The following item of Opposition Business has been proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr N Dixon:
‘The Council AGM has traditionally been a ceremonial affair. At the AGM held on 26th May 2021 the Leader of the Council broke this convention by choosing to politicise the event by delivering a long mid-term report stating the perceived achievements of the Liberal Democrat Administration since they took over control of the council. As there was no opportunity for the Opposition to respond to this at the meeting, we seek to rebalance that report and set the record straight.
The Conservative Opposition therefore makes the following recommendations:
That Full Council:
1. Resolves that the Annual General Meeting should be limited to ceremonial matters and that no political statements will be allowed.
That the Leader and Cabinet:
2. Demonstrate some dynamism, creative thinking and leadership to tackle North Norfolk’s immediate and long term needs.
3. Deliver competent governance with clear deliverables and measurable outcomes.
4. Govern in an open and transparent manner.
We therefore propose that the Leader reports back to the next meeting of Full Council, setting out with clear timescales, how the above matters will be addressed.’
Minutes:
Cllr Cushing began by saying that since the Council’s formation in 1974, the Annual General Meeting (AGM) had been a non-partisan event, bringing all Members together to celebrate the achievements of the outgoing Chairman and to welcome the new Chairman and Vice-Chairman to their roles. Instead, the Leader of the Council had made a ‘state of the Union’ style address, to which he, as Leader of the Opposition had no right of reply. He said that he had brought this item of business forward as a response to the Leader’s statement at the AGM.
He explained that the first recommendation was to ensure that the AGM remained a purely ceremonial affair. The remaining three recommendations were in response to the Leader’s statement at the AGM and attempt to present the Opposition’s view of the Administration and its achievements to date.
He said that the Administration was process-focussed, lacked plans and was devoid of ideas on how to tackle future challenges. He referred to the forecast deficits in future years and said that nothing was being done to prepare for this. A dynamic Council should strive to find savings and have a plethora of ideas to generate income. He drew comparisons with the Conservative-run councils across the County and said that they were very different in their approach in coming up with solutions to meet their medium to long-term needs. He referred to Great Yarmouth Borough Council which had successfully bid for millions of pounds in grants, resulting in £220m income in the last 12 months alone – from a mixture of grant funding and their own investment income.
He then spoke about the Corporate Plan, which had taken nine months to come to fruition, there were 95 actions listed within it, of which 71 were process-driven. He then referred to what he perceived to be a high level of dysfunction within the Council, including the recent Capability Review. He then spoke about a number of Cabinet members who were not on top of their portfolios as well as some senior officers. In his view, the appointment of members to Cabinet seemed to be based on their loyalty to the Leader rather than knowledge of their portfolio areas.
He concluded by referring to secrecy that pervaded the Administration. This ranged from changing recommendations at meetings at the last minute, announcing council tax changes via the media and not informing members of the sale of a council-owned property. He said that in summary, although a council could not be run like a business it should at least be business-like.
Cllr Dixon seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman invited Cllr Rest to speak. He said that he didn’t have any comment to make.
The Leader of the Council, Cllr S Butikofer, was then invited to respond.
Cllr Butikofer began by thanking Cllr Cushing for giving her the opportunity to set the record straight. In response to his first recommendation that the AGM should be non-political, she referred him to page 17 of the Constitution, which set out the business for the AGM. She said that the nature of council meetings was that they were political, which was unsurprising given the nature of the work that elected members did. She said that in a previous year that had been a very lengthy debate over the election of the Chairman and of Chairmen of committees which was far more political than the Leader reporting on achievements to the Council’s residents. She drew members’ attention to page 192 of the Constitution which set out the role and duties of the Leader of the Council and which included informing the community of policy and strategy. She said that if the Opposition group wished to take the matter further, the most appropriate avenue would be the Constitution Working Party.
Cllr Butikofer then responded to Cllr Cushing’s assertion that the Administration had not achieved very much. She said that the start of their term in office had involved cleaning up a myriad of problems left by the previous administration. Despite this, the Administration had continued to deliver projects against their manifesto of pledges. She said that she was proud of the Council and its achievements and the recent shortlisting for two national awards demonstrated that it continued to work to an exceptional standard during a pandemic.
Regarding governance, Cllr Butikofer, said that the Administration had some concerns about governance and procedural matters when it took control of the Council and it had worked with officers and the auditors to address these. She said that she believed in clarity. The Council’s objectives were set out in the Corporate Plan and quarterly updates on progress were reported to Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee. In the near future there would be a visual ‘traffic light’ style display in the reception area so visitors to the Council offices could easily see how the objectives were being worked towards.
Cllr Butikofer then addressed the last recommendation regarding transparency. She said that members of her group were elected to all positions, including Cabinet members.
She said that opposition members had every opportunity to look scrutinise and challenge the work of the Administration via the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The annual report of the committee, which had been presented to Council showed that five items had been pre-scrutinised, allowing members to feed into the development of policies and strategies, including the Corporate Plan. Many of the recommendations made by the Overview & Scrutiny committee had been incorporated into the final versions.
Cllr Butikofer said that at the start of the pandemic she had invited the leaders of the opposition groups to join her at the high level Gold meetings of the Council. This was the forum for dealing with and responding to emergency situations. She said that Cllr Cushing had declined to join and said that he would prefer to hold the Administration to account.
The Chairman then opened the debate to Members.
