Agenda item

1)    From Councillor Phil Dilks

This motion seeks to improve the openness, accountability and efficiency of the Council and assist elected Members in carrying out their responsibilities in representing local residents.
 
Council notes that a Public Open Forum of up to 30-minutes is set aside at the start of each Council meeting for any resident of the District to question the administration, subject to written notification no later than 72-hours prior to the meeting.
 
The resident may reasonably expect to receive an answer at the meeting as well as a reply to a supplementary question.
 
Questions from Councillors are also required to be submitted within a similar time-frame, but are then treated very differently to questions from residents.
 
All questions from councillors are currently referred to ‘the relevant Policy Development Group’ irrespective of who they are directed to, delaying a reply for several weeks or even months.
 
In contrast, a councillor could expect a quicker formal reply by lodging a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Council resolves to tackle this issue by tasking its Constitutional Committee to consider appropriate amendments to the Rules of Procedure to be voted on at the next Annual Meeting of the Council, thus ensuring that in seeking information, councillors are not more disadvantaged than the residents they are elected to represent.

2)    From Councillor Phil Dilks

This Council resolves that each SKDC Committee and Policy Development Group be invited to provide a short report on its work over the previous year to be presented to the Annual Meeting of the Council.

Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Dilks

Decision:

That the Council rejects the motion:

“This motion seeks to improve the openness, accountability and efficiency of the Council and assist elected Members in carrying out their responsibilities in representing local residents.

Council notes that a Public Open Forum of up to 30-minutes is set aside at the start of each Council meeting for any resident of the District to question the administration, subject to written notification no later than 72-hours prior to the meeting.

The resident may reasonably expect to receive an answer at the meeting as well as a reply to a supplementary question.

Questions from Councillors are also required to be submitted within a similar time-frame, but are then treated very differently to questions from residents.

All questions from councillors are currently referred to ‘the relevant Policy Development Group’ irrespective of who they are directed to, delaying a reply for several weeks or even months.

In contrast, a councillor could expect a quicker reply by lodging a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Council resolves to tackle this issue by tasking its Constitutional Committee to consider appropriate amendments to the Rules of Procedure to be voted on at the next Annual Meeting of the Council, thus ensuring that in seeking information, councillors are not more disadvantaged than the residents they are elected to represent.”

Councillor Dilks proposed the motion

“This motion seeks to improve the openness, accountability and efficiency of the Council and assist elected Members in carrying out their responsibilities in representing local residents.

Council notes that a Public Open Forum of up to 30-minutes is set aside at the start of each Council meeting for any resident of the District to question the administration, subject to written notification no later than 72-hours prior to the meeting.

The resident may reasonably expect to receive an answer at the meeting as well as a reply to a supplementary question.

Questions from Councillors are also required to be submitted within a similar time-frame, but are then treated very differently to questions from residents.

All questions from councillors are currently referred to ‘the relevant Policy Development Group’ irrespective of who they are directed to, delaying a replay for several weeks or even months.

In contrast, a councillor could expect a quicker reply by lodging a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Council resolves to tackle this issue by tasking its Constitutional Committee to consider appropriate amendments to the Rules of Procedure to be voted on at the next Annual Meeting of the Council, thus ensuring that in seeking information, councillors are not more disadvantaged than the residents they are elected to represent.”

The motion was seconded.

In presenting his motion Councillor Dilks explained that he hoped to improve openness and accountability, and remove the anomaly that saw members of the public getting answers to their question (plus a supplementary question) at the council meeting to which they were put. He asked that the Constitution Committee consider appropriate amendments to the Rules of Procedure which could be voted on at the annual council meeting in 2013. The motion was seconded.

Those speaking in favour of the motion stated they felt it would improve transparency and indicated that it would be easier to represent their constituents by getting ‘on the record’ answers in a timely manner. They also stated that Councillors should not have to look through Policy Development Group records to find answers to their questions. Some Councillors expressed their concern that a one-to-one scenario did not provide an open view of the question or response.

Councillors speaking against the motion highlighted the access to Portfolio Holders, PDGs, Committees and officers that was available to Members. They refuted claims that sending questions to PDGs was pushing issues ‘into the long grass’. Questions were considered at the next possible PDG meeting, answered, minuted and published.

Councillor Dilks summed up and reemphasised that in bringing the motion to council his intention was to improve openness, accountability and transparency.

There was a request for a recorded vote. However, failing to receive the support of ten Members as per Council Procedure rule 16.4, the request was refused. The motion was put to the vote and lost.

Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Dilks

Decision:

That the Council rejects the motion:

“This Council resolves that each SKDC Committee and Policy Development Group be invited to provide a short report on its work over the previous year to be presented to the Annual Meeting of the Council.”

Councillor Dilks proposed the motion

“This Council resolves that each SKDC Committee and Policy Development Group be invited to provide a short report on its work over the previous year to be presented to the Annual Meeting of the Council.”

The motion was seconded.

Councillor Dilks introduced his notice of motion and explained that he felt annual reports from each of the Committees and Policy Development Groups would help explain to the electorate what the council was doing. This was seconded.

Councillors speaking against the motion stated that the minutes from all public meetings were published on the website and would be made available to anyone requesting them.

The motion was put to vote and lost.