Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
it was resolved that the role of Presiding Member should remain unremunerated and that the matter be considered as part of the review of the Constitution. He highlighted that throughout the whole of the review and at the last Constitutional Review Committee meeting, it was resolved that the principle that the post be remunerated be supported, and that there was no question that the post should be abolished. He accepted that the suggestion of abolishing the role was mentioned at the last Committee meeting, however, the resolution made at that meeting brought an end to that suggestion. He believed that the option to abolish the role, as brought to Council, was not a valid option and stated that he agreed with Councillor Miller’s Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he had consistently been against the Presiding Member role being remunerated, and clarified that the option he suggested at the last meeting of the Constitutional Review Committee, was to merge the roles of the Chair of Council and the Presiding Member, and not to abolish. He stated that he would vote against Councillor Miller’s Motion as he believed that it was not financially the right option. • Councillor David Howlett stated that he did not support Councillor Miller’s Motion. • The Head of Law and Governance asked Councillor Miller if he was prepared to withdraw point (b) of his Motion as she, nor the Head of Democratic Services, could comply. She stated that there would be a summary of the debate in the report, and it would have to be open to Council to make a decision. Councillor Miller stated that he would consider withdrawing. Councillor Mike Stoddart did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance and believed that the Committee could put forward any recommendation to Council that was relevant to the issue. He suggested that point (b) be reworded as follows: (b) That the Committee resolve that the options for financing the post be restricted to the four original options without the fifth option of combining the roles. Councillor Miller did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance, but stated that he would be happy to find an accommodation. He objected to the abolishment of the role and would be against a debate of the matter at full Council. Councillor Miller then Moved the following: (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post and condemn efforts lead by the Independent Political Group to surreptitiously do so. • The Head of Law and Governance asked whether the first part of the above Motion could be Moved instead, as if it was submitted as a Notice of Motion, it would be ruled out as vexatious. Councillor Miller stated that he would withdraw the amended Motion. • Councillor Williams highlighted that if Councillor Miller’s Motion was accepted first by the Committee and subsequently by Council, it would require a consequential amendment to the Constitution, as Cabinet would have to be reduced by one. Councillor Miller then confirmed his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level (authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales) of a Scrutiny Committee Chair, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with the point made by Councillor Williams and believed that the number of Cabinet Members posts should be reduced from ten to nine in order to accommodate remunerating the Presiding Member post with a Cabinet SRA. • Councillor Dennison sought clarification from Members as to whether any of the alternative options outlined in the report were to be considered. • Councillor Miller stated that he did not agree with any of the other options and stated that his preference was the outlined Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he assumed that the other options would still be outlined for Council to discuss, as the Motion was simply the recommendation of the Committee. Councillor Miller made a final change to his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, Paul Miller, Mike Stoddart and Jacob Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Aled Thomas, David Howlett, Vanessa Thomas, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That it be confirmed to Council the Constitutional Review Committee’s absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post.
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the current Policy, as adopted by Council on 19th May 2005 that the policy would confer no further titles of Honorary Alderman, remain in place.
The following declaration of interest was made: Agenda Item 4 – Presiding Member Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being the current Vice-Chair of Council.
Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman; Seconded by Councillor Huw Murphy. Councillor Jacob Williams believed that the Minutes did not accurately reflect the last meeting, specifically in relation to the suggestion of a further fifth option of abolishing the Presiding Member post, and instead combining the post with the Chair of Council role. The Head of Democratic Services explained that the matter of the fifth option was referenced in the Minutes, and that they outlined the suggestion of the further option as suggested by Councillor Aled Thomas to also be considered. Councillor Williams disagreed and stated that the option was not requested by the Committee to be considered. Councillor Mike Stoddart made a point of order and stated that the option was not Moved and Seconded, therefore it was not a resolution of the Committee. The Head of Law and Governance suggested that the accuracy of the Minutes be dealt with and that the Committee move on to the next Agenda item, in order to deal with the matter directly and make clear recommendations to Council. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Aled Thomas, Steve Alderman, David Howlett, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [6] Against the Motion: Councillors Joshua Beynon, Paul Miller, Mike Stoddart and Jacob Williams [4] Abstentions: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Pat Davies and Vanessa Thomas [3] RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 October 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
