Agenda item

(1)                  By Councillor Yvonne Gibbins

 “Given the facts that;

(1)                      Members with “special responsibilities” have higher allowances and have  recently been given an increase in their allowances, and

(2)                      CPA gave SKDC only a “fair” status,

I therefore propose that; all cabinet members, Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen declare their suitability for these posts and allowances, by informing all members of SKDC orally of their qualifications, experience and training, which make them the most appropriate person for their positions, and that they will regularly attend courses/workshops pertinent to their portfolios/panels remit”

(2) By Councillor John Hurst

“This Council considers that a Shadow Cabinet, enshrined in the Constitution, would enrich the developing democracy of the District, to the general good. Such Shadow Cabinet, in accordance with statute, must have objectives and processes that do not duplicate those of the DSPs or Cabinet.

The Shadow Cabinet will have the following remit:

1.             to recommend to the Scrutiny Coordinating Committee, subjects that could be included in the future work programme of the Development and Scrutiny Panels

2.             to advocate to the Cabinet, issues and concerns that it perceives to be relevant to the people of the District

3.             to proffer expertise and advice to the Executive

4.             to offer an alternative perspective to the Cabinet on consultation documents

5.             the Shadow Cabinet does not have the power of call-in.” 

(3)  By Councillor Stephen O’Hare

“That this Council believes that in relation to the multi million pound annual expenditure of this Council

1.             It is financially sensible to ensure that all members of the Cabinet have received appropriate external formal training;

2.             Where practicable it is financially sensible to ensure that any Councillor appointed to the Cabinet has received such training before appointment to the Cabinet;

3.             Any existing Cabinet member who has not received such training by the end of 2005 should seriously consider resigning from the Cabinet.”

(4)  By Councillor Stephen O’Hare

“That this Council believes that the format of Local Area Assemblies should be changed so as to allow members of the public to ask questions after the end of each item on the agenda and not be forced to wait until the very end of the meeting to be involved.”

(1)          By Councillor Yvonne Gibbins

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor Gibbins.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Gibbins:

“Given the facts that;

(1)    Members with “special responsibilities” have higher allowances and have recently been given an increase in their allowances, and

(2)    CPA gave SKDC only a “fair” status,

I therefore propose that; all cabinet members, Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen declare their suitability for these posts and allowances, by informing all members of SKDC orally of their qualifications, experience and training, which make them the most appropriate person for their positions, and that they will regularly attend courses/workshops pertinent to their portfolios/panels remit”

In supporting her motion, Councillor Gibbins referred to professional organisations, where it was usually required to continually update knowledge and provide evidence to gain promotion. She considered that if the Council wished to raise its CPA score, its members should be prepared to undertake these two requirements. In seconding the motion, a member suggested that positions of responsibility were sometimes appointed because of personal ambitions rather than a member’s suitability to a position. Some members expressed agreement with this, mainly because of the need of members to be professional and accountable. The majority, however, did not support the motion and it was suggested that members were accountable to the electorate via elections and that experience and ability to interpret evidence were of more importance than qualifications. The motion was subsequently lost following a vote.

(2)          By Councillor John Hurst

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor John Hurst.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor John Hurst:

“This Council considers that a Shadow Cabinet, enshrined in the Constitution, would enrich the developing democracy of the District, to the general good. Such Shadow Cabinet, in accordance with statute, must have objectives and processes that do not duplicate those of the DSPs or Cabinet.

The Shadow Cabinet will have the following remit:

1.       to recommend to the Scrutiny Coordinating Committee, subjects that could  be included in the future work programme of the Development and Scrutiny Panels

2.       to advocate to the Cabinet, issues and concerns that it perceives to be relevant to the people of the District

3.       to proffer expertise and advice to the Executive

4.       to offer an alternative perspective to the Cabinet on consultation documents

5.       the Shadow Cabinet does not have the power of call-in.” 

Councillor Hurst began his supporting speech by reporting that the remit proposed for the Shadow Cabinet had been formed in consultation with the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer. The Chief Executive confirmed that it complied with the Local Government Act 2000. Councillor Hurst continued that his motion was not intended to be offensive or provocative but to enrich democracy at this authority by enshrining the Shadow Cabinet in the Constitution. He referred to the view of democracy expressed by Lord Hailsham and suggested that it would be courteous to support his motion. He added that whilst the Development and Scrutiny Panels were supported by his group, a number of other Councils embraced a Shadow Cabinet as well which, rather than causing harm, was very beneficial to the authority and democracy of the area.        

