Agenda item

(1)    From Councillor Mike Taylor:

 

“This Council deplores the total disregard and disrespect the Minister

for Communities and Local Government Yvette Cooper is showing, in

failing to respond in any way to a legitimate request from this Council,

which, if implemented would be of great benefit to the rent paying residents of the district.”

 

          (2)  From Councillor Terl Bryant:

 

“This council requests that the constitution and accounts committee debates and determines what steps can be taken on dealing with members who fail to fulfil their role as councillors as clearly envisaged by the remuneration panel. To assist in the debate and provide some guidance to the committee the council recommends a minimum level of full attendance of 10  council run meetings a year before sanctions are imposed.  The committee are reminded to be cognisant of the allocation of seats.  Extenuating circumstances for non attendance such as Cllr Moore’s accident would be the prerogative of the Chairman of the Council.”

          (3)  From Councillor Mrs Linda Neal, Leader of the Council

 

          “This Council condemns the pre-emptive action of the ULNHS Trust

          in withdrawing emergency general surgery from Grantham hospital

          without any prior consultation with the local community.  This Council

          calls on the Trust to explain why a business plan has not been put

          into place to recruit new consultants and develop a service that could

          attract and receive the number of patients needed to make the service

          viable.

 

          Bearing in mind the importance of these services to a town that has

          been granted “Growth Status”, this Council demands the immediate

          re-instatement of these services and their full continuation whilst an

          independent, appropriately qualified, agency undertakes a full review

          of the situation and reports accordingly.”

 

          (4)  From Councillor Mrs Linda Neal, Leader of the Council

 

“This Council resolves to:-

 

1.      Support the Sustainable Communities Bill which will devolve more power from Whitehall to Councils and communities by 

 

·        giving councils more power over money spent by national agencies on local matters in their areas; and

·        giving councils and their communities the power to drive government policy to assist them in promoting sustainable communities

 

 And thereby help councils to protect the wellbeing of their communities and citizens.

 

2.      Note that the Bill is promoted in Parliament by a cross party group of MPs led by Nick Hurd MP, David Drew MP, and Julia Goldsworthy MP  and is supported by 363 MPs, well over half the  House of Commons.

 

3.      Write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government urging

her to support the Bill and to inform the leading MPs of this decision.”

 

 

(5)    From Councillor Stephen O’Hare

 

“That this Council has no confidence in councillors Neal, Bryant

and Cartwright as members of the executive Cabinet being

respectively the Leader of the Council, portfolio holder for Finances

and portfolio holder for Housing.  This is due to their continued

failure, individually and jointly, over a period of at least one and a

half years between May 2005 and 15^th November 2006.  The

failure was to take any constructive action to protect the council

housing stock of SKDC, being the single greatest financial asset of

this Council.  Specifically, their failure to tackle the issue of the “loss”

to the Housing Revenue Account of this council of over £4 million

every single year which started from the 1^st April 2004 and still

continues.”

 

(6)  From Councillor Stephen O’Hare

 

“That this Council lacks confidence in Councillors Auger, Carpenter

and John Smith as members of the executive Cabinet.  This is due

to their continued joint failure, over a period of nearly one and a

half years between May 2005 and 15^th November 2006. The failure

was to take constructive action to protect the council housing stock

of SKDC, being the single greatest financial asset of this Council.

Specifically, their failure to ensure that their other Cabinet

Colleagues with more specific responsibilities for this issue tackled

The issue of the “loss” to the Housing Revenue Account of this

Council of over £4 million every single year which started from

1^st April 2004 and still continues.”

 

(1)               by Councillor Mike Taylor

 

DECISION:

 

This Council deplores the total disregard and disrespect the Minister for Communities and Local Government Yvette Cooper is showing, in failing to respond in any way to a legitimate request from this Council, which if implemented would be of great benefit to the rent paying residents of the district.

 

The motion was moved and seconded. The letter to the Minister for Communities and Local Government had been followed-up and a further copy had been sent, however, no response had been received. Reference was made to compliance with the council’s own customer service standards; government offices had similar standards enumerating the deadline by which correspondence should be dealt with.

 

The accuracy of the letter’s content was challenged and refuted. In summing up, Councillor Taylor emphasised that the motion was about money being taken from the residents of South Kesteven and being diverted to inner city areas. The motion was put to the vote and carried.

 

2)         by Councillor Terl Bryant

           

            DECISION:

 

This council requests that the constitution and accounts committee debates and determines what steps can be taken on dealing with members who fail to fulfil their role as councillors as clearly envisaged by the remuneration panel. The committee are reminded to be cognisant of the allocation of seats. Extenuating circumstances for non attendance such as Cllr Moore’s accident would be the prerogative of the Chairman of the Council.