it was resolved that the role of Presiding Member should remain unremunerated and that the matter be considered as part of the review of the Constitution. He highlighted that throughout the whole of the review and at the last Constitutional Review Committee meeting, it was resolved that the principle that the post be remunerated be supported, and that there was no question that the post should be abolished. He accepted that the suggestion of abolishing the role was mentioned at the last Committee meeting, however, the resolution made at that meeting brought an end to that suggestion. He believed that the option to abolish the role, as brought to Council, was not a valid option and stated that he agreed with Councillor Miller’s Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he had consistently been against the Presiding Member role being remunerated, and clarified that the option he suggested at the last meeting of the Constitutional Review Committee, was to merge the roles of the Chair of Council and the Presiding Member, and not to abolish. He stated that he would vote against Councillor Miller’s Motion as he believed that it was not financially the right option. • Councillor David Howlett stated that he did not support Councillor Miller’s Motion. • The Head of Law and Governance asked Councillor Miller if he was prepared to withdraw point (b) of his Motion as she, nor the Head of Democratic Services, could comply. She stated that there would be a summary of the debate in the report, and it would have to be open to Council to make a decision. Councillor Miller stated that he would consider withdrawing. Councillor Mike Stoddart did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance and believed that the Committee could put forward any recommendation to Council that was relevant to the issue. He suggested that point (b) be reworded as follows: (b) That the Committee resolve that the options for financing the post be restricted to the four original options without the fifth option of combining the roles. Councillor Miller did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance, but stated that he would be happy to find an accommodation. He objected to the abolishment of the role and would be against a debate of the matter at full Council. Councillor Miller then Moved the following: (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post and condemn efforts lead by the Independent Political Group to surreptitiously do so. • The Head of Law and Governance asked whether the first part of the above Motion could be Moved instead, as if it was submitted as a Notice of Motion, it would be ruled out as vexatious. Councillor Miller stated that he would withdraw the amended Motion. • Councillor Williams highlighted that if Councillor Miller’s Motion was accepted first by the Committee and subsequently by Council, it would require a consequential amendment to the Constitution, as Cabinet would have to be reduced by one. Councillor Miller then confirmed his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level (authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales) of a Scrutiny Committee Chair, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with the point made by Councillor Williams and believed that the number of Cabinet Members posts should be reduced from ten to nine in order to accommodate remunerating the Presiding Member post with a Cabinet SRA. • Councillor Dennison sought clarification from Members as to whether any of the alternative options outlined in the report were to be considered. • Councillor Miller stated that he did not agree with any of the other options and stated that his preference was the outlined Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he assumed that the other options would still be outlined for Council to discuss, as the Motion was simply the recommendation of the Committee. Councillor Miller made a final change to his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, Paul Miller, Mike Stoddart and Jacob Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Aled Thomas, David Howlett, Vanessa Thomas, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That it be confirmed to Council the Constitutional Review Committee’s absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services on whether to continue with the role of Presiding Member from 2024/25 and if so, to consider whether the role should receive a Senior Responsibility Allowance (SRA) and that a recommendation be made to Council accordingly. The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and stated that the matter had returned for Committee consideration following the debate at the 12 October 2023 Council meeting. She reminded Members that at the Council meeting, the Chair of the Constitutional Review Committee, Councillor Alan Dennison, Moved a Motion in support of the remuneration of the Presiding Member role, which was seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. This was then followed by an Amendment, Moved by Councillor Jamie Adams, to not have a Presiding Member, which was seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The Head of Democratic Services highlighted that following a lengthy debate on the matter and whether the amendment to disband the role of the Presiding Member was a relevant one that Council could accept, a Motion to move to the next item of business was successful and the debate was ended. She stated that as the matter had not been resolved, and following consultation with the Councillor Dennison, it was now before the Committee to consider the matter further, in order to move forward. She then outlined the main considerations for Members, as outlined in the report. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the following Motion: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level of a Scrutiny Committee Chair, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance (SRA) allocations. (b) That the Committee resolve that no reference to discontinuing the role be included in the subsequent papers to Council. