At last night’s Full Council meeting, the atmosphere became fractious during a vote about appointments to council committees.
Councillor Nick Stuart (LibDem) caused a stir after disagreeing with a proposal that Councillor Richard Quigley (Labour) be co-opted onto the Appointment and Employment Committee.
The recommendation had actually been made by the Appointments and Employment Committee themselves, as Councillor Quigley chairs the Children’s Services Committee and is seen as vital in being part of the appointment of a new head of Children’s Services.
Brodie: ‘Disgraceful’
Councillor Geoff Brodie (IndLab) labelled the announcement by Councillor Stuart as ‘disgraceful’, adding that it undermined the spirit of what they were all trying to achieve at the meeting. He asked for a named vote on the recommendation, this was backed up by several other councillors.
Robertson: ‘A gross act of self-politicking’
Councillor Joe Robertson (Con) accused the LibDem councillor of a ‘gross act of self-politicking’,
“Councillor Quigley, as the democratically elected Chair of the Children’s Services Committee, regardless of his political party, he should be on the Appointments Committee when that committee is deciding who to appoint to Children’s Services.”
Andre: ‘It is only right and proper that he should be on the Appointments Committee’
Councillor Debbie Andre, the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education and Lifelong Skills, said,
“We’ve heard a lot about cross party working this evening. Now, as chair of the Policy and Scrutiny for Children’s Services, Councillor Quigley plays a crucial role in the governance of Children’s Services of this authority. And it is only right and proper that he should be on the Appointments Committee for the selection of a Director of Children’s Services – That is going to be heading up that governance structure.
Ellis: ‘I hope we can him where he needs to be’
Leader of the Conservative group of councillors, Suzie Ellis, added her support for Councillor Quigley too, she said,
“As Vice Chair of both Policy Scrutiny for Children’s Services and the Appointments and Employment Committee, I’d like to strongly echo what Councillors Brodie and Robertson have said. We very much felt we wanted Councillor Quigley to be part of this process, and I very much would like this to be a named vote. I hope that we can get this resolved and get him where he needs to be.”
Stuart’s defence
Councillor Stuart defended his decision by saying,
“I believe proportionality is important and I can see no reason why the six members of the Appointment Committee cannot make their own decisions. The recommendation was the Councillor Quigley would be nominated to the committee without voting rights , it is the case that there are other Corporate Scrutiny Committees who could equally claim, such as Councillor Lilley, that he should be on that committee, because he covers, obviously, part of the remit of Children’s Services generally.
“As far as I am concerned, I see absolutely no reason to break proportionality and I object, for once, for being accused of being political. I spent my entire career not being political, and as people on my committee, as scrutiny committee know, I take no notice of political affiliations in talking and trying to bring everybody on board. You may make your own decision, I have no problem with standing by my decision.”
Robertson: Precedent already made
Councillor Robertson said Councillor Stuart was arguing it’s not a political decision, but was basing his argument on political proportionality, adding that he was putting that above committee chair roles.
He added that a precedent had already been made when former Cabinet member, Karl Love, was co-opted to the Appointments Committee in order to have a say on the appointment of an Adult Social Care officer, overriding political proportionality.
Motion could not be passed
A motion was proposed as part of an alternative arrangement for Councillor Quigley to the Appointment and Employment Committee with full voting rights. A named vote was held with
Councillors Andrew Garratt (LibDem) and Stuart both voted against the motion, Councillor Sarah Redrup (LibDem) abstained.
Colin Potter, the Monitoring Officer, explained as there were two votes against the recommendation the arrangement, under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, could not be passed, as it needed to be voted through without any dissent.
Quigley: Shall I still be involved?
Later in the meeting, Councillor Quigley asked the new council leader, Councillor Jordan,
Outside of the Appointments Committee would the leader like me still be involved in the selection of the Director of Children’s Services.
Jordan: Absolutely
Councillor Jordan replied that it would be rather strange on the one hand to talk about utilising skills from around the chamber and then deny his involvement. He said,
“Absolutely!”