 

The following motion had been submitted by Councillor Bryant:

 

This council requests that the constitution and accounts committee debates and determines what steps can be taken on dealing with members who fail to fulfil their role as councillors as clearly envisaged by the remuneration panel. To assist in the debate and provide some guidance to the committee the council recommends a minimum level of full attendance of 10 council run meetings a year before sanctions are imposed. The committee are reminded to be cognisant of the allocation of seats. Extenuating circumstances for non attendance such as Cllr Moore’s accident would be the prerogative of the Chairman of the Council.

 

The motion had been submitted to counter the perceived disparity in reward and a member’s commitment to their role. Members who attended very few meetings would receive the same remuneration as those with high attendance rates. The motion was seconded.

 

Members speaking against the motion challenged that the measure of a good councillor could be quantified through attendance at meetings alone. Ward members from rural areas felt that working with their local parish councillors was more rewarding. Concerns were also expressed over members who did attend meetings but did not engage in any debate. Opposition members often felt their role at meetings was limited because of pre-determination of issues.

 

The suggestion was made that attendance at meetings would improve if meetings were held at times that were more convenient for more members; this could also help encourage a wider range of people to stand for election as a local councillor. To this end, an amendment was moved that:

 

“The Engagement DSP should examine the issues of attendance at flexibility as part of their examination of the role and function of councillors in the 21^st century.”

 

The motion was seconded.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 9, as the meeting was nearing being in progress for three hours, the majority of members present voted for the meeting to continue.

 

The motion would allow the role of councillors engaged in activities in addition to those of the district council to be considered.

 

An attraction for staff within the authority was the lack of evening meetings. The suggestion that holding meetings in the evening would improve the attendance of councillors was negated by low attendances at Local Forums.

 

Several members stated that they were in favour of some method to assess a councillor’s effectiveness but the measure should not be based on attendance at meetings alone.

 

The mover of the original motion urged members to vote against the amendment. In submitting the motion he had spoken to a number of other councillors who suggested that attendance at meetings was the only conduit to provide a measure. The amended motion was voted upon and was lost.

 

Several members in favour of the general principle of the motion were concerned that the Constitution and Accounts Committee would not have the freedom to formulate their own set of recommendations. Councillor Bryant agreed to remove any recommendations to the Committee from his motion.

 

In summing up, Councillor Bryant reminded members that the full Council would be able to consider all recommendations made by the Constitution and Accounts Committee. The amended motion was put to the vote and carried.

 

3)         by Councillor Mrs Linda Neal, Leader of the Council

 

            DECISION:

 

This Council condemns the pre-emptive action of the ULNHS Trust in withdrawing emergency general surgery from Grantham hospital without any prior consultation with the local community. This Council calls on the Trust to explain why a business plan has not been put into place to recruit new consultants and develop a service that could attract and receive the number of patients needed to make this service viable.

 

Bearing in mind the importance of these services to a town that has been granted “Growth Status”, this Council demands the immediate re-instatement of these services and their full continuation whilst an independent, appropriately qualified, agency undertakes a review of the situation and reports accordingly.

 

In moving the motion, the Leader said that there were questions that she felt needed to be answered. She suggested that instead of the withdrawal of services, steps should have been taken to ensure their viability. The motion was seconded.

 

Many members of the Council expressed their concerns over the cuts and recounted their own experiences. Several members also stated that they did not believe that County Hospital in Lincoln would have the capacity to cope with patients being transported from Grantham. Several speakers urged for participation in national campaigns and agencies to mutually bolster support.

 

A statement supplied by Lincolnshire NHS Primary Care Trust was circulated to all members of the Council.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried; it received unanimous support.

 

4)         by Councillor Mrs Linda Neal, Leader of the Council

 

DECISION:

 

This Council resolves to:-

 

1.                  Support the Sustainable Communities Bill which will devolve more power from Whitehall to Councils and communities by

 

·        Giving councils more power over money spent by national agencies on local matters in their areas; and

·        Giving councils and their communities the power to drive government policy to assist them in promoting sustainable communities

 

And thereby help councils to protect the wellbeing of their communities and citizens

2.                  Note that the Bill is promoted in Parliament by a cross party group of MPs led by Nick Hurd MP, David Drew MP, and Julia Goldsworthy MP and is supported by 363 MPs, well over half the House of Commons

3.                  Write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government urging her to support the Bill and to inform the leading MPs of this decision.

