Issue - meetings

Report and appendices attached. 

Recommendations – Move to Four-yearly elections (from paragraph 18 of the report)

Council is recommended to consider the issues set out in paragraphs 1-9 of the report and resolve:

(a)               To consult on a move to four-yearly elections.

(b)               That, subject to additional information being included explaining why the issue is being revisited at this time, the consultation exercise be undertaken based on the methods and timescale used 2006, final details to be agreed by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman and Leader.

(c)               That the results of the consultation be submitted to an Extraordinary Meeting of Council in May 2009 for consideration.

Recommendations – Changes to Executive arrangements (from paragraph 19 of the report)

Council is recommended to resolve:

(a)   That an article explaining the proposed changes described in paragraph 13 of the report be included in the Winter 2008 issue of the Council’s residents’ magazine, and that the proposals be also publicised on the Council’s website and available to view at the Council Offices.

(b)   That the revised proposals be submitted to the Annual Meeting of Council on 21 May 2009 for adoption, such changes to have effect from this date.

Council RESOLVED:

(a)   Not to pursue a move to four-yearly elections further at this time.

(b)   That an article explaining proposed changes to executive arrangements, based on paragraph 13 of the report, be included in the Winter 2008 issue of the Council’s residents’ magazine, and that the proposals be also publicised on the Council’s website and available to view at the Council Offices.

(c)   That revised proposals in (2) above be submitted to the Annual Meeting of Council on 21 May 2009 for adoption, such changes to have effect from this date.

Council considered a report setting out proposed changes to the Council’s governance arrangements in respect of its electoral cycle and executive arrangements. The report recommended that Council consult on a possible move to four-yearly (all-out) elections, however it was not considered that a subsequent proposal to agree the change would receive the two thirds majority required for it to be passed; Members felt that, given this likely outcome, it was not appropriate to consult on the issue at this time.

Councillor RMA Manning moved, Councillor SM Edwards seconded and Council RESOLVED:

(a)   Not to pursue a move to four-yearly elections further at this time.

(b)   That an article explaining proposed changes to executive arrangements, based on paragraph 13 of the report, be included in the Winter 2008 issue of the Council’s residents’ magazine, and that the proposals be also publicised on the Council’s website and available to view at the Council Offices.

(c)   That revised proposals in (b) above be submitted to the Annual Meeting of Council on 21 May 2009 for adoption, such changes to have effect from this date.

Council, at its meeting on 28 September 2006, considered the findings of public consultation on the Council’s electoral arrangements, resolving, with no Members voting against, to DEFER to October 2007 a decision on whether or not to make an application to the Secretary of State to change the Council’s electoral arrangements to “all-out” elections every four years. The report submitted to the Council meeting is attached for Members’ information (omitting the appendices).

Since the last consideration of this matter, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill has been published. It contains proposals to simplify the process required to move to all-out elections. Paragraph 13 of the attached report sets out the procedure to be followed under existing legislation. Under the new proposals, the Council would be able to resolve, by simple majority, to move to all-out elections, subject to prior consultation, as it considers appropriate. The consent of the Secretary of State would no longer be required. Any resolution to move to all-out elections made before 31 December 2010, whether under existing or revised legislation, would lead to all-out elections in May 2011

Given the changed circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that Council further defer a decision on the future of its electoral arrangements in light of legislative changes proposed within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, and that the matter be brought before Council for further consideration in due course.

Council RESOLVED that, a decision on the future of its electoral arrangements be further DEFERRED in light of legislative changes proposed within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, and that the matter be brought before Council for further consideration in due course.

Council RESOLVED that, a decision on the future of its electoral arrangements be further DEFERRED in light of legislative changes proposed within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, and that the matter be brought before Council for further consideration in due course.

FOR DECISION. 

Council unanimously DEFERRED to October 2007 a decision on whether or not to make an application to the Secretary of State to change the Council’s electoral arrangements to “all-out” elections every four years.

Consultation on the District Council’s electoral arrangements had resulted in 54% of the public supporting a move to “all-out” elections every four years, but 58% of the parish councils which had responded preferring the present system of “election by thirds”.

Noting that any delay on a decision by the Secretary of State could result in the first opportunity for “all-out” elections being postponed until 2011, Councillor RMA Manning proposed, seconded by Councillor MJ Mason, that Council DEFER its decision and reconsider the issue in October 2007.

Council resolved, with no Members voting against, to DEFER to October 2007 a decision on whether or not to make an application to the Secretary of State to change the Council’s electoral arrangements to “all-out” elections every four years.

Subsequent to the meeting it was confirmed that the Council’s Electoral Arrangements Committee did not have the responsibility to make recommendations on this issue.

South Cambs is inviting residents to comment on whether changes should be made to the way that future council elections are held.

This consultation will not affect the 2006 local elections, but if the council agrees to support a change, it will make a formal application for these changes to the Secretary of State.

Currently, elections to one third of the council’s seats are held three years out of every four (in May). All seats are elected once during that period. Wards with a single district councillor have an election once every four years. Residents in wards that have more than one seat on the district council choose a representative two or three times during the four-year cycle.

Some councillors have suggested it would be better if elections to all seats on the district council were held together at the same time, once every four years.  District and parish council elections would be kept separate from the four-yearly elections to the county council.

