Do e-mail discussions on Policy Development constitute predetermination?

Question

There are two schools of thought about sharing e-mails with councillor colleagues, one that all communications should be addressed to the chair and / or the clerk who will decide wider distribution, the other that all colleagues should be involved at the outset.

Recent draft guidance for my council states "It is rare that a matter is so urgent that it needs immediate e-mail discussion with the whole council. If a councillor feels that there is something which needs to be shared with the whole council immediately he/she should seek advice from the clerk or chair; the clerk or chair will decide on the most appropriate action and disseminate the information to other councillors as appropriate".

Given current practice that the clerk or chair are very selective in replying to such requests there is a risk that normal communications will be severely constrained.

a) Is there any "Good Practice" guidance on the subject?

b) is a councillor obliged to conform if a majority of members accept the guidance?

Thank you.

Answer 1

Tough questions! I'd think the answers are liable to be a matter of opinion, and therefore a bit vague.

My impression is that the trend is towards greater openness and more use of network opportunities. Excessive communication can become a problem, so it makes sense to consider whether an item needs to be passed to a wider group or not. On the other hand, my preference is to avoid being selective about any matter where all councillors may be interested.

Again, a personal opinion, but I am reluctant to create gatekeepers to decide what information should be exchanged between councillors. The clerk plainly has to filter the large amount of material that arrives at even very small councils, but it is not clear that this should extend to messages from councillors.

So, I'd be inclined to decide each case on its merits, but with a tendency towards openness and no restrictions imposed by other people.

Of course, if individual councillors say that they do not want to receive emails, then their views have to be respected, but that need not prevent exchanges between willing councillors.

As to predetermination, that is a particularly difficult issue, and one where legislation is promised. Simply discussing something does not appear likely to count as predetermination unless a strong view is expressed. Provided opinions are qualified by a willingness to entertain alternatives or to look at new information, there should not be a problem. And it would be very rare for anyone to formally challenge a local council decision on the basis of predetermination.