Submitting a written motion.....

Question

I suspect this could end up being the expressions of opinions rather than being supported by reference (although references to pecuniary and non disclosable interests might come up.)

Submitting a written motion; it used to be the case in my PC that a previous clerk (finally handed her sandwiches in a road map) would insist that any routine written motion should be submitted on the appropriate template (that was actually the good part) complete with name of the proposer and seconder and if it didn't have that it was auto-rejected.  I can see the misguided intent here, but read on...

It seems obvious to me that to declare as the 'seconder' prior to any open discussion equates to a clear and documented case of predetermination - the written motion has to be submitted 7 clear days before the meeting, if you declare as seconding it at that stage your mind is already closed in favour of the motion prior to hearing any other points of discussion.  Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go straight to predetermination jail...

My thoughts have moved on a bit since then and that bit is not under consideration as it seems perfectly obvious.

The next question was, what happens if the person that has compiled the written motion, and nominated them self as the proposer, has to declare either type of interest because the content of the motion implicates or involves them self?  Then they cannot be the proposer (previous default - auto-rejection item not on the agenda, seems silly?)

However, if an interest is declared at the meeting, it would be improper for the person named in advance on the written motion as the proposer to actually be the proposer.
Is the solution as simple as, as well as removing the seconder from the advanced written motion, the proposer must also be removed from the advance written motion and the motion would only be subject to proposal and seconding AFTER it has been discussed and it could be proposed / seconded by any member present except any that had declared an interest.

In effect then, written motion submitted 7 days before a meeting has no proposer / seconder noted, discussion takes place, a proposer and seconder are sought AFTER the discussion.....

Any thoughts.....?

Answer 1

At my Council you don’t need a proposer or seconder until the motion is discussed do your SO insist on a proposer or seconder in advance ?
Also is the template included as an appendix in your SO’s ? If not it’s advisory not compulsory

Comments

Our SOs indicate that a motion cannot be put for a vote without a seconder indicating that that has to be done at the meeting.  Of greater concern to me is the fact that in circa 2018/19 NALC removed the "subject to" from the model guidelines which gives the  clerk absolute right to refuse any motion they alone choose . Our clerk now simply refuses all my motions.  A recent motion/request to review our SOs was refused stating that that process can only be undertaken annually.  I responded by saying the TOR for our Finance Committee states that they should can be regularly reviewed .  She has not replied .  Its all a game.

---

If you have support you can always call an EGM

---

The SOs provide a motion template which has a field for 'proposer' & 'seconder.'

It had become common practice, through the inappropriate control of previous clerk and the lack of questioning ability or confidence from Cllrs, that a written motion must have been submitted with a proposer and seconder included at the submission stage - no proposer / seconder, no motion on agenda.

I have only recently started taking previous practice and precedent apart - this is just one example of a deviant clerk exercising adverse influence combined with Cllr's lacking the knowledge, or even the simple intellectual capacity, to question the patently illogical.

For Scottie - do you have a 'problem' with the chair AND the clerk?  It is obvious from what you write that your clerk is behaving inappropriately - can you highlight this to the chair?  I completely agree about the nonsense which is the assumption that the clerk 'controls' the agenda - they may ensure appropriateness, legality, probity, clarity etc of any given motion - but they certainly don't control what is / isn't transacted as business of the council.

Of course you are right that SOs could be amended at any time, why would you not?  It is illogical and demonstrative of an attempt to assert overarching control if your clerk is behaving in the fashion that you describe.

Raise a professional complaint.

---

RAC Essentially IMHO Clerks who seek to control Councillors often find that working with selected senior Councillors to form an alliance is a preferred way of working . In order to achieve this  they come up with various  ways of heading off any opposition and in this regard having loads of "just sit there and vote yes to everything " Councillors must be manna from heaven to them.  The sad things is that many believe that they are bringing order to the PC but again IMHO sometimes order can be very close to abuse.  As has been continually said the only way this will be overcome is by better training of Councillors.  I don't have the answer for that but to me the PC model is fundamentally flawed and often operates under an "its only a quid a week whats the matter with you" response

---

Agreed on the whole - but vehemently disagree with your premise that there are "senior councillors."  There is no such thing as a senior cllr - refuse to acknowledge it, refuse to repeat it, refuse to be subjugated by it.

Whilst holding a certain position may infer greater sway, the mere fact of being there longer is no measure or validation of 'seniority.'

Answer 2

A motion submission for discussion and resolution at a council meeting has nothing to do with proposal or seconding. The item is placed on the agenda, the chair will call for a proposer and a seconder, if no one comes forward then the motion fails. When a proposer and seconder are known and recorded the discussion takes place and concluded by a vote of council ( amendments included)

Comments

I take your point, but the same rationale exists for having a proposer and seconder on the written motion as does having them declared PRIOR to the discussion taking place.
In both instances - the proposer and the seconder are required to declare in advance of the debate.  If, after the debate they are minded to withdraw their proposal or second, since they no longer support the motion, then the motion would need a fresh proposer / seconder.  And so the process continues.



How can you propose / second a motion (ie support it - if support is the interpretation of proposing and / or seconding) prior to the debate taking place?
Do you see what I'm saying?

If you can't have a proposer / seconder on the advance written submission, then by a similar rationale, you can't have them in advance of the debate.

It doesn't make any sense....
Unless, to get into the real finer detail - it is the discussion which is proposed and seconded rather than the motion.

