Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED That the updates outlined in the report be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That one-third of attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings, and that if Democratic Services are not notified within the 48 hours’ notice period, it can be assumed that the Member will be attending remotely. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
RESOLVED That the Councillor Support Self-Assessment Framework be noted and that a response to the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) was not necessary.
RESOLVED (a) That the efforts that have been made to improve accessibility to signing an electronic petition and the ongoing work to improve the petition website, be noted. (b) That the following changes regarding thresholds be recommended to Council: (i) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (ii) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (iii)That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and (iv)That a threshold of 100 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Programme/Timetable for 2023-24 be approved.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Moved by Councillor Joshua Beynon; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 July 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the updates outlined in the report be noted.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and outlined the progress on actions from the 27 June 2022 and 10 July 2023 meetings, which included remuneration for the Presiding Member, numbers of visitors to the Annual Reports page, publishing mandatory training attendance details and Training and Development. Councillor Di Clements thanked the Head of Democratic Services for the information and stated that it was helpful. Councillor Joshua Beynon agreed. The Committee unanimously noted the report. RESOLVED That the updates outlined in the report be noted.
The Electoral Services Manager presented the report and provided information on voter ID, outlined what the Council was doing to promote electoral voting, as well as other important changes included in the Elections Act 2022 in addition to voter ID. In considering the report, the following key points were made: · Councillor Jacob Williams stated that voter ID was a good idea and that the process was simple. He sought clarification in regards to proxy voters and whether the person who wanted the proxy vote was required to prove their ID during their application. In response, the Electoral Services Manager stated that currently it was not a requirement, but moving forward as the applications process was renewed, proxy vote and postal vote applications would be subject to identity checks. Councillor Williams sought further clarification as to how the verification would take place. The Electoral Services Manager explained that the online portal would carry out the identification check using records held with the Department of Works and Pensions. If the check failed, the person would be asked to provide identification documents. Councillor Williams then questioned ID being shown at the polling stations, to which the Electoral Services Manager stated that everyone would have to show ID in order to be issued with a ballot paper. · The Electoral Services Manager then wished to highlight that the Team had not issued many voter ID certificates, but explained that it was an easy process. She stated that the portal had previously been overwhelmed with online traffic, but stated that checks were being done to ensure that that situation would not occur again. · Councillor Di Clements stated that she was mindful of older people who may not have driver’s licences or passports, and sought clarification as to whether there would be a paper version of the application as opposed to the online application. The Electoral Services Manager confirmed that there was a paper version of the application and that they would be uploaded onto the portal by the Electoral Services Team. She highlighted that three paper applications had been uploaded to date, but stated that the problem was that a photograph, similar to passport standard, was still required. She highlighted that the Team would be able to offer the service of taking the picture, but explained that it would add an additional layer to the process and that it could create difficulty in regards to capacity. · Councillor Clements highlighted that it would be best for people to submit their forms in as early as possible. The Electoral Services Manager agreed but stated that people needed know in advance of polling day and explained that posters were already on show in various areas, such as surgery and hospital waiting areas. · Councillor Williams sought clarification in regards to how the requirement for voter ID would affect someone who had routinely had a postal vote. The Electoral Services Manager stated that security measures were already in place for postal votes. She explained that when a postal vote was up for renewal, the person applying would be asked instead to apply via the new application process, which would be subject to identification checks. At the voting stage, the usual security statements would be required; namely date of birth and signature. · Councillor Elwyn Morse stated that he was pleased to see the range of identification methods. He then sought clarification in regards to the limit on proxy voters for one person. In response, the Electoral Services Manager stated that the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy, would be limited to four, of which no more than two could be domestic electors (i.e. an elector that was either an overseas elector or a service voter). The Committee unanimously noted the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That one-third of attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings, and that if Democratic Services are not notified within the 48 hours’ notice period, it can be assumed that the Member will be attending remotely. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that it asked Members to review their earlier decision on whether to impose a threshold on in-person attendees required for multi-location meetings, as well as receive an update on attendance details of in person compared to remote meeting attendance. She highlighted that the Committee previously recommended to Council that the threshold of in person attendees required for a multi-location meeting be at the discretion of the Chair, and that it be reviewed in six months’ time, where Council noted the review at its meeting in March 2023. The Head of Democratic Services explained that Members were not letting Democratic Services know in advance how they wished to attend a meeting. She stated that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Committees, who met regularly at the end of each cycle, suggested that Members gave at least 48 hours’ notice to Democratic Services of their intention of how to attend the meeting. Despite regular follow-ups, however, Democratic Services still did not receive that information. She then outlined the following options for the Committee to consider: (a) to impose a threshold for in person attendees required for a Multi-location meeting to be held, such as one-third; (b) to impose a time-limit for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings, such as 48 hours’ notice; or (c) to retain the status quo where the matter is at the discretion of the Chair in consultation with the Head of Democratic Services. In considering the report, the following key points were made: · Councillor Joshua Beynon accepted that matters could arise last minute, but highlighted that the lack of response or clear indication from Members was an issue that would cause a waste of resources in relation to the organisation of hybrid meetings. He suggested that having a combination of both (a) and (b) would be a sensible way forward. · Councillor Di Clements agreed and stated that if Members did not respond in a timely fashion, Democratic Services should be allowed to assume that Members would attend remotely. She stated that it was not fair on Officers to make last minute adjustments before a meeting. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved Recommendations (a) and (b) as outlined in the report; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. Councillor Clements wished to include the following in Recommendation (b): ‘…and that if Democratic Services are not notified within the 48 hours’ notice period, it can be assumed that the Member will be attending remotely.’ • Councillor Jacob Williams stated that he would have supported the status quo as it worked well in the past. He believed that this topic would benefit from a discussion at full Council. He did, however, agree with the additional wording from Councillor Clements. • Councillor Clements believed that the trial of a different approach would be beneficial, and that the system needed to be as efficient as possible to ensure that Officers were able to act sufficiently. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Joshua Beynon, Di Clements, Elwyn Morse and Jacob Williams [4] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That one-third of attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings, and that if Democratic Services are not notified within the 48 hours’ notice period, it can be assumed that the Member will be attending remotely. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Councillor Support Self-Assessment Framework be noted and that a response to the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) was not necessary.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that Members needed to consider the draft Councillor Support Self-Assessment Framework and whether to provide any response to feedback to the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA). She stated that the consultation document was attached at Appendix 1, and highlighted that one response had been received from a Member but no comments were provided. She also stated that the Framework (Appendix 1) would be a document that the Committee could periodically review to ensure that sufficient support was provided for Members to deliver the outcomes needed by their communities. In considering the report, the following key point was made: · Councillor Di Clements stated that she was content with not sending a response as there was sufficient information in the Framework, and that she would be happy to wait for the WLGA to come back with a completed Framework. · The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the intention was to bring the report back when the Framework had been finalised. Moved by Councillor Di Clements; Seconded by Councillor Joshua Beynon. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Councillor Support Self-Assessment Framework be noted and that a response to the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) was not necessary.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the efforts that have been made to improve accessibility to signing an electronic petition and the ongoing work to improve the petition website, be noted. (b) That the following changes regarding thresholds be recommended to Council: (i) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (ii) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (iii)That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and (iv)That a threshold of 100 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
The Head of Democratic Services presented the report and stated that the Authority had a duty to make and publish a petition scheme setting out how it intended to handle and respond to petitions, including electronic petitions. She highlighted that the Authority was required to keep its Petition Scheme under review from time to time, and if the Council considered it appropriate, to revise the scheme. The Head of Democratic Services explained that since the introduction of the electronic petition scheme, three petitions had been received, two of which had been completed and one was currently due to end in October. She also referred to the feedback received from Petition Organisers, in respect of their experiences in submitting an electronic petition, as outlined in the report. She then highlighted the options available for consideration by the Committee, in relation to threshold levels, eligibility criteria and length of time for gathering signatures, with the comparative data outlined in the report. In considering the report, the following key points were made: · Councillor Joshua Beynon suggested the establishment of a politically balanced Petitions Committee, which would decide where a petition would go for a response, whether that be a Cabinet Member or an Overview and Security Committee. He stated that the comparative data outlined in the report did not necessarily show a particular pattern to follow. · Councillor Jacob Williams stated that a Petitions Committee would add a layer of bureaucracy, as well as the need for a threshold and time limit regardless. He stated that Pembrokeshire had more stringent thresholds compared to other Local Authorities, and suggested that they be lowered, with no threshold for Director or Head of Service responses. · The Head of Democratic Services stated that research had indicated that no other Local Authorities had such a Committee. · Councillor Elwyn Morse sought clarification as to how many petitions had failed due to the threshold numbers. The Head of Democratic Services stated that since the scheme, there had only been four petitions, one of which had been rejected since it was not in the remit of the Council. She confirmed that no petitions had failed in relation to the threshold numbers. · Councillor Di Clements agreed that the threshold figures for full Council and Overview and Scrutiny Committees were too high. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation with the addition of the below: (a) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (b) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (c) That a threshold of 250 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; Seconded by Councillor Joshua Beynon. • Councillor Williams agreed with Councillor Clements’ Proposal, but suggested that the threshold for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee be 100 signatures, which was said to be the same as five other Local Authorities outlined within the comparative data. He highlighted that the public did not require a threshold to submit a question to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Councillor Williams then sought clarification in regards to the reference to ‘Cabinet Member’ in the comparative data, and what that would result in in terms of the threshold. The Head of Democratic Services explained that this was in regards to receiving a reply from the relevant Cabinet Member. Councillor Williams stated that he believed the public would expect a response at least from Cabinet Members, Directors and Heads of Service and would therefore support either no or a very low threshold for such a response. Councillor Clements agreed with Councillor Williams and wished to incorporate the following: (iii) That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (iv) That a threshold of 100 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond. Councillor Beynon, as the Seconder, agreed. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Joshua Beynon, Di Clements, Elwyn Morse and Jacob Williams [4] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the efforts that have been made to improve accessibility to signing an electronic petition and the ongoing work to improve the petition website, be noted. (b) That the following changes regarding thresholds be recommended to Council: (i) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (ii) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (iii)That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and (iv)That a threshold of 100 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the Decision would be reported back to Council for discussion.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Programme/Timetable for 2023-24 be approved.
The Chair presented the Committee’s Forward Work Programme for 2023-24. Moved by Councillor Joshua Beynon; Seconded by Councillor Elwyn Morse. • Councillor Di Clements sought clarification in regards to the A Councillor Support Self-Assessment Framework item, and when that would be brought back to the Committee as a final version. In response, the Head of Democratic Services stated that the report would hopefully be ready for the February 2024 meeting. • Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification in regards to the Co-opted Members item listed for February 2024. The Head of Democratic Services explained that it related to the number of days available to claim by the Chairs of the Governance and Audit Committee and the Standards Committee, as they had extra responsibilities under the Local Government Elections Act. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Joshua Beynon, Di Clements, Elwyn Morse and Jacob Williams [4] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Democratic Services Committee Programme/Timetable for 2023-24 be approved.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.