 

The Leader moved the motion. The Sustainable Communities Bill embraced the concept of devolution and was based on the premise that decisions made at a local level would best address the needs of local people. The Bill would address problems including community decline including the loss of key services, and the lack of a coherent strategy and resources to address any decline. The motion was seconded. On being put to the vote this motion was carried with unanimous support.

 

5)         by Councillor Stephen O’Hare

 

            DECISION:

 

            To not support Councillor O’Hare’s motion.

 

            Councillor O’Hare submitted and moved the following motion:

 

That this Council has no confidence in councillors Neal, Bryant, and Cartwright as members of the executive Cabinet being respectively the Leader of the Council, the portfolio holder for Finances and portfolio holder for Housing. This is due to their continued failure, individually and jointly, over a period of at least one and a half years between May 2005 and 15^th November 2006. The failure was to take any constructive action to protect the council housing stock of SKDC, being the single greatest financial asset of this Council. Specifically, their failure to tackle the issue of the “loss” to the Housing Revenue Account of this council of over £4 million every single year which started from the 1^st April 2004 and still continues.

 

In speaking to the motion, the appointment of the Cabinet by the Leader was emphasised. He was concerned that the named Cabinet members had not taken action to address the loss of money to the government until the ballot to transfer the housing stock had failed. The motion was seconded.

 

Those speaking against the motion reminded members of the Council that all literature produced by the Council on Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) had been checked for accuracy and neutrality by independent parties; literature prepared by those opposed to LSVT had not.

 

In accordance with Part 4, article 14.10(a) of the Council’s Constitution it was proposed and seconded that the motion be withdrawn.

 

Members debated the propriety of withdrawing another member’s motion. Many felt that while this was an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, it was deemed to be against the spirit of the document. The motion to withdraw was withdrawn.

 

An amendment was moved and seconded that:

 

That this Council has no confidence in Councillor O’Hare due to his continued failure, over a period over the last one and a half years between May 2005 and 15^th November 2006. His failure was to take any constructive action to protect the council housing stock of SKDC, being the single greatest financial asset of this Council. Specifically, their failure to tackle the issue of the “loss” to the Housing Revenue Account of this council of over £4 million every single year which started on  the 1^st April 2004 and still continues.

 

Councillor O’Hare defended his position and challenged Cabinet members, who were paid decision-makers of the Council. In summing up, he suggested that the amendment had not been corroborated when moved.

 

The amendment was withdrawn and a vote on the original motion was taken.

 

A recorded vote on the motion was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.4. This was supported by more than ten members.

 

The vote on the motion was as follows.

 

FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
Councillor Bisnauthsing	Councillor Auger	Councillor Miss Channell
Councillor F Hurst	Councillor Bryant	Councillor Hewerdine
Councillor J Hurst	Councillor Mrs Cartwright	Councillor A Williams
Councillor Joynson	Councillor Exton
Councillor O’Hare	Councillor Fines
Councillor Wood	Councillor Fisher
	Councillor Helyar
	Councillor Moore
	Councillor Mrs Neal
	Councillor Parkin
	Councillor Pease
	Councillor Radley
	Councillor Smith
	Councillor Mrs Smith
	Councillor Stokes
	Councillor G Taylor
	Councillor M Taylor
	Councillor Thompson
	Councillor Turner
	Councillor Webster
	Councillor M Williams
6	20	3

 

The motion was defeated.

 

6)                 by Councillor Stephen O’Hare

 

DECISION:

 

To not support Councillor O’Hare’s motion.

 

Councillor O’Hare submitted the following motion:

 

That this Council lacks confidence inn Councillors Auger, Carpenter and John Smith as members of the executive Cabinet. This is due to their continued joint failure, over a period of nearly one and a half years between May 2005 and 15^th November 2006. the failure was to take constructive action to protect the council housing stock of SKDC, being the single greatest financial asset of this Council. Specifically, their failure to ensure that their other Cabinet Colleagues with more specific responsibilities for this issue tackled the issue of the “loss” to the Housing Revenue Account of this Council of over £4 million every single year which started from 1^st April 2004 and still continues.

 

Speaking for the motion, the mover stated that the motion differed from his first motion because the Cabinet members lacked direct responsibility within the LSVT process. The motion was seconded.

 

Speaking against the motion, the following comment was made: paperwork generated throughout the LSVT process shows that Cabinet members took steps to mitigate costs to the Council.

 

In accordance with Part 4, 14.10(d), it was moved and seconded that “the question be now put”. The proposition was passed and the motion duly voted upon and lost.