Agenda item

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND;

1.    That Council adopt the amended Petition Scheme as annexed at Appendix 1A of the Cabinet report; and include a change in paragraph 5 (The word ‘ago’ be replaced with ‘previously’).

Resolved

2.    That the Constitution be amended as set out in paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Cabinet report, to reflect changes to staffing structures, operational changes and new legislation.

Decision

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND;

1.    That Council adopt the amended Petition Scheme as annexed at Appendix 1A of the Cabinet report; and include a change in paragraph 5 (The word ‘ago’ be replaced with ‘previously’).

Resolved

2.    That the Constitution be amended as set out in paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 10 to reflect changes to staffing structures, operational changes and new legislation.

Reason for Decision

1.    To seek approval to amend the Constitution to reflect changes to staffing structures, operational changes and new legislation.

2.    To consider proposed amendments to the Council’s Petition Scheme

Corporate objectives

The Constitution and the Council’s Financial Regulations support all of the Council’s Corporate Objectives as they provide the governance framework for all decisions, strategic and operational.

Monitoring Officer/S.151 Officer comments

Monitoring Officer:  

This is a Monitoring Officer report.

S.151 Officer:

No direct financial implications as a result of the recommendations requested.

Advice

Cllr Williams introduced the report which includes changes to the petition scheme and updates the Constitution, primarily following the changes to Portfolio Holders as announced at Annual Council.

MBrookes advised one small change to recommendation 1; that Cabinet approves the changes to the constitution set out in paragraphs 5 & 7 and makes reference to paragraphs 9 & 10 in the background report to take account to the changes to Portfolio Holders.

Cllr Harden said that his understanding is that government changed its mind over the 2 year window, from encouraging petitions through the Localism Act, to not to require petitions, is that correct?  MBrookes confirmed that yes, they were quite prescriptive in the original rules but they have withdrawn those and it is now for councils to decide.  Most Councils still have a petition scheme and he was suggesting that we retain an amended version of ours.

Cllr Harden asked for clarification around online petitions and the difficulties identifying and validating those individuals who work, study or live in the area.

MBrookes advised that we are asking that email addresses are appended to any petition so that we can go back and ask for evidence of local connection; if they ignore the inquiry we may have to look at discounting that particular petitioner. He suggested that the number involved it is unlikely to make a big difference.  He drew attention to the need to ensure petitioners Data is protected.

Cllr Marshall, following on from Cllr Harden’s question, accepted it would be impossible to check out every petitioner but it would be nice to include a simple tick box to identify whether they are resident, work or study in this area so that when they sign up they pause and consider their connection to Dacorum. 

MBrookes responded it would be nice to have, but we would have to have our own online petition system which would be quite expensive to purchase and maintain, we are trying to encourage people to use the readily available, free online systems.

Cllr Marshall referred to the top of pg. 51 under paragraph 7 of section c and the need to avoid publishing email addresses on the website, and confirmed that only names would appear on the website.

MBrookes took the point on board and advised would he would re-look at wording and amend if necessary; he clarified that we would not be publishing email addresses. 

Cllr Tindall referred to pg. 39, first paragraph that reads ‘remove references to local democracy and economic development’, does that mean that we won’t accept petitions on those subjects in future?

MBrookes responded that the original Act that brought in the requirement for petitions has been repealed and no longer exists, so the references to it have been removed.

Cllr Tindall was concerned that it could be read as the Council is trying to deny petitions on local democracy and he suggested rewording that paragraph.

Cllr Tindall referred to pg.40, second paragraph read extend circumstances under which a petition be deemed invalid to include ‘or otherwise inappropriate’; does this give scope for the Council to pick and choose what petitions it accepts?

MBrookes responded that was not the intention, what we are trying to do is give a bit of discretion about how the policy is applied but it would be in very prescriptive circumstances that we would refuse to consider a petition.

Cllr Tindall commented that again, it does not read well in print and might be amended.

MBrookes advised that one of the areas we would apply this discretion would be where there has been repeated debate already on the matter.

Cllr Tindall added that he does not disagree with that, but the wording reads like the Council is trying to limit debate and officers may wish to review how it is written.

Cllr Griffiths commented that she can understand why this clause has been included, as it avoids listing reasons why we would not accept a petition, this wording allows us ensure improper petitions are excluded.

Cllr Harden suggested using wording such as ‘or otherwise debated’, commenting that ‘inappropriate’ may not be the right word. 

AWilliams thanked Cllr Tindall for his comments, but advised that he is happy with the wording, commenting that any wording used will always be open to interpretation.

Cllr Douris referred to pg. 50, paragraph 5, the last line of the last bullet point, and suggested that the word ‘ago’ is changed to ‘previously’.

Recommendations noted.

Voting

None.