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Jacob Williams stated his support for the suggested Motion, and highlighted that the option to abolish the role, as proposed at Council, went against what the Committee had recommended and was clearly inconsistent with the Committee’s view, which was to remunerate the role, as resolved at the last meeting. He stated that he did not understand why the option was included in the report to Council. In response, the Head of Law and Governance stated that it was good practice to include all options in the report to Council and confirmed that it was requested. • In regards to point (b) of Councillor Miller’s Motion, the Head of Law and Governance stated that it was not in the power of the Committee to restrict what Council was able to consider. • Councillor Steve Alderman stated his support for the Motion and also highlighted the fact that the option to abolish the role of Presiding Member was not Moved, Seconded or voted on at the last meeting. • Councillor Dennison believed that it was recommended by Councillor Aled Thomas that the role be remunerated by merging the role into the role of Chair of Council, not to abolish it. • Councillor Pat Davies highlighted that all Members of the Constitutional Review Working Group agreed, at the last meeting, that the post be remunerated, which is why it had been included in the new version of the Constitution. She believed that the role should be a paid position as it has a huge amount of responsibility and did not agree that post should be abolished. • Councillor Miller sought clarification in regards to the whether the report to Council was the report of the Committee. The Head of Law and Governance confirmed this to be the case. Councillor Miller agreed that the Committee could not restrain a Council debate, but suggested that it was for the Committee to decide the contents of its report to Council, and therefore within the power of the Committee to include or exclude particular items. The Head of Law and Governance believed that it was not within the purview of the Committee to restrict the contents of a report in order to prevent debate at Council. Councillor Miller wished to retain point (b) of his Motion. • Councillor Williams referred to the meeting of the Democratic Services Committee on 27 June 2022, where it was resolved that the role of Presiding Member should remain unremunerated and that the matter be considered as part of the review of the Constitution. He highlighted that throughout the whole of the review and at the last Constitutional Review Committee meeting, it was resolved that the principle that the post be remunerated be supported, and that there was no question that the post should be abolished. He accepted that the suggestion of abolishing the role was mentioned at the last Committee meeting, however, the resolution made at that meeting brought an end to that suggestion. He believed that the option to abolish the role, as brought to Council, was not a valid option and stated that he agreed with Councillor Miller’s Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he had consistently been against the Presiding Member role being remunerated, and clarified that the option he suggested at the last meeting of the Constitutional Review Committee, was to merge the roles of the Chair of Council and the Presiding Member, and not to abolish. He stated that he would vote against Councillor Miller’s Motion as he believed that it was not financially the right option. • Councillor David Howlett stated that he did not support Councillor Miller’s Motion. • The Head of Law and Governance asked Councillor Miller if he was prepared to withdraw point (b) of his Motion as she, nor the Head of Democratic Services, could comply. She stated that there would be a summary of the debate in the report, and it would have to be open to Council to make a decision. Councillor Miller stated that he would consider withdrawing. Councillor Mike Stoddart did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance and believed that the Committee could put forward any recommendation to Council that was relevant to the issue. He suggested that point (b) be reworded as follows: (b) That the Committee resolve that the options for financing the post be restricted to the four original options without the fifth option of combining the roles. Councillor Miller did not agree with the Head of Law and Governance, but stated that he would be happy to find an accommodation. He objected to the abolishment of the role and would be against a debate of the matter at full Council. Councillor Miller then Moved the following: (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post and condemn efforts lead by the Independent Political Group to surreptitiously do so. • The Head of Law and Governance asked whether the first part of the above Motion could be Moved instead, as if it was submitted as a Notice of Motion, it would be ruled out as vexatious. Councillor Miller stated that he would withdraw the amended Motion. • Councillor Williams highlighted that if Councillor Miller’s Motion was accepted first by the Committee and subsequently by Council, it would require a consequential amendment to the Constitution, as Cabinet would have to be reduced by one. Councillor Miller then confirmed his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level (authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales) of a Scrutiny Committee Chair, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with the point made by Councillor Williams and believed that the number of Cabinet Members posts should be reduced from ten to nine in order to accommodate remunerating the Presiding Member post with a Cabinet SRA. • Councillor Dennison sought clarification from Members as to whether any of the alternative options outlined in the report were to be considered. • Councillor Miller stated that he did not agree with any of the other options and stated that his preference was the outlined Motion. • Councillor Aled Thomas stated that he assumed that the other options would still be outlined for Council to discuss, as the Motion was simply the recommendation of the Committee. Councillor Miller made a final change to his Motion to read as follows: (a) That the Committee recommend to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing Cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That the Committee confirm to Council its absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post. Councillor Stoddart Seconded the amended Motion. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Pat Davies, Paul Miller, Mike Stoddart and Jacob Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Aled Thomas, David Howlett, Vanessa Thomas, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member be remunerated at the level authorised by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, utilising one of the existing cabinet Senior Responsibility Allowance allocations. (b) That it be confirmed to Council the Constitutional Review Committee’s absolute opposition to abolishing the Presiding Member post.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the current Policy, as adopted by Council on 19th May 2005 that the policy would confer no further titles of Honorary Alderman, remain in place.
