Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs E B Tucker, Mrs S Askin and Mr T A L Wells:
"In November last year, Worcester City Council voted to switch to a committee system to run the council.
Worcester joins a growing list of councils, including county councils like ourselves, which have either switched or are actively looking at switching to some form of committee system to run their council.
The current Cabinet system excludes most councillors and Worcestershire residents from any meaningful input to decision-making. The elected representatives of the people of Worcestershire would serve their residents better through a cross-party committee system, which works from published papers and reports and thus gives far greater transparency and leads to better decision-making.
Council believes that we should start the process of moving to a form of committee system."
The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.
An amendment was then suggested by Mr R M Udall and adopted as an alteration by the Mover and Seconder that the final sentence of the Motion be deleted and replaced with:
"Council asks for an OSPB investigation into the future governance of the County Council and how a committee system could be introduced."
In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised. Those speaking in favour:
· This Motion was concerned with establishing the best way to run the Council by fully representing the views of local residents, openly debating and scrutinising issues and using the local knowledge and expertise of local councillors. This could be best done through the introduction of a committee system
· An increasing number of Councils were reverting to a committee system because it was recognised that the majority of councillors were being side-lined and disenfranchised under the cabinet system. All councillors needed to take an active role in policy development and the committee system made this possible
· To ensure that a consensus was achieved, the OSPB should be charged with investigating the future governance arrangements of the Council before a decision was made on the future governance model
· Experience of the committee system at district level showed that the quality and quantity of debate at meetings was better. The recent survey of county councillors indicated that there was much support for this proposed change
· The cabinet system undermined the role of the local councillor in that cabinet members were not just involved in strategic implementation but also day-to-day matters in local divisions
· No power or mandate would be removed from the administration by the re-introduction of the committee system but it would give every member the opportunity to discuss and improve the decisions made by the Council.
Those speaking against the Motion:
· There was no evidence of popular support in the country for the committee system with only 3 councils adopting it to date, all of whom had no overall control. This Council in contrast had a clear mandate to form an administration. The cabinet system provided the Council with strong leadership in order to represent it nationally and regionally to secure funding and make timely decisions in a fast moving environment
· Cabinet members were required to have knowledge across all service areas. In contrast, chairmen under the committee system would only have knowledge of their own service area for which their committee was responsible
· The Cabinet system provided clear leadership, gave clarity to officers and residents and provided an obvious point of accountability. The committee system led to inertia, confusion and weakness
· Backbenchers were not disenfranchised under the cabinet system, they just did not make best use of the opportunities available to them
· There was an opportunity for all councillors to challenge the decisions of the administration through the overview and scrutiny process.
On being put to the meeting the Motion as altered was lost.