Decision
Analysis
outcome: The Committee agreed in principle to support the requirement of consent from a majority of group leaders and requested redrafted proposals to be circulated for comment before presentation to Council. They also agreed to not allow defamatory or unlawful wording in motions or amendments.
summary: The decision at stake involves practical changes to assist with the operation of the Council, including requiring consent from a majority of group leaders for certain proposals and not allowing defamatory or unlawful wording in motions or amendments.
topline: The Policy and Resources Committee has decided to require consent from a majority of group leaders for proposals and not allow defamatory or unlawful wording in motions or amendments.
reason_contentious: This issue may be contentious as it involves changing the process for proposing and approving motions, potentially impacting the ability of certain groups to push forward their agenda.
affected_stakeholders: ["Policy and Resources Committee", "Group Leaders", "Council Members"]
contentiousness_score: 6
political_party_relevance: There are implications of political influence as the decision involves group leaders and potentially impacts the power dynamics within the Council.
URL: https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=151
Decision Maker: Policy and Resources Committee, Full Council
Outcome:
Is Key Decision?: No
Is Callable In?: No
Purpose: The constitution currently requires all group leaders to consent to certain decisions being made.
Content: The Chair presented the report, confirming in his view the proposals included a number of practical changes to assist with the operation of the Council. He invited members to debate each proposal in turn. Concern was raised with the proposals where group leader consent was required, as if one group had a majority on the Council, it would only require that group leader to agree in order for the proposal to proceed. The Committee agreed in principle to support that consent is required from a majority of group leaders representing the majority of members but requested that officers re-draft proposals to be circulated to the group leaders for comment before presentation to Council on 25 February 2025. Turning to the proposal to not allow motions or amendments that included defamatory or unlawful wording, it was noted that there could be opportunity for officers to suggest to the proposer amendments to the wording which would make it acceptable. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this is what would happen in practice and the Committee agreed for this to be included in the re-drafted proposals to be presented to Council. The Committee considered the situation where a request may be received to postpone a meeting as one group could not attend, even though the meeting may still be quorate. It was agreed to have a discussion on this matter outside of the committee. The Committee RESOLVED to: Request that the Monitoring Officer and Interim Committee and Elections Manager amend Appendix 1 in accordance with the debate, and re-circulate this to Group Leaders for consideration prior to submission to Council for approval.
Date of Decision: January 27, 2025