The Committee considered a joint report by the Monitoring Officer and the Head of Democratic Services regarding a Notice of Motion, submitted by Councillor Jacob Williams to Council on 12 October 2023, to confer the title of Honorary Alderman on former Councillor Peter Stock, and to decide whether the Committee wished to establish a policy, process or criteria in respect of such applications. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and stated that the title of Honorary Alderman could be conferred by a two thirds majority of Council at a specially convened meeting, on someone who had rendered eminent services to the Council. She highlighted that in 2005, Council had resolved to adopt a Policy of conferring no such titles, and the related report was attached at Appendix 2. She explained that Members were being asked to consider whether they wished to recommend to Council that it retained the current Policy, whether they wished to consider developing a process or criteria for the statement of such titles and notwithstanding the above, or whether they wished to recommend that the title of Honorary Alderman was conferred on former Councillor Peter Stock. She stated that the current Policy could be departed from, however it would only be for good reason, and asked Members to first discuss the principle of the matter. Councillor Jacob Williams, the originator of the Motion, then spoke in support of his Notice of Motion and stated that it was a simple mark of appreciation and respect for local, long serving former Councillors. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that she had spoken to Mr Stock and that he would be delighted to accept the title if it was the wish of Council. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Mike Stoddart believed it to be inappropriate to have a policy on the matter and stated that if a former Councillor was put forward, then Council would need to consider it regardless. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was correct, but clarified that it was appropriate to have a policy to guide Council decisions on such matters, however, if the matter was said to be contrary to policy and was not considered, then Council could be accused of fettering its discretion. • Councillor Alan Dennison suggested that the need to organise a specially convened Council meeting could incur a small expense, as well as take up Officer time. Councillor Williams disagreed with this point and stated that Council had previously had an Extraordinary Meeting on the same day as a Full Council meeting. The Monitoring Officer clarified that a meeting did not necessarily need to be convened if a former Councillor was put forward for the title, and stated that the matter could be referred to a Committee for consideration, and that Committee could decide whether or not it wished to adhere to the Policy and make such a recommendation to Full Council. • Councillor David Howlett stated that he would be supportive of Mr Stock receiving the title, but highlighted that in terms of the broader principle, the Committee needed to be mindful of potentially receiving a significant amount of applications in the future and the potential cost. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved the following Motion: That the Notice of Motion be recommended to Council to be approved. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor David Howlett. • Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification in regards to the cost of the scroll, as outlined on page 30 of the report. In response, the Monitoring Officer explained that enquiries with other Local Authorities highlighted the potential cost of a scroll, however, the cost of a certificate alone was likely to depend on how elaborate it would be, but there was the option of it being considerably cheaper than a scroll. • In regards to the proposed Motion, the Monitoring Officer raised the need to acknowledge that it was contrary to the existing Policy. She stated that the Committee may need to consider whether the Policy should be retained and the reasons why the Committee would wish to depart from the Policy on this occasion. • Councillor Dennison stated that he would be happy to retain the existing Policy. • Councillor Paul Miller stated that he, nor the Labour Group, were not in agreement with the Honorary Alderman position. • Councillor Pat Davies agreed and stated that the position was archaic and agreed with the existing Policy. • Councillors Huw Murphy and Michelle Bateman also did not support the Honorary Alderman position, but highlighted that it was not a reflection on Mr Stock. • Councillor Thomas stated that he would be happy to support the position, as long as it did not incur a cost, and suggested that the views of Conservative Group Members would likely be split on the matter. Councillor Jacob Williams withdrew his Motion and instead Moved the following Motion: That the Council reconsiders its 2005 resolution that it would not confer the title of Honorary Alderman then or in the future. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Aled Thomas. Councillor Huw Murphy Moved the following Motion: That the Status Quo should remain. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. • The Monitoring Officer clarified that voting against the resolution put forward by Councillor Williams would allow the Status Quo to remain. Councillor Murphy accepted this. • Councillor Stoddart sought clarification as to whether any policy put in place would stop a Member putting forward someone for the Honorary Alderman title. In response, the Monitoring Officer stated that having a policy in place, such as the agreed 2005 Policy, may put Members off bringing such a Notice of Motion forward, however, if such a Notice of Motion was submitted, it would have to be considered and good reason would need to be established for departing from a policy. • Councillor Miller sought clarification as to whether the Council’s Policy could indicate that an application would be referred to a Committee for consideration, and subsequently referred to a meeting of Council. In response, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that this would be possible and explained that a Committee, such as the Constitutional Review Committee, could make a recommendation to Council. Councillor Williams Moved that the matter be put. Councillor Williams confirmed that the Motion he wished to propose was as follows: That the 2005 Policy decision be revoked. Councillor Thomas stated that he would prefer the word ‘review’ in place of ‘revoke’. Councillor Williams agreed to the change and confirmed as follows: That the 2005 Policy decision be reviewed. • Councillor Davies stated that she believed that the Motion was prolonging the matter. • Councillor Miller suggested that if the outlined Motion were to fail, then Councillor Murphy could propose his earlier Motion. Councillor Murphy agreed with this. The vote on the Motion that the 2005 Policy decision be reviewed, undertaken by way of a roll call, was lost. For the Motion: Councillors Aled Thomas, David Howlett and Jacob Williams [3] Against the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Pat Davies, Paul Miller, Vanessa Thomas, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart and Anji Tinley [9] There were no abstentions. Councillor Murphy then Moved that the current Policy remains in place. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Paul Miller. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Pat Davies, Paul Miller, Vanessa Thomas, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [8] Against the Motion: Councillors Jacob Williams [1] Abstentions: Councillors Aled Thomas, David Howlett and Mike Stoddart [3] RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the current Policy, as adopted by Council on 19th May 2005 that the policy would confer no further titles of Honorary Alderman, remain in place.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.