a whole. Therefore, a period of 30 minutes shall be set aside near the beginning of all full meetings of the Council for elected members to ask questions of the Leader of the Council and Executive Portfolio holders.

Decision:

That the Council rejects the motion: “The Leader of the Council and the other Executive Portfolio holders must be accountable, both to other members of South Kesteven District Council, and to the people of South Kesteven as a whole. Therefore, a period of 30 minutes shall be set aside near the beginning of all full meetings of the Council for elected members to ask questions of the Leader of the Council and Executive Portfolio holders.”

Councillor Davidson proposed his motion, stating it would increase openness and transparency, while demonstrating how and why decisions were taken. He referred to national proposals to make Cabinet members more accountable. The proposer highlighted historical arrangements that required Cabinet members to make statements on the work they had undertaken and gave Members of the Council the chance to directly question Cabinet members; current arrangements saw the referral of questions to Policy Development Groups. He also referred to the Members Code of Conduct, which said Councillors should be open and transparent to the public. It was also suggested that the direct questioning of Cabinet members could increase interest and attendance by members of the public at meetings. The motion was seconded.

Several Members spoke in favour of the motion, supporting the arguments made by the proposer. Councillors also felt that such a session would show members of the public that the Cabinet was being held accountable for their decisions and publicly demonstrating leadership of the Council.

In speaking against the motion, concern was expressed that meetings would experience political tit-for-tat with the pressing of political ideologies. Attention was drawn to the public open forum, which gave members of the public the opportunity to directly question Councillors.

In summing up his motion, the proposer responded to concerns about political tit-for-tat, suggesting this would be controlled by the chairman. He commented that the public were sceptical, and that such a session could help generate interest in full Council meetings.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.4, this request needed the support of ten Members. A show of hands indicated more than ten Members supported the request.