Agenda item

To consider potential amendments to the Council’s Constitution.

The proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution were presented by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing.

Members considered each amendment proposed within the report individually.

Suggested amendment – Removal of the Leader of the Council

Article 7.3 (Leader) of the Council’s Constitution stated that:

“The Leader will be a Councillor elected to the position of Leader by Full Council and will hold the office for a four-year term, unless:

i)               They resign from office,

ii)              They are no longer a Councillor,

iii)            Full Council passes a resolution to remove the Leader from office”

It was proposed that paragraph iii) be amended to read: “A Notice of Motion is submitted and Full Council passes a resolution to remove the Leader from office”.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       A Member expressed their view that SKDC would be constitutionally restraining itself by endorsing the amendment. They added that reactionary amendments were bad practice, especially when mechanisms already existed within the constitution.

-       It was suggested that the mechanism for removal of the Leader should be via an extraordinary meeting. This would allow time for reflection, calmness and cases to be put forward on all sides. Without this, it was suggested that effectively no-confidence votes could be held without prior notice given. This could allow for opportunism depending on the composition of the attendees on that particular day.

Following discussions it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to formally recommend the above amendment to Full Council.

Suggested amendment – Amendments to motions

Paragraphs 14.6 – 14.12 of Council Procedure Rules set out the procedures associated with amendments to motions. Paragraph 14.6 of Council Procedure Rules stated the following:

“An amendment to a motion must be relevant to the motion and will either be:

(a) To refer the matter to an appropriate body or individual for consideration (b) To leave out words

(c) To leave out words and insert or add others

(d) To insert or add words

As long as the effect of (b) to (d) does not negate the motion.”

It was proposed that the word ‘original’ be added prior to the word ‘motion’ on two occasions so that paragraph 14.6 read:

“An amendment to a motion must be relevant to the original motion and will either be:

(a) To refer the matter to an appropriate body or individual for consideration (b) To leave out words

(c) To leave out words and insert or add others

(d) To insert or add words

As long as the effect of (b) to (d) does not negate the original motion.”

Following discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       A Member expressed their view that the effect of an amendment not being able to negate the original motion contradicts the fundamental purpose of an amendment.

-       The Monitoring Officer confirmed that a substantive motion would not constitute an original motion within the context of the proposed constitutional amendment.

-       It was noted that the interpretation of whether an amendment had negated the original motion resided with the Chairman of the committee.

-       A Member noted amendments to be a guise to chip away at a motion rather than voting against it.

-       It was confirmed that Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) had a convention that amendments were not raised on the day of the relevant meeting. It was suggested that a similar amendment could be adopted by SKDC, negating the need for the suggested constitutional amendment.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded and AGREED to formally recommend the above amendment to Full Council.

Councillor Rahman left the Chamber.

Suggested amendment - Notice for amendments

It was proposed that a new paragraph 14.7 be added to the Council Procedure Rules as follows:

“Notice of any significant amendment to any motion must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by 5pm the day before the meeting and will be circulated to all Members of the Council. The Chairman, or Vice-Chairman in their absence, will determine what constitutes a significant amendment.”

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       It was suggested that this would strongarm Members to read and consider motions more thoroughly prior to meetings.

-       Consideration was given to the subjective nature of the phrase ‘significant amendment’ and the difficult position that this would put the Chairman in who would open themselves to allegations of partisanship when interpreting this.

-       It was queried how an inexperienced Member would be able to know if their amendment was significant. The Member also noted that part of the principle of debate was to persuade colleagues and potentially establish middle-ground. A fluid amendments process was key to enabling this.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing withdrew this element of the report. However, he urged Members to operate within the spirit of giving advanced warning for amendments. A Member suggested cross-party collaboration on establishing the appropriate wording for the amendment.