Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting

Contact: Committee Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

10.

WELCOME - THE CHAIR TO THE COMMITTEE

Minutes:

The Chair, Councillor McCraw, welcomed Members and guests to the meeting.

 

10.1            He informed Members that this meeting had been called as the Petitioner and Organiser, Mr Thomas Morelli, of the petition received on the 11 January 2021, had requested that a review of the steps taken by the Council in respect of the validation of his petition be undertaken by the Committee.

 

11.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations made.

 

12.

PROTOCOL FOR REVIEWING PETITIONS VALIDATION PROCESS pdf icon PDF 65 KB

This meeting has been called to review the validation process for the Petition submitted on the 11 January 2021 by Mr Thomas Morelli.

 

The petition was ruled invalid and Mr Morelli has requested a review under paragraph 7 of the Council’s Petition Scheme.

Minutes:

12.1           The Chair drew Members’ attention to the attached protocol for the meeting.

 

12.2           Councillor Grandon proposed the motion that the protocol be approved, which was seconded by Councillor Gould.

 

By a unanimous vote

 

It was RESOLVED:-

 

That the Protocol for reviewing the procedure be approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Approved the Protocol for Reviewing the Procedure Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 13.

    B/RP/20/1 VALIDATION OF PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 121 KB

    Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    13.1          The Chair invited the Corporate Manager for Governance and Civic Officer to provide details of the process for the validation of petitions and the process taken for the validation of Mr Morelli’s petition.

     

    13.2          The Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office provided the following statement:

     

    You have before you my report that details the validation process of petitions.  I would like to highlight the following key points:-

     

    The Council does not have a statutory requirement to provide a petitions process but chooses to have one because it welcomes the views of its residents and recognises it is a method where they can raise their concerns.

     

    The Council adopted the Model Petitions Policy that was formulated by the now amalgamated department of the DCLG and confirmed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

     

    A number of other councils have also adopted this model petitions scheme. We are not the only Council that sets out these requirements.

     

    Our petition scheme is clearly set out in the Constitution under Part 3, Paragraph 2.2 and lists the criteria that the petition must meet to ensure that the petition is valid.

     

    Mr Morelli’s petition was assessed by the Committee Officer and was rejected for validation because the full address of the persons supporting the petition had not been submitted as detailed in Part 3 Paragraph 2.2 where it clearly states that this is a requirement of the Petitions Process and as advised in the check form and example attached to the Petitions Process.

    It is important that the Council validates each petition to ensure that the petitioners, live, work or study in the area and that the petition is genuine. It is also essential that the Council has the full name and address of the petitioners so that it is able to contact them to provide them with any further information regarding the petition or if the Council wishes to consult with the petitioners further. This cannot be done from a postcode.

    Provision of the full name and address enables the Council to be able to validate the petition to avoid any fraudulent submissions that may result in the Council taking a decision based on incorrect representation and incorrect information. It is also important that the validation process is consistent and in line with Council procedure.

    Once the Committee Officer realised that he was unable to validate the petition, he consulted with myself, as the Deputy Monitoring Officer, and immediately wrote to Mr Morelli explaining that a postcode did not provide sufficient detail for due diligence to be carried out. This approach is consistent with other petitions that had been rejected.

    A further complication was not all of the petitioners had endorsed all three issues and the signature count was different for each of those issues. This could lead to confusion and misrepresentation and this was explained to Mr Morelli. The Committee Officer also offered advice and assistance to Mr Morelli on how to enable the petition to be validated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That the Council followed the Validation Process correctly and that the Petition was dealt with adequately and that the Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to the Constitution Working Group that the Petition Scheme only be reviewed and recommendations be reported to Full Council (in line with the comments made at this Committee). Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 14.

    LETTER TO COMMITTEE AND EVIDENCE PACK pdf icon PDF 210 KB

    The Lead Petitioner, Mr Thomas Morelli, has submitted the following documents:

     

    Evidence Letter to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee

    Evidence Pack to support the Evidence letter

    Letter dated 13 January 2021

     

    Additional documents:

    15.

    EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS)

    To consider whether, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public should be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during this/these item(s), it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the/each item.

     

    The author(s) of the report(s) proposed to be considered in Part 2 of the Agenda is/are satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

     

    Minutes:

     

    The Committee did not go into closed session during the meeting.

    16.

    B/RP/20/1 VALIDATION OF PETITION - CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX E

    17.

    LEAD PETITIONER - CONFIDENTIAL LETTER TO COMMITTEE AND EVIDENCE PACK