Agenda item

This report suggests amendments to the Constitution to limit the duration of Council meetings.

This item of business was included on the agenda for the Council meeting held on 8 October 2020. At that meeting the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.  As the proposals recommend changes to the Council Rules relating to the duration of Council meetings, the matter was taken forward without discussion for debate at this Council meeting, in accordance with Council Rule 16.2.

Discussion:

This report proposed some suggested amendments to the Constitution to limit the duration of Council meetings. The item of business had been included on the agenda for the Council meeting held on 8 October 2020. At that meeting the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Turpin, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jarrett had proposed the recommendations set out in the report. As the proposals recommended changes to the Council Rules relating to the duration of Council meetings, the matter had been taken forward without discussion for debate at this Council meeting, in accordance with Council Rule 16.2.

The report set out a number of options under consideration in order to limit the duration of Council meetings. These included a guillotine provision in the Constitution for bringing proceedings to a close at a given time; re-arranging the agenda; limiting reports that are for noting or limit speakers on such items; Limiting the number of reports for decision; Limiting the time of debating reports; Reducing the time for questions; Limiting the number of motions debated at a meeting and; limiting the time for motions to be debated.

The report recommended that one of these options, in relation limiting the number of motions, be agreed by the Council, as set out in the recommendation.

The Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Rupert Turpin, supported by Councillor Etheridge, proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Mahil, proposed the following amendment:

“Delete 10.1 and 10.2 and replace with:

10.1. Council notes that the length of meeting and the number of motions do not have a direct correlation with many meetings having more than one motion from a political group finishing by 23:00.  This can be seen in the analysis table from 2010 to 2020:

*Meeting started slightly later at 19:15

__ - meetings that finished prior to 23:00 despite also seeing more than one motion per group/independent

10.2 Council further notes the specific meeting referenced in 4.10 was the first full online council meeting which included a break at the request of the mayor and a prolonged discussion following an offensive comment which was eventually withdrawn during the meeting. Neither of these are commonplace in Medway Council meetings.

10.3 Council agrees to take no further action.”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

(Councillors Adeoye, Browne, Curry, Johnson, Khan, Mahil, Maple, Murray, Paterson and Andy Stamp requested that their votes in favour of the amendment be recorded in accordance with Council Rule 12.6.)

Decision

i)               The Council agreed to amend the Constitution to limit the duration of Council meetings, by limiting the number of motions per formally constituted Political Group and each Independent Member (a Councillor who is not a member of Political Group) to one per Council meeting, as set out in the tracked amendments to the Constitution at Appendix 1 to the report.

ii)              The Council asked the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary amendments to the Constitution.

Councillors Adeoye, Browne, Curry, Johnson, Khan, Mahil, Maple, Murray, Paterson and Andy Stamp requested that their votes against the decision be recorded in accordance with Council Rule 12.6.