To provide an opportunity for visiting members to speak in relation to the review of the constitution.
Minutes:
Councillor J Bratherton queried the provision in the draft constitution relating to attendance by members at the meeting of a body of which they were not appointed members, and in particular the need for prior agreement by the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman where the meeting was considering private and confidential business. Bevan Brittan advised that this type of provision was included in many councils’ constitutions and had been agreed by the Constitution Sub-Committee. Councillor Hogben suggested that the wording of the provision could be amended to make it clear that members could attend any meeting during the consideration of Part 1 business. It was agreed that the officers in consultation with the Chairman would amend the wording as appropriate.
Councillor Bratherton also questioned the provision relating to Notices of Motion at Council meetings and felt that the proposer of the motion should have an opportunity to introduce it. The officers advised that it was appropriate for the proposer and seconder of the motion to speak on the motion at the meeting of the decision-making body to which the motion had been referred. This would enable a report on the matter to be prepared for that meeting and for an informed debate to take place.
Councillor R Fletcher sought an assurance that the new constitution would be appropriate for Cheshire East and would not simply reflect the practices adopted by other councils. The officers responded that Bevan Brittan had a considerable amount of experience of reviewing the constitutions of councils across the country and were bringing that depth of knowledge and experience to this process.
Councillor Fletcher also felt that the constitution should provide that reserved matters for large planning applications should be referred to the relevant planning committee and not be decided by officers. The officers replied that the provisions in question had been in place for the last 2-3 years and appeared to be working well.
Councillor S Pochin suggested that the standards procedure should be amended to provide that where a complaint was made against a member, there should be a right of appeal against the decision of the Monitoring Officer to allow the complaint to progress, or to decide to the contrary. It was suggested by Councillor Pochin that, in such circumstances, the Monitoring Officer would have a conflict of interest. Bevan Brittan responded that such a decision of the Monitoring Officer related to a preliminary stage of the process and that if a complaint were to proceed to a later stage there would be a facility for a member to have a full hearing. The Monitoring Officer had a statutory duty to determine the matter in consultation with the Independent Person and was independent of the Council’s leadership.
Councillor B Walmsley referred to that part of the Local Ward Member Protocol relating to the need to keep ward members informed. She suggested that it would be helpful if this included a hyperlink to the definition of the term ‘exempt information’ would give reassurance to Members. It was agreed that such a hyperlink could be included.
Councillor Pochin questioned the recommendation to reduce the Forward Plan from a four month period to one month given that this was a strategic document which should cover a longer period. The officers responded that Bevan Brittan had suggested the change to reflect the changed legal position which now required that key decisions had to be published for a 28 day period. Councillor H Gaddum felt that the reduced period would be unduly restrictive. It was agreed that the wording would be changed to provide that the Forward Plan would cover a ‘minimum’ period of one month. This would enable items to be added to the Forward Plan over a longer period as happened now.