Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest. 

Attached is a Motion of No Confidence signed by 15 Councillors calling for the removal of the Leader from the office of Leader and the removal from the Executive of Councillor SM Edwards in accordance with paragraph 12.1(b) of the Council’s Standing Orders which states that:

In the case of any motion for the removal of the Leader from office as Leader, the removal of any individual member of the Executive or the removal of the members of the Executive from office collectively, written notice signed by at least one quarter of the councillors must be delivered to the proper officer not later than six working days before the date of the meeting. Motions under this provision may not be submitted electronically. Any such motion shall be carried by simple majority of the members present and voting at the meeting.

It is recommended that if this Motion is passed a new Leader should be elected at this meeting, in accordance with paragraph 12.1 (c) of the Council’s Standing Orders, which states:

In the case of any motion for the removal of the Leader from office as Leader being passed, the Council shall elect a new Leader at the same meeting, or at a subsequent meeting. In the case of any motion for the removal of the members of the Executive from office collectively, the Council shall elect a new Leader immediately.

A Motion of No Confidence, signed by 15 Councillors, calling for the removal of the Leader of the Council from office, and the removal from the Executive of Councillor SM Edwards, on being voted upon in a secret paper ballot, was declared lost with twenty-two Members voting in favour and twenty-seven against the Motion. 

Councillor SGM Kindersley moved and Councillor MJ Mason seconded a Motion in the following terms, signed by 15 Councillors in accordance with Council Standing Order 12.1:

‘We, the undersigned, being Members elected to South Cambridgeshire District Council, hereby submit a Motion of No Confidence in Councillor Manning, Leader of the Council, and call for his removal from office as Leader, and the removal of Councillor Edwards from the Executive of the Council, as allowed by Section 12.1 of the Council’s Constitution.’

The Motion stood in the names of Councillors D de Lacey, A Riley, Mrs EM Heazell, Mrs DP Roberts, Mrs HM Smith, NN Cathcart, JF Williams, RB Martlew, Mrs FAR Amrani, Mrs SA Hatton, SGM Kindersley, Mrs SJO Doggett, NJ Scarr, JD Batchelor and Mrs PM Bear.

During debate of this item Council resolved unanimously, in accordance with Standing Order 22.1, to suspend Standing Order 12.5 for the duration of the item to allow debate to exceed thirty minutes.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor SGM Kindersley stressed that, in bringing it forward, no criticism was intended of the Council’s officers who had carried out the tasks required of them throughout the Housing Futures project in a professional manner. During debate of the Motion, those speaking in favour considered that the Housing Futures exercise had been a futile waste of £800,000 of public money when it was clear that there remained a large section of the Council’s tenants who were in favour of retention; the percentage of tenants voting against transfer during the previous exercise had been 82%; the current exercise had reduced this majority only to 72%. The campaign by the Council had inundated tenants with one-sided information in favour of transfer without any balance, to the point of intimidation of vulnerable residents. At the same time, details of the business case had never been released, and the business plan for the housing association not made available to enable tenants to make informed judgements regarding the viability of the process. The leadership had demonstrated misjudgement in choosing to proceed to a ballot during a period of great economic uncertainty and with questions about the short and long-term financing of transferring the housing stock. The overwhelming nature of the ‘no’ vote was tantamount to a vote of no confidence by tenants in the Council’s political leadership, which had become discredited as a result; as such, and to ensure proper accountability for their actions, it was regrettably necessary for the Leader and Deputy Leader to be removed from office.

Members arguing against the Motion considered that the ballot result constituted an overwhelming endorsement of the excellent housing service provided by the Council’s staff. The Housing Futures project had been based on sound principles, which sought to remedy a situation in which the Council paid £12 million per year to government in negative subsidy. That revenue, in the event of transfer, would have been directed to the provision of further improvements to the service received by tenants. Far from having lost credibility,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.