A dispute broke out during the Isle of Wight Full Council meeting on Wednesday night.
In summary, there was a proposal (motion) put forward that was initially found to be not legal, there was a possibly illegal ejection from the chamber, and questions are raised on validity of the outcome of the vote.
A great deal was discussed, but we’ve focused our report on the possible procedural irregularities.
Legality of motion questioned
The legality of a motion being put forward by Cllr Bob Blezzard was questioned by the leader, Cllr Jonathan Bacon, as well as the acting monitoring officer, Helen Miles.
Cllr Bob Blezzard‘s motion called for members of the Executive to be voted into their positions by the full council, rather than as subject to current legislation, by the leader of the council.
Current legislation would not allow motion
At the beginning of discussions leader of the council, Cllr Jonathan Bacon, explained the motion as it stood was not legal and could not be considered by the members.
He advised members that current legislation would not allow the council to make the decision. He said the change could only be made with the approval of the Secretary of State and would be subject to a three-stage test which was not addressed in the motion.
This view was echoed by the acting monitoring officer, who stated the legislation was very clear.
Differing legal advice
Cllr Blezzard claimed the monitoring officer, Davina Fiore, had stated in two reports that it was “perfectly legal to change the constitution in the way suggested”. He went on to add that two weeks ago he received differing advice from the same legal officer, that the change could not take place under the 2000 Local Government Act.
He went onto say that he’d spoken fifteen minutes before the meeting with a civil servant (un-named) from the Department for Communities and Local Government who had said that councils have the option of suggesting an approach of their own to the Secretary of State.
Amendment to motion
Cllr Blezzard then suggested his motion be amended by adding the sentence “subject to approval of the Secretary of State”.
He added that if they didn’t get approval, of course the motion couldn’t go ahead, but if they did, the Isle of Wight council would be breaking new ground.
Approval unlikely even by May 2016
The acting monitoring officer added they would not be able to seek approval from the Secretary of State prior to the May 2015 meeting (when the leader announces appointments to the Executive) and it was unlikely approval could be sought even by May 2016.
Unsurprisingly, seeking approval from the Secretary of State would be an incredibly long process, explained Helen Miles.
Chairman of the meeting, Cllr Ian Ward, stated the decision on whether to continue with the motion was his and said,
“Bearing in mind the amount of work that has gone into researching this – I have taken wide cognisance of members’ views – it’s my decision that we continue to proceed.”
Clarification sought on main motion or amended motion
Prior to taking the vote, Cllr Phil Jordan asked the Chairman for clarification as to whether members were voting on the main motion or the amended motion.
(NB: The proposal of ideas and the amendments to those ideas are done in a very rigid, strict way, made up of people suggesting an idea (a motion). Our understanding is that if changes are suggested to those ideas, they have to be done via an amendment to the motion.
As far as we’ve witnessed over the years of covering these meetings, when an amendment to a motion is suggested, that amendment is usually voted upon before the main motion is put to the vote. As yet, it’s unclear why that didn’t happen on Wednesday evening.)
As reported in our live coverage, Cllr Ward replied, “the main motion”.
Cllr Jordan then argued the “main motion”, which had just been seconded, was the one that it had been explained was “not legal”.
He went on to point out that Cllr Blezzard had 15 minutes previously, told the chamber that councillors should “take heed of advice” from officers, but that he was now suggesting they ignore legal advice from officers. He said this was based on the advice of “someone on the end of the telephone”.
Cllr Jordan asked to leave the chamber
Cllr Lumley interjected, saying that Cllr Jordan was disrespecting the Chairman, and should be asked to leave.
The monitoring officer confirmed that the amendment added to the main motion now made it legal. Cllr Jordan told the Chairman he was trying to clarify that, but he’d been told by the Chairman they were voting on the main motion (not an amended one).
Cllr Ward said, “that is the main motion and I’m not going to argue this.”
Cllr Jordan then stated the amendment hadn’t been voted on, but the chair cut him off and asked him to leave the chamber.
An audio clip of Cllr Jordan seeking clarification can be heard below.
Stubbings: “Bringing the council into disrepute”
Deputy leader of the council, Cllr Steve Stubbings, suggested the motion be deferred until they were able to establish the legal advice required.
He said,
“I am fearful we will would be bringing this council into disrepute by voting on a motion which does not currently have the backing of any kind of legal advice other than that which was sought by Cllr Blezzard in a telephone to an anonymous civil servant this afternoon. I am very concerned that we will be moving towards a place we don’t want to be.”
The Chairman said he noted his concerns.
Chairman had the casting vote
Following Cllr Jordan’s removal from the chamber, the vote was taken, bringing a result of 14 members for the motion, 14 against the motion and five abstaining.
This meant the Chairman had the casting vote. He voted in favour of the motion.
It’s not known how Cllr Jordan would have voted had he remained in the chamber, but if it were against the motion, it would have fallen without the need for the Chairman to make the casting vote.
No vote to remove member
As we’ve said above, the way things happen in the chamber are highly structured and controlled by a set of rules called “the Constitution”.
The Constitution states that before a member can be asked to leave the chamber, the chairman must seek a seconder and the motion be voted upon. As the recording reveals, this did not happen at Wednesday’s meeting.
Version 7.5 Dated: November 2014 Status: FINAL
Author: Justin Thorne
PROCEDURE RULE No. 22 MEMBERS’ CONDUCT4. Member not to be heard further
If a member persistently disregards the ruling of the chairman by behaving improperly or offensively or deliberately obstructs business, the chairman may move that the member be not heard further. If seconded, the motion will be voted on without discussion.5. Member to leave the meeting
If the member continues to behave improperly after such a motion is carried, the chairman may either adjourn the meeting for a specified time or move that the member leaves the meeting. If, the motion that a member leaves the meeting is seconded, the motion will be voted on without discussion.
Update 12.30 7th April
OnTheWight have posed a series of questions to the council, seeking clarification on the procedure taken at the meeting and will update once we hear back.
Image: Veronique Debord under CC BY 2.0
