Electoral Registration Officer
Minutes:
The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to introduce report MC/22/31.
The Recommendation was PROPOSED by Councillor Richardson and SECONDED by Whitehead.
Councillor Otton queried why the community governance working group has been presented with a boundary review that the group was not tasked to oversee.
The Chair stated the importance of the current Monitoring Officer not being in post at the time when the review commenced and that historic actions will not be able to be commented on.
The Monitoring Officer explained that the implication of the parish submissions entailed a boundary review.
Councillor Pratt asked why adequate consultation had not been carried out within the time frame and how much more time would be needed.
The Monitoring Officer said he was unable to comment on why adequate consultations were not conducted within the timeline but that a new timeline could be established once liaison with the boundary commission had taken place, to ensure their requirements are met.
The Monitoring Officer clarified that the initial review only reached parish and town councils without having taken the next level of consultation involving residents, housing associations, and other stakeholders. The depth of consultation is a discretionary matter for the Council; however, the Monitoring Officer cautioned that the current level of consultation would not be adequate for the boundary commission to accept.
Councillor Scarff voiced concern at whether the working group was provided the right brief and asked what lessons could be learnt from the situation.
The Monitoring Officer apologised that he was unable to comment.
Councillor Scarff requested that questions raised by the Council on the matter be looked into and answered at a later date.
Councillor Mansel queried whether any other process was required for the movement of ward boundaries.
The Monitoring Officer advised that clarification from the boundary commission would take precedence, and anticipated ward boundaries would entail greater consultation.
Councillor Eburne noted that it would have been useful for the original report Officer to have been in attendance and additionally noted that the Leader of the Council was also behind the original report and suggested questions be directed towards them.
Councillor Ekpenyong recommended seeking answers from the previous Monitoring Officer, other officers and the Chief Executive.
The Chief Executive acknowledged the complexity of the matter and believed the focus should be placed towards moving forward with lessons learnt. The Chief Executive stated that future governance reviews would be managed differently.
Councillor Matthissen requested that the scope of the governance review group be clarified in regard to ward boundaries changes, in reference to 4.2.
Councillor Otton PROPOSED an amendment to support the recommendation of appendix A and defer recommendation 3.2 SECONDED by Councillor Mansel.
The Chief Executive sought clarity on whether the amendment was to defer the consideration within Council or to defer the governance review in its entirety.
Councillor Otton clarified that the amendment would be to remove recommendation 3.2 from Council.
The Monitoring Officer explained that should 3.2 be deferred, the process would continue in motion as the process has not reached a conclusion.
Councillor Mansel read out recommendation 3.2 and reiterated that the recommendation is for Council to note. As such, Councillor Mansel stated that there was a need for more explanation before Council could note the matter.
Councillor Passmore pressed for moving the review forward and reasoned that outstanding queries could addressed in addition.
Councillor Richardson contested the amendment and agreed with Councillor Passmore.
Councillor Otton withdrew her amendment.
Councillor Mansel disputed the necessity for Council to accept 3.2, as the process would continue and requested the separation of the recommendations.
The Chair asked the Council whether they were content to vote on each recommendation individually.
Councillor Scarff asked for legal position of the Council for non-determination of the matter within the 12-month period.
The Monitoring Officer informed the Council that they would be subject to judicial review in any situation but advised that continuing the process would provide the Council grounds to defend against any potential legal challenges.
Councillor Warboys raised confusion about the status of the review as ‘ongoing’.
The Monitoring Officer clarified that the process is ongoing as the wider consultation has not taken place as well as accounting for the next 5 years of developments.
Councillor Scarff contended that a review could have been held earlier and commented that Stowmarket Town Council is not financed for providing services to the residents in the new developments in the disputed boundary area.
Councillor Mansel disputed the relevancy of Councillor Scarff’s comments.
Councillor Welham invited the proposer and seconder to withdraw recommendation 3.2. Councillor Richardson withdrew recommendation 3.2.
It was RESOLVED:
That Council agreed the recommendations in Appendix A
Supporting documents: