Boot Motions » Council meeting 22 June 2011 - WorkBoot dig #14
Moved Larsen That, in accordance with best practice, future appointments that are direct reports to the Chief Executive be subject to a review hearing at which the proposed candidate can be questioned by Council members.
It is common practice in transparent democracies that long term key appointments are subject to revue by confirmatory hearings before appointments are finalised. Given that the Chief Executive has found his own executives, many who have provided long years of service, not to have adequate skills and levels of competency, and with the new appointments likely to be long term office holders, it is critical that this process is undertaken.
Reasons given by Mayor for refusing -
3.3.2 Chairperson to decide and 3.10.2 Refusal of notice of motion
The Council has a CE review Committee and this is a part of the role of the said committee.
My analysis
3.3.2 Chairperson to decide states -
“The chairperson is to decide all questions where these standing orders make no provision or insufficient information, and all points of order, and any member who refuses to obey an order or ruling of the chairperson shall be held guilty of contempt (see Standing Orders 3.1.1, 3.13.6 and Appendix C)”
This is irrelevant as the Standing Orders make clear provision for the rules of notices of motion at section 3.10.
3.10.2 Refusal of notice of motion states –
The chairperson may direct the chief executive to refuse to accept any notice of motion which:
(a) Is disrespectful or which contains offensive language or statements made with malice; or
(b) Is not related to the role or functions of the local authority; or
(c) Contains an ambiguity or a statement of fact or opinion which cannot properly form part of an effective resolution, and where the mover has declined to comply with such requirements as the chief executive may make; or
(d) Is concerned with matters which are already the subject of reports or recommendations from a committee to the meeting concerned.
Reasons for refusing a notice of motion should be provided to the proposer.”
The Mayor claims as his reasons for refusing the notice of motion as –
“The Council has a CE review Committee and this is a part of the role of the said committee.”
The reasons given do not accord with any of the reasons allowed under clause 3.10.2
(a) It is not disrespectful and does not contain offensive language or statements made with malice; and
(b) Is related to the role or functions of the local authority; and
(c) Does not contains an ambiguity or a statement of fact or opinion which cannot properly form part of an effective resolution, and where the mover has declined to comply with such requirements as the chief executive may make; and
(d) Is not concerned with matters which are already the subject of reports or recommendations from a committee to the meeting concerned.
Therefore no valid reason has been given for refusing notice of motion 14.
Furthermore the implication of the Mayor’s claimed reason is that motions cannot be proposed by councillors to change the structure of Council’s existing committees.