Further details have been given in South Cambs magazine (Spring 2006).   Residents can indicate their preference by completing the tear off slip in the magazine; calling 08450 455 213 (24-hour) or visiting www.scambs.gov.uk

Cut off date Friday 28 April.

On 27 October 2005, Council resolved to consult the public and parish councils on a move to all-out elections for the District every 4 years.

That consultation is now starting and we are seeking views about whether to move from the present system of electing the District Council by thirds to proposals for all-out elections so that all SCDC councillors would be elected together at the same time, once every four years.

The consultation is being carried out now so that it can coincide with a feature in the Spring ’06 edition of South Cambs Magazine (the Winter ‘05 issue had been finalised by the time the Council agreed, last October, to consult the public).

A copy of the consultation paper, as it appears in South Cambs Magazine, is attached.  Details can also be found on the Council’s website.

This has been developed in consultation with Cllr JD Batchelor (as Information and Customer Services Portfolio Holder), Cllr Dr DR Bard (who proposed the motion at full Council) and Cllr Mrs SA Hatton (as Chairman of the Electoral Arrangements Committee) as well as Legal Services.

A version of the consultation paper for partners is being sent to all Parish Councils / Parish Meetings in the district, the two local MPs and board members of the South Cambridgeshire Strategic Partnership.

The deadline for consultation is Friday 28 April 2006. Comments can be made in a number of different ways: in writing (there is a freepost address for residents); by e-mail (to consultation@scambs.gov.uk), using the on-line form on the Council's website or by 'phone to 08450 455213.

The results of the consultation will be reported back to full Council this summer, and we plan to update residents on the outcomes in a future issue of South Cambs Magazine.

For more information, please contact Tim Wetherfield (Head of Policy & Communication).

Further to his request at the extraordinary meeting of Council on 27 October 2005, Councillor MJ Mason asked that the Electoral Arrangements Committee meet to progress the Council’s decision to begin formal consultation, in accordance with the Sedley Rules, about applying to the Secretary of State to move to four-yearly District Council elections. 

To consider the Motion standing in the name of Councillor Dr DR Bard, seconded by Councillor R Hall

This extraordinary meeting is called because of the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, which allows a District Council to request the Secretary of State to provide for a system of either whole council elections or elections by thirds.  The resolution making the request must be passed by not less than two thirds of the members voting at a meeting of the Council specially convened for the purpose.  A request under this section may not be made within ten years of a previous request.  The Secretary of State may make an order for the ordinary elections of all of the district councillors to be held simultaneously on the basis of this request.

Section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a scheme for elections for an individual council or a category of authorities.

The Motion is:

“The Council agrees that:

An explanatory statement from Councillor Dr Bard is attached as an appendix.

Council RESOLVED that

A request for names to be recorded was supported.  Votes were cast as follows:

For the Motion

Against the Motion

Not Voted

Councillor Dr DR Bard, presenting his motion seeking District elections every four years, outlined the problems of elections by thirds: the correlation of falling turn-out with the number of elections in the cycle and the expense of holding elections.  He did not foresee any political advantage to any particular party.  He added that any decision would be subject to consultation, but considered that the Council should take a lead in setting out its commitment.

Councillor Dr Bard asked that paragraph (ii) of the motion (asking for suspension of District elections in 2006 and holding the first all-out elections in 2007) should be removed as timing was in the hands of the Secretary of State once the request was submitted.  The difference between this paragraph in the agenda and in the background paper was due to advice received from the ODPM.  The motion was seconded by Councillor R Hall.

Councillor JD Batchelor, seconded by Councillor Mrs EM Heazell, then proposed an amendment:

“that Council agrees that a formal process of District consultation be initiated in accordance with the Sedley Rules on the principle of all-out District Council elections every four years, combined with Parish Council elections, before any decision is taken by this District Council.”

The vehicle for such a consultation to be the next available edition of the South Cambs Magazine.”

Councillor Batchelor acknowledged that there might be merit in the original proposal, but was concerned that consultations should take place before the Council made any decision, particularly because of the effect on parish councils.  He felt that the question wanted extra attention because of the likelihood that all-out elections would result in few councillors other than from the main political parties.  Councillor Batchelor also warned that, as there was no budget for such consultations, the only means would be in South Cambs Magazine.

In extensive debate on the amendment, arguments put forward included:

Against the amendment

·                      The Council should lead and take responsibility for putting a proposal to the electorate

·                      Currently there was confusion at elections, particularly with multi-member wards

·                      All-out elections would allow a greater certainty in planning for the next four years

·                      A substantial saving would result from elections only every four years

·                      The electorate disliked elections every year

·                      Elections every four years would result in greater interest and turn-out

For the amendment

·                      If consultation was to take place it must be done in a genuine manner

·                      The motion had a direct effect on parish councils and their views must be sought

·                      The Sedley Rules required consultation at the formative stage of proposals: if the motion were passed the proposal would be beyond that stage as it agreed to ask the Secretary of State for an order for four-yearly elections

·                      The Sedley Rules made it clear that there must be consultation before a decision was made

·                      Continuous elections maintained better contact with the electorate

·                      A gradual change in membership and emphasis could be better than strong changes every four years

·                      New Members valued the presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2