---

It is a fact that any councillor can make a proposal for a meeting. Once investigated by clerk et al  that it meets the requirements for the meeting then that is it, it is put on the agenda. It is nonsensical to have proposer ( who would I assume be the councillor wishing the debate) and seconder at this stage as it is NOT a requirement for inclusion on the agenda as it is also not required as to state who has requested any agenda item.
Proposer and seconder meet the requirements of standing orders in that they feel that a debate should be held on the proposal so that matters can be debated and amendment made if required and NOT a pre-presumed vote for or against the motion.
Support for a motion is only in the vote at the conclusion of the debate and not in proposing or seconding. It is quite possible for a proposal to receive no votes after all facts are debated ( even a proposer and seconder not voting!)
Pre conceived assumptions should not accompany a proposal for a debate

---

I'm with you!  Agreed!  Been a good mental exercise for me and cleared the way for some changes at next PC meeting.  In fact, I submitted a written motion about an hour ago and deleted the "proposer' 'seconder' fields );o) just waiting to see what happens next!

---

Disagree that any Councillor can submit a motion for any  meeting .  Well he /she can submit it but the clerk is under no obligation to accept it . I am saying if that right exists then it will be abused and until the SOs are amended there is diddly squat you can do about it . In the meantime it will be used to head off debate about subjects that the clerk/inner sanctum don't want discussed. Para 9 of the SOs need to be amended

---

It seems to me that your clerk / chair (and even yourself) appear to be reading para 9 (f) in isolation.
It needs to be read in conjunction with the preceding paras (c), (d) & (e) which infer upon the clerk the duty to ensure a motion is correct, appropriate and grammatically clear.
The para (f), in my interpretation, only provides the clerk the ability to reject a motion if (c), (d) & (e) have not been satisfied and even then, (h) requires that any motion rejected shal be recorded and a reason for rejection provided.
Herein lies the solution to the problem you are portraying - if the clerk is unreasonably and inappropriately rejecting motions as a matter of course (as you seem to imply) simply take the record of rejections and the reasons so for and formulate them into a professional conduct complaint against the clerk.

---

Previously this point was made clear when the expression "subject to" was included  at the beginning 9f  http://askyourcouncil.uk/model-standing-orders/list-of-model-standing-orders/#Motions-not.  This meant that rejection could only be justified on the preceding paras grounds . In about 2018 the subject to was dropped out and this completely changed the criteria for rejection i.e. it is now solely down to the Clerks discretion

---

Yes that amend was made but no, the result is not that the clerk gained unilateral decision making over agenda content.  It may be being misrepresented that way by those errant clerks that wish it to be the case, and it may be being (even grudgingly) accepted by those that are uncomfortable with the proposition - but it can only actually "be" the case if Cllrs allow it to be.

And therein lies the answer - don't accept it as being the case.  I operate within exactly the same set of model standing orders but to think I would allow an employee to dictate the terms of business of the council is just too far from reality to be even contemplated...

Answer 3

It's very hard to prove predetermination. You basically have to admit it and, for any action to take place, some proper evidence, like an email that says "No matter what, I'll do whatever I can to make sure it happens!". Even if that's the case, would one councillor being predetermined typically "swing" a vote? If no other Councillor is considered predetermined, then they have come to their own determination meaning the arguments for voting that way are reasonable (which the predetermined Councillor can latch onto). If no other Councillor is swayed by the arguments for voting that way, it's 1 vs everyone else, so the pre-determined Councillor doesn't get what they want anyway, so it's not a problem there either.
With regards to your written proposed agenda items, any Councillor who is proposing anything has a predisposition on the matter - they wouldn't be proposing it otherwise. You can enter the room predisposed on an item. You likely do it with every other item on the agenda; you are told about them days in advance so you can research and form opinion after all. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Predetermination is when you are determined to vote in a particular way, no matter what argument is put up against you. So as long as your second for a written proposal (and is reasonably considered "predisposed") is willing to consider the alternative arguments during the meeting, they shouldn't be considered "predetermined".

I would argue that technically you can be the proposer of something that you have an interest in. For instance, you might not reasonably realise you have an interest until the discussion begins in which case you must not speak further on the matter and (probably) remove yourself from the room. Even if you know you have an interest, you can still "move the motion" prior to leaving the room - you just can't speak on the matter. Having a second here really helps, because they can take things forward in your absence.
Again, technically, any motion should be proposed and seconded prior to making it on the agenda, it probably should be noted on the agenda who is the proposer/seconder too for the Chair to properly introduce the item and open the debate with the proposer commenting why the motion exists. I think a lot of this has been done away with for the sake of convenience (i.e. if it's on the agenda, the clerk has decided it's legitimate business), but it's all too easy for the Clerk/Chair/VC combo to become "the power".

If you're having issue getting an item on the agenda, don't forget SO 9h - rejected motions shall be recorded with an explanation by the Proper Officer of the reason for rejection. Take it back, correct it, resubmit. They can't argue against it forever.

Good luck!

Answer 4

A councillor who proposes a motion is merely putting forward an idea they would like to discuss. The seconder agrees they would like the motion to be discussed. It is perfectly possible to propose or second a motion and then vote against it. They might propose or second the motion just to move on with the business of the meeting. Councillors tend to propose motions they support, so this doesn't happen very often. It's not predetermination.
However, having a seconder on a written motion isn't necessary in my opinion. Under model standing orders it only takes one councillor to submit a motion.

Comments

I like that as well - the proposer and seconder are proposing and seconding the item for discussion rather than declaring their vote in support of the item prior to the debate.

It's been a useful discussion and has confirmed (in my mind) another progression away from previous inappropriate interpretation and implementation by those seeking to exercise control over the activities of the hard of thinking towards a more logic based approach.