Agenda item

9.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Joe Otten, and formally seconded by Councillor Barbara Masters, that this Council:-

(a)       notes the receipt of the It's Our City petition, triggering a referendum on the governance of the city;

(b)       notes that the referendum will be legally binding on the City Council, short of another referendum, as regards to the choice of executive arrangements or the committee system, but not on the specific implementation of either system (Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000, Chapter 1, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, Schedule 2, Part 1, Clause 9M);

(c)        notes that under a committee system, committees of the council are legally required to be politically proportional to the composition of the council, with the exception of area committees (The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 - Regulation 19);

(d)       believes that this unusual development reflects justified dissatisfaction with the decision making processes of the City Council, in particular, concerns over decisions relating to the issue of highway trees, such as the operation on Rustlings Road and the committal proceedings against citizens of Sheffield, including an elected Member;

(e)       believes that decision making should be open, accountable, democratic and transparent, that it should make good use of the contributions of elected members, and that it should be timely and efficient;

(f)        believes that a change of governance to a committee system represents a good opportunity to improve decision making at the Council;

(g)       believes that more timely engagement with popular calls for improved governance would have avoided the need for a costly referendum, and avoided binding the city to the result of the referendum, for better or worse;

(h)       believes that the devolution of powers and budgets relating to local matters to committees of local Members would result in better decisions and the more effective use of public money;

(i)         deplores the decision by the Administration to abolish Community Assemblies and replace them with a much weaker neighbourhood structure;

(j)         regrets the decision by the Administration to abandon the principle of proportionality in chairs of scrutiny committees, previously adopted in the Council;

(k)        regrets that the 'Big City Conversation' consultation exercise has largely avoided the governance issues, has run down the clock, and prevented any consultation on the options that will be put to the referendum; and

(l)         calls on all elected Members of the Council to engage positively and earnestly with citizens expressing concerns regarding decision making structures and culture at the Council, and to adopt a positive and collaborative working relationship where common ground might be found, to advance the interests of the city and its people, while each respecting our various political traditions and values.

9.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Bryan Lodge, and formally seconded by Councillor Cate McDonald, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the deletion of paragraph (d) and the re-lettering of paragraph (e) as a new paragraph (d);

2.         the deletion of paragraphs (f) to (k) and the addition of new paragraphs (e) to (i) as follows:-

(e)       notes the results of the Big City Conversation, and the many conversations held by local councillors within their communities, which showed that the biggest concerns in the city are some of the following - improving public transport; improving our roads and making them free of congestion; tackling crime and anti-social behaviour; providing services for children, young people and teenagers; delivering social care; maintaining our parks and green spaces; tackling the climate emergency and air pollution; and ensuring that everyone in the city has a safe, secure and affordable place to call home – issues all highlighted from responses collected during the Big City Conversation, and had opposition councillors taken part in the events across the City, they would have enjoyed first-hand knowledge of these responses;

(f)        believes that people in Sheffield want to see the Council getting on with issues that matter the most to them, and that elected members would be better serving their constituents by spending more time in their communities working to address and understand these concerns, rather than spending more time in the town hall for committee meetings;

(g)       notes that adopting a committee system has the potential to cost the Council a lot more every year in administration and that, especially during austere times, this would be regrettable; this is based on the information provided to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on 26th November 2019 on the unit cost of servicing a committee;

(h)       believes that the major opposition group has chosen to ignore the potential additional costs that would ultimately be passed on to all council tax payers of Sheffield, regardless that the majority of these tax payers see other matters more worthy of this expenditure; and

(i)         believes that, as noted in the report on governance arrangements, community involvement cannot be described as being inherently better or worse under either a Cabinet system or committee system and that, fundamentally, it is how locality arrangements are drawn up, and notes that the Council has committed to strengthening these arrangements and increasing community voice, influence and the opportunity for people to have their say at a local level and within the Council’s decision making processes.

3.         the re-lettering of original paragraph (l) as a new paragraph (j).

9.3

It was then formally moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson, and formally seconded by Councillor Angela Argenzio, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted by amended by the addition of a new paragraph (m) as follows:-

(m)      therefore supports a change to the committee system of governance.

9.4

The amendment moved by Councillor Bryan Lodge was put to the vote and was carried.

9.5

The amendment moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson was then put to the vote and was negatived.

9.6

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

9.6.1

(NOTE: The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith) and Councillors Bob Pullin, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Angela Argenzio, Kaltum Rivers, Douglas Johnson, Ruth Mersereau, Martin Phipps, Tim Huggan, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Paul Turpin, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Peter Garbutt,  Alison Teal, David Baker, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Alan Hooper and Mike Levery voted for paragraphs (a) to (d) and (j), and against paragraphs (e) to (i) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)