Agenda item

The Director submits a report that asks the Board to consider and approve proposed changes to the Constitution.  The Board is asked to review the document and advise Cabinet of its views on the recommendations.

The Director of Corporate Governance submitted a report that asked the Board to consider and approve proposed changes to the Constitution. 

The Director of Corporate Governance introduced the report and reported that the Council’s constitution was required to be amended to reflect the changes in executive arrangements that would take place once a City Mayor was elected in May 2011.  A schedule that identified each issue subject to change had been prepared, and a proposed amended constitution was available on the Council’s website and in the Political Group rooms.

Members generally welcomed the retention of the title ‘Lord Mayor’ for the conduction of the historic and ceremonial functions attributed to the role.

The Director of Corporate Governance explained that there was some uncertainty around the governance arrangements that the City Mayor would wish to have in place, and that most arrangements would not become clear until that individual commenced office on 9 May 2011.  It was confirmed that the City Mayor would not be a Councillor in law, except in limited circumstances, and would attend Full Council meetings at their own discretion, rather than being required to attend.

In response to a query relating to the political balance of the Standards Sub-Committee, the Director of Corporate Governance confirmed that this Committee was chaired by an independent member, and that the remaining vacancies were issued to Members of the Standards Committee.  It was confirmed that there was no precise formula around which members participated in particular meetings of the sub-committee, but stated that he would be happy to review the current arrangements if they were seen as being problematic. 

It was questioned whether the City Mayor would be permitted to vote during meetings of Full Council.  The Director of Corporate Governance agreed to clarify such procedures.  It was pointed out that the City Mayor would be allowed to present position statements and policy documents to the Council, but that the general role of the City Mayor during Full Council was to be determined by that person in office, and that such arrangements varied amongst those authorities who had already appointed an elected Mayor. 

The succession arrangements for the City Mayor were questioned, and concerns were raised around the Deputy Mayor assuming a position of which they were not directly elected to do. The Director of Corporate Governance stated that such arrangements were presently not clear. 

In response to a further query, it was confirmed that there was no direct provision in place to allow Full Council to appoint or remove Cabinet members, and that this function was performed solely by the City Mayor. 

Following questions seeking clarity around the allowance arrangements of both the City Mayor and Deputy City Mayor, it was confirmed that the Council’s existing Members Allowances Scheme included no provision for such roles, but that a report was to be submitted to Council on 24 March regarding this matter.  The Director of Corporate Governance explained that in the absence of an approved scheme, the allowances could be based on the remuneration paid to the existing Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council or that the allowances could be freshly reviewed after the operation of the enw executive arrangements. 

The format of the Council’s Cabinet and likelihood of the City Mayor holding formal Cabinet meetings was questioned.  In response, Members were informed that the City Mayor could appoint between two and nine members of Cabinet, but that the Mayor could opt to retain portfolios for themselves.  It was also confirmed to Members that the existing rules which permitted a call-in of an executive decision would remain under the new arrangements.  Concern was expressed in relation to the transparency of executive decisions that were not taken in the form of a public meeting.  The Director of Corporate Governance explained that the law required such decisions to be subject to five clear days notice and a record would be publicly available. 

The Director of Corporate Governance explained that the City Mayor and Deputy City Mayor would be appointed for four years and a Mayoral Assistant, if appointed, would be employed on 4-year fixed term contract.  Further clarity was sought concerning the contractual arrangements of a Mayoral Assistant particularly in relation to the salary of this post, whether the position would be determined by an Employees Appointments Committee or whether the post was governed directly by the City Mayor.  The Director of Corporate Governance agreed to provide further information on this matter.

In response to points raised by a member of the Youth Council around the status of a petition requesting removal of the City Mayor, the Director of Corporate Governance confirmed that neither a petition nor a vote of ‘no confidence’ by Full Council would lead to the removal of the City Mayor, but that both actions would highlight public opinion.

RESOLVED:

(1)    That Cabinet be asked to consider the comments made by the Board on the review of the constitution. 

(2)    That clarification in relation to the voting rights of the City Mayor during Full Council meetings be sought; and

(3)    That the Director of Corporate Governance be asked to provide further information to all Members on position of Mayoral Assistant.