The headline clue that nothing has changed at Argyll and Bute Council is that the new political management arrangements to be proposed to tomorrow’s council meeting, 23rd January, carry a clause saying that getting a decision of any of new proposed top level committees reconsidered – requires a request from 9 councillors.
The minority SNP opposition group in a 36 member chamber just happens to have – 8 members.
This is a flagrant abuse of dem0cracy, where even a mini-minority is given no room to challenge the might of a fairly brute majority in a council not renowned for its acuity or its integrity.
The rest of the detail to go to a a certain supporting vote tomorrow sees a flowering – of committees.
There is no austerity here as what is currently 11 council meetings a year become an annual jubilee dinner menu of:
- 6 council meetings
- 6 Policy and Resources Committee meetings
- 4 Community Services Committee meetings
- 4 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee meetings.
The three new committees listed below the council itself above, are all executive committees.
Oh and the side menu features the current suite of supplementary committees – which are to continue as well:
- the Audit Committee
- the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee
- the Scrutiny Committee
- and the four Area Committees.
At present, Argyll and Bute Council has 11 ordinary council meetings each year.
The proposals are not costed. All that is available is an ‘indicative cost’ estimating the cost at a total of £250,000 per annum: £200, 000 for costs associated with meetings; and an additional £50,000 ‘resource’ to be allocated to the Monitoring Officer – who is the Executive Director for Customer Services who prepared the proposal to which the Short Life Working Group has put its name.
The central problem here is best value. This is not an able council – as has been evidenced in all the many varieties of coalition administration it has experienced over the past decade at least.
However logical a proposed management structure – and this officer designed proposal has its theoretical merits [which do not include its cost] – it proposes to build and pay for a structural 4×4 to be driven by those accustomed only to automatic transmission.
The unaccustomed amount of work councillors will have to try to do can only, in the context of this council, lead to even greater dependency on officers.
Access and participation
A councillor who is not a member could only speak and vote at an Executive Committee if it was considering a matter that exclusively affected their own ward.
’1.1 Any Councillor may be present at a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee of which the Councillor is not a Member. The Councillor will be entitled to take part in the discussions generally, without giving notice, but is allowed to speak and vote only on any particular issue affecting the Members’ Ward which is delegated to the Committee or sub-committee, provided written notification is given to the Executive Director of Customer Services and received by him/her not later than 24 hours prior to the time at which the meeting is scheduled to commence. The Chairman will decide whether, in the circumstances of any matter, the provisions of this Standing Order will apply to the Member who has given notice, and the Chairman’s ruling, which will be given as soon as possible after the start of the meeting, will be final.‘
This clause offers limited participation in Executive meetings to councillors outside their membership – but this is only meaningful if the councillor requesting this access is allowed a vote. Without a vote, a councillor so permitted to attend and speak cannot, as we understand it, put an amendment to the meeting.
We emphasised the passage in the proposed clause above to illustrate, from the council minute below, how the current Council Leader, Dick Walsh, has abused this procedure in the past.
‘Executive Committee 15 December 2011
‘Extract from Minute
‘The Chair intimated that Councillor James Robb, who was not a member of the Executive, had notified him that he wished, in terms of Standing Order 22.1, to speak and vote on item 27 of this Minute. The Chair ruled that he would exercise his discretion to allow him to speak on the following item of business but not to vote.
Councillor James Robb left the meeting.’
[Editor's note: The reason for the councillor's departure after the ruling was eventually given was that, without a vote, he could not put down an amendment, which was the only way he could hope to get any leverage on the issue.]
What this minute does not record is that the Chair at that meeting, Councillor Walsh, did not rule ‘as soon as possible’ but kept the Councillor requesting access waiting for between two and three hours until the item in question was actually reached, before ruling as recorded above.
Since Councillor Robb had been the victim of this characteristically juvenile abuse of procedure in December 2011 and the same sort of procedure is proposed for reintroduction, we asked the councillor for his views on what is to be proposed tomorrow.
He said: ‘The Council is proposing to spend an estimated quarter of a million pounds extra each year on meetings because a few council meetings have run past 5.00pm. Those overruns could have been avoided with better management of the agenda and conduct of the meeting.
‘If the proposals are adopted this will result in further cuts to front line services.
‘Currently all council decisions, except the budget cuts delegated to officers, are taken by all 36 councillors when the Council meets 11 times per year. The proposal is to create three additional Executive Committees that could have just 12 councillors taking critical decisions.
Councillors who want to be fully involved in all council matters and to represent their communities properly will support retaining and enhancing the current inclusive and accountable arrangements. Those that don’t will support the re-introduction of divisive and expensive Executive Committees.’
