A vote that a Cllr be no longer heard....

Question

I would take the view - in fact I did - that once a vote that a Cllr be no longer heard has been resolved by a proper majority vote, this is not just a case that they may not speak further in the meeting but rather that it is also the case that they may not vote on subsequent motions.  They are no longer heard, their opinion is not relevant and their vote forfeit.
What is the view of others on this?

Answer 1

On what basis would a council vote that a councillor may no longer be heard? The chair may bring a discussion on a item to a close by stopping all discussion and calling for a vote ( that is his job). As elected members, councillors are there to be heard at meetings and no one has the power to vote that they are "silenced". The only power that is held by council via the chair is the abandonment of the meeting due to "unruly" elements of the meeting.

Comments

Rare that I would have cause to disagree with you MM, but on this occasion I would refer you to Model Standing Orders chapter 2:

DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT MEETINGS


a.  No person shall obstruct the transaction of business at a meeting or behave offensively or improperly. If this standing order is ignored, the chair of the meeting shall request such person(s) to moderate or improve their conduct.

b.  If person(s) disregard the request of the chair of the meeting to moderate or improve their conduct, any councillor or the chair of the meeting may move that the person be no longer heard or be excluded from the meeting.
c.  The motion, if seconded, shall be put to the vote without discussion.
If a resolution made under standing order 2(b) is ignored, the chair of the meeting may take further reasonable steps to restore order or to progress the meeting. This may include temporarily suspending or closing the meeting.




I take your point of course and offer the extract direct from NALC MSOs as justification, whether you think that adequate or not only you can decide, the question is, "if" you accept the above text as appropriate, and if the vote is properly conducted and returns a majority, does the "no longer heard" relate solely to voice or would you interpret it to mean voice AND vote...

If you don't accept the principle of the action then the answer is obviously neither but maybe the MSOs reference will sway you to an opinion??

---

I would interpret that if the councillor fails to moderate or improve their behaviour that the council can vote not to hear them.  However at the point that they do moderate or improve their behaviour, the resolution is then invalidated.  This would allow for a councillor to perhaps apologise and then be brought back into the fold.  Otherwise, the resolution could have no end, if the council was so-minded and could be carried over to the next meeting, arguably.

I believe this would cover the speaking and voting element of your question.

---

It's an interesting point:

When does a resolution (any resolution) become invalidated?  When it is rescinded?  Open question, I don't know the answer...

I take the point about an apology and acceptance, that wasn't the course of events so I hadn't branched out into that consideration.

The resolution could have no end....  I think it fair to assume if clearly stated that the Cllr will be no longer heard at the meeting, then the restriction ends when the meeting closes.
I too considered that where properly resolved that a Cllr be no longer "heard" that it would be voice & vote but have since received the counter view of the county ALC which has referenced Ledbury and the inability of a lower tier council to "sanction" a Cllr.  Bit of a red herring in my opinion since it is not a sanction but rather the means by which to prevent the persistent disruption of the proper business of the council.

Interestingly, despite the paragraph extracted and posted above (para 2 of MSOs) the county ALC seem to be suggesting that it could be inappropriate to utilise this course of action (as MM presents above also) - its that be the case, one has to wonder, why is it in the MSOs.....

---

A resolution that someone "be no longer heard" is not uncommon in company administration and is a fairly standard procedural motion but I have never had experience of it being used other than to stop disruptive behaviour at a single meeting.  I would tend to agree with the county association that the Ledbury case needs to be taken into consideration, supporting the single meeting (or even single agenda item) limitation.  I would argue that stopping someone speaking further on an agenda item should not extend to preventing them voting on the subject.

---

OK, can appreciate the sentiment. My start point assumption was single meeting but I had not considered the potential (or question) of extending beyond a single meeting nor had I considered reducing it down to a single agenda item -  I can see where that would make sense if it was a single topic which was causing the disruption and things were likely to 'settle' once that topic had passed.

Good points and I had considered neither until mentioned.

---

I agree with Delboy's wife. It's hard to envisage a situation in which casting a vote could obstruct the transaction of business or be deemed to be offensive or improper behaviour.

The references to Ledbury are interesting, as the SO offers the choice between "no longer heard" or exclusion. I presume the latter is intended for members of the public, but it doesn't say so.

---

Yes, like so much in LGA - vague and open to interpretation until such time as affirmed by case law (obviously rare.)

In my reply from the county ALC it was almost as it they were suggesting, since the text is not emboldened and therefore not directly linked to statutory requirement, that it was “optional” and for the individual council to adopt or otherwise as they see fit. Whilst accepting that all these MSOs are “open to interpretation, adoption or adaptation”, why put something in there if, when faced with a question relating to an entry, the response is - we didn’t really mean for you to do it….?

(Rhetorical question obvs)