Cllr E Seward said that it was impractical for the AGM to be purely ceremonial. The fact that appointments were made meant that politics was inevitable. He referred to the Norfolk County Council’s agenda for the AGM and said that it included motions and item for political debate and that was a Conservative administration. He referred to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s Annual report which acknowledged that most of their recommendations were accepted by Cabinet. This indicated a willingness for the Administration to listen and respond positively to proposals. He then spoke about the suggestion that the Administration was not enthusiastic about its ambitions. He said that in North Walsham, members were extremely excited about the Heritage Action Zone project and invited Cllr Cushing to come and see what was being achieved there. He added that NNDC was the only Council to address the challenges of the climate emergency, £126m had been paid out in business grants and a new swimming pool was almost completed. He talked about several property- related projects that were transforming the town of Cromer.
Cllr S Penfold said that in terms of demonstrating dynamism to tackle important issues, the declaration of a climate emergency was an absolutely crucial first step. He also referred to the HAZ project, the increase in affordable houses being built. He suggested that Cllr Cushing re-read all of the portfolio holder reports that had been prepared for Full Council meetings since 2019 as these would clearly set out the Administration’s achievements.
Cllr G Hayman said that the Administration needed to ‘up its game’. He said that there was no clear direction provided by the Leadership, despite what was being claimed. He said that the assertion that the Administration was open and transparent was not his experience as a former member of Cabinet. Most decisions were taken by a small, closed group of Members and when he had asked for information about several matters, he had been informed that it was not available to share. He said that this led to poor decision making and policy drift. He concluded by saying that the achievements listed by the Leader had all been initiated by officers.
Cllr V Gay said that in 2019, a decision was taken to allocate more money to the building of the new Sheringham Leisure centre and it was agreed that regular updates were provided to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. This indicated a willingness to engage and work in an open and transparent manner.
Cllr J Toye said that the Opposition Group just wanted to oppose. They did not want to engage positively to move things forward. He outlined several achievements within his own portfolio of Planning, that he was very proud of – including the increased number of affordable homes that were being built. Regarding leadership, he said that his group voted on any appointments and there was no whip in place. He added that the Administration sometimes took longer to deliver projects because they consulted and engaged with residents and stakeholders. In conclusion, he said that he had recently responded to concerns that had been raised regarding second homes in the District by ensuring that the Chairman of Overview & Scrutiny Committee was copied into his correspondence to the Leader and senior officers.
Cllr Shires reiterated the previous comments by other members that her Group were voted into positions. She said that this was a challenging process to go through but it was important that members had the support of their peers when appointed to roles.
Cllr R Kershaw commented that only issues relating to personnel and employment matters that could not be shared with other members.
The Chairman invited Cllr Dixon as seconder of the motion to speak.
Cllr Dixon began by saying that no one like to be treated unfairly and if the Leaders speech at the AGM had mentioned the issues that hadn’t gone so well, then it was unlikely that this discussion would be taking place. It was only fair that people were aware of both ‘sides of the coin’.
He questioned why there was so little openness with the current Administration. He, along with other members, had repeatedly learned about key matters such as the sale of Parklands in Pudding Norton and the delayed opening of the Reef in Sheringham by reading about them in the local newspaper. Sharing such information was in compliance with the Protocol on Member /Officer Protocol. He said that so many Motions to Full Council had been about tokenistic politics and were rarely followed up with substantive actions. He asked why the Administration had lost so much momentum, capacity and morale following the Capability Review. The Leader raised a point of order, saying that she took exception to these comments. The Monitoring Officer clarified that the statement was not defamatory as it was not a personal comment.
The Chairman reminded members that the 30 minutes allocated for this item was almost up.
Cllr G Hayman proposed that standing orders were suspended to allow a further 10 minutes of debate. Cllr E Vardy seconded the proposal. When put to the vote, it was not supported.
Cllr Dixon said that the vote was e good example of the lack of openness. He concluded by saying that the Leader’s speech at the AGM could have been clearer in acknowledging the Council could have done better and there were many lessons to learn. These were reflected in the recommendations and he asked Members to reflect on this rather than relying on party unity when they cast their vote.
The Chairman invited Cllr Cushing as proposer of the motion to make the final comments. Cllr Cushing said that despite the Leader’s assertions regarding her group being elected to any roles, he remained dubious that it was an open and transparent process. He said that the Reef in Sheringham was a project that had been initiated under the previous Conservative administration. He welcomed Cllr Seward’s invitation to North Walsham and said that he would like to invite him to visit Fakenham, the second largest town in the District as it had not received very little funding. He concluded by saying that Cllr Hayman’s comments had been astounding and had exposed the dysfunctional way in which the Administration operated. The Administration was now in the second half of its term and he was hopeful they would not be elected in 2023.
The Chairman said that he would like to take the recommendations in two parts:
It was proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr N Dixon
That the Annual General Meeting should be limited to ceremonial matters and that no political statements will be allowed.
When put to the vote, the recommendation was not supported. 9 members voted in favour of the proposal.
It was proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr N Dixon
That the Leader and Cabinet:
- Demonstrate some dynamism, creative thinking and leadership to tackle North Norfolk’s immediate and long term needs.
- Deliver competent governance with clear deliverables and measurable outcomes.
- Govern in an open and transparent manner.
- that the Leader reports back to the next meeting of Full Council, setting out with clear timescales, how the above matters will be addressed.’
When put to the vote, the recommendation was not supported. 9 members voted in favour of the proposal.