In seconding the motion, a member acknowledged the important role played by opposition parties at all levels of government, particularly at local level, because these members had a duty to challenge, criticise and hold to account the administration. Opposition could also articulate community interests as well as suggest alternative policies. The member also acknowledged that scrutiny panels formed an essential function but they focussed on detailed examinations of policies whereas a Shadow Cabinet would review the work of the Cabinet as a whole and present a collective opposition view.

Those in support of the motion suggested that democracy was eroding fast and that if the administration’s policies were robust, it would withstand a Shadow Cabinet and that it would exist regardless of its inclusion in the Constitution. The Council was reminded that the Shadow Cabinet required no financial support but was a channel in which to feed suggestions.

In opposing the motion, it was suggested that democracy had been removed by the Local Government Act 2000, a Shadow Cabinet would not remedy this and the Act would have included a requirement for a Shadow Cabinet if it was considered necessary. Another member commented that there was no longer any need for a Shadow Cabinet because chairmanships had been offered to opposition parties which had prompted the previous Shadow Cabinet’s disbandment. Because it was causing such a split amongst the Council, a Shadow Cabinet should not be allowed to cause further damage. This was disputed by some members because it was believed that the chairmanships had been offered following the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, not as a result of being offered chairmanships, although the motion’s proposer explained that he believed there had been an agreement with the administration to wind-up the previous Shadow Cabinet because of an overpowering force. This was also disputed by another member. 

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

(3)          By Councillor Stephen O’Hare

DECISION:

(1)   To not support the motion proposed by Councillor Stephen O’Hare;

(2)   That this Council confirms its resolve to carry out the training that has already been suggested and discussed at length in the Chief Executive’s report that has been put to the Cabinet, Chairmen’s Group and Group Leaders and encourages all Council members to take part in this far reaching, far sighted and much needed training which not unsurprisingly includes a session on financial training.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor O’Hare:

“That this Council believes that in relation to the multi million pound annual expenditure of this Council

1.        It is financially sensible to ensure that all members of the Cabinet have received appropriate external formal training;

2.        Where practicable it is financially sensible to ensure that any Councillor appointed to the Cabinet has received such training before appointment to the Cabinet;

3.        Any existing Cabinet member who has not received such training by the end of 2005 should seriously consider resigning from the Cabinet.”

In presenting the motion, Councillor O'Hare referred to decisions made by portfolio holders which sometimes concerned significant sums of money.  He made specific reference to a portfolio holder's decision made within the last six months which involved £1.95m of expenditure and had been based on information contained on two sides of A4 paper. He considered that appropriate external training would help reduce any risk of mistakes by members and, because it would be external, would lessen the officer-led culture identified by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment. He believed that these benefits would outweigh the financial implications of external training. This motion was seconded. 

In proposing an amendment to this motion, a member indicated the costs of external training and the roles of officers to deliver clear, transparent and potent arguments to members on which to base their decisions.  This received a seconder and a vote was then taken on the following amendment: “That this Council confirms its resolve to carry out the training that has already been suggested and discussed at length in the Chief Executive’s report that has been put to the Cabinet, Chairmen’s Group and Group Leaders and encourages all Council members to take part in this far reaching, far sighted and much needed training which not unsurprisingly includes a session on financial training.” This was carried and a further vote on the substantive motion was also carried.

(4)          By Councillor Stephen O’Hare

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor O’Hare.

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor O’Hare:

“That this Council believes that the format of Local Area Assemblies should be changed so as to allow members of the public to ask questions after the end of each item on the agenda and not be forced to wait until the very end of the meeting to be involved.”

In proposing his motion, Councillor O’Hare explained that it was apolitical and he thought that, if carried, his motion would provide a much-needed flexibility which would encourage public involvement at no additional cost. This was seconded. Those in support of the motion agreed that there was a need to harness the public interest in the Local Area Assembly meetings by not requiring members of the public to wait until the end of the meeting to pose their questions.

Members opposing the motion considered it too prescriptive and it was explained that the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Group had already discussed the issues raised in the motion with members of the Cabinet and a report by the Scrutiny Officer would be presented shortly. Councillor O’Hare was therefore asked to withdraw his motion. The motion was not withdrawn and on being put to the vote, was lost.