So, once again I am a little confused.Lets recap: This is how I think things happened from my memory/notes. The offical minutes refer to a document distributed by the Mayor prior to the meeting, the content of which is not on the public record.
In order to make the Town Council "more dynamic" it was agreed that the committee structure should be re-organised.
In order to make the Town Council "more dynamic" it was agreed that the committee structure should be re-organised.
If you have sat in on some committee meetings then you will have noticed that there is often little in-depth discussion, the first idea tabled is grabbed and adopted, and little thought is given to possible wider implications. Very rarely is anything referred for consultation to possible outside experts, or interested specialist groups. Everything seems to be handled "in-house" whether the expertise is available or not. Due to the size of the Committees then anything decided cannot be subsequently overturned at full Council (unless the Committee members have changed their minds).
The previously agreed changes:
The previously agreed changes:
- Councillors would only be allowed to sit on 2 committees. (Except CEST)
- They could apply to sit on a committee if they had relevant knowledge and experience.
- In the event that some committees were over-subscribed Councillors may not get their first or second choice. The Mayor would make the final decision of who sat on each committee.
- The size of the committees would be reduced so that they did not hold a majority. (i.e. If the Council has 12 members each committee would have 5 or less)
These changes were to have come into force after the Annual Meeting of the Town Council, but after the motion had been carried, four or more Councillors wrote to the Town Clerk (I guess using standing order item 36a) asking for the motion to be put aside and re-discussed.
This was possibly because (and I'm only guessing) that, the Councillors most likely to be the most "appropriate" for a committee, given their relevant knowledge and understanding are those with "Interest", (As in declaration of interest) which could ultimately lead to a conflict of interest. At least three of the Councillors who supported the letter to dismiss, have the least numbers of "declarations".
So next Monday the Council will re assess the structural changes and vote whether to change standing order 36a so that the majority of Councillors have to object before a motion can be struck down.
I guess the reason the bar was originally set so low was to allow Councillors who may have felt "railroaded" or have changed their mind because they were misled or additional information came to light after the vote. Also frequently one or more Councillors are absent from the main meeting.
To set the bar too high could be a retrograde step, as it would then be virtually impossible for any decision to be challenged.
Posts
11 comments:
I’m sorry . . . this analysis is spurious nonsense. Are you suggesting, for example, that 25% of the members of the House of Commons should be able to rescind an Act of Parliament? If a majority is required to pass a motion, why can it be rescinded by a minority?
I agree that I probably spout spurious nonsense, but I think (hope) that Acts of Parliament are given a little more consideration than some of the motions set down by the Town Council. Also the Town Council have no House of Lords, who for all their faults do give acts further consideration.
Anyway it doesn't matter what I think. I don't get a vote. It is up to the Town Council to decide. I can however, still express an opinion here.
to me it looks nothing short of an attempt to hijack committees by councillors with conflicting interests
If I understand this correctly, the issue is whether 'some' councillors should be able to 'call in' a decision for reconsideration. It is essential that this can be done as otherwise if there is public outrage after a decision, the Council is stuck with this situation. If the Council wants to have a regard for the people of Tenbury, then the facilty to 'call in' decisions must not only exist, it must also not require a massive number of councillors to 'call in' the decision; it's important to remember that the issue would then be redebated, so clearly at that stage the majority view would prevail.
What I'm wondering is how can the mayor appoint councillors to committees when so many of them have interests in the things that they would be discussing? Where is the impartiality?
It keeps being said that councillors often have a conflict of interest. It would be helpful if someone could actually provide a concrete example.
I'm not sure anyone has said that there is a conflict of interest only the potential. In a small town, there will always be an overlap of the same people in different organisations. This is both good and potentially bad. Good because they have first hand experience of the problems. Who better for instance to know the short comings of the Regal, than people who are part of the Operatic and Drama groups. Potentially bad because they could (could) bring undue influence to discussions relating to the expenditure in that area. Councillors have "interest" in the Bowling Club, the Rugby Club, TADS, TAOS, etc. all of which use facilities provided by the Council. Whilst the Committees have a mix of Councillors, then there is balance, but if the Committees are much smaller (which in itself is probably a good idea) then the balance could tilt in favour of the interested by virtue of the criteria for selection. Provided thorough consideration was given to the motions proposed by the Committees was undertaken when before the full Council then the balance would be restored.
There has been an imbalance, of funding for some facilities and services above others, and the Mayor has undertaken to get the Council to review all the budgets before the next precept.
Any Councillor with a prejudicial interest cannot take part in the debate and must leave the meeting while that item is being discussed. For example, if the Football Club wanted to build a stadium on the Palmers, and if Town Council was debating the issue, and if one of the Councillors was part of the football club, then he would not be able to take part in the debate. This does sometimes mean that the debate is less well informed than could be the case.
However, the Councillor in question can address the Council during the public session before the meeting (as could other members of the football club) so important information can still be given to other Councillors, even by the prejudiced Councillor.
This is one example of why 'calling in' can be important. The remaining Councillors may make a decision on the basis of what is presented at the meeting. But it may be found that the decision was arrived at without some important information. So the decision needs to be reconsidered in the light of this new information. Of course, the original decision may still be upheld.
The reductio ad absurdum of this position is that no one is allowed to say anything about anything because, ultimately, we are all involved in everything. “No man is an island . . .” (Donne). The fact is that most of the so-called ‘declarations of interest’ made at council meetings are nothing of the sort. When a councillor ‘declares’ membership of MHDC as an ‘interest’ what, in reality, does that mean? What possible personal gain could s/he be declaring? Membership of the Bowls Club or the TAOS might be slightly different, but please credit Joe Public with some intelligence. Most of us can smell self-interest a mile off!
An 'interest' isn't that simple! Cllrs can declare either a 'personal' or a 'prejudicial' interest, so that deals with the issue of merely having 'an interest' (such as taking the dog for a walk on the Burgage) as against a 'prejudicial interest' - such as if you were chairman of the football club and the club had already voted for building a stadium on the Palmers - as the decision has already been made (by the club) and as the chairman must support the club's decision, then he would be 'prejudiced' if Town Council was subsequently to discuss the issue.
Post a Comment