A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Matter for Decision
|
The
proposal to modify Standing Orders aimed to improve the way public questions
worked at the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board and Joint
Assembly. The changes increased the
amount of notice required to submit a public question before the meeting,
whilst aiming to maintain the amount of time between publication of agenda
and deadline for questions. The
changes also ensured questions related to agenda items (whilst retaining
Chair’s discretion on this), and limited the number of words in a question. The
proposals reflected learning from the first year and a half of the Executive
Board and Joint Assembly, member feedback and suggestions from several key
stakeholders who had exercised their public speaking rights at the Board and
Assembly. These included Cambridge Past, Present and Future, Federation of
Cambridge Residents’ Associations, Cambridge Cycling Campaign, Smarter
Cambridge Transport, Coton Parish Council and Madingley Parish Council.
Greater
notice given for public questions and making public questions more focused
should improve transparency in decision-making and public information, as
well as the efficient discharge of City Deal business. |
Decision of the Leader and Executive Councillor for
Strategy and Transformation
i.
To recommend to Council to endorse the proposed
modified Standing Orders for the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly and
Executive Board which were tabled at the Committee meeting.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.
A tracked changed version of the changes to
the standing orders was tabled at the meeting following inconsistencies being
highlighted in the version contained in the agenda pack.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The changes proposed made
sense as some of the public questions asked could require technical answers
which Officers would need time to consider. However expressed concern about
narrowing the scope regarding what questions could be asked and that there was
no provision for supplementary questions.
The Leader said the following:
i.
He believed that the
Committee should stick with the recommendations as proposed as there was
flexibility within the standing orders.
ii.
He would raise the issue
regarding supplementary questions with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Assembly.
An additional recommendation was proposed by
Councillor Bick to ask the Executive Councillor to seek further agreement for
provision for supplementary questions.
This amendment was lost by 2 votes in favour to 4 against.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 with
2 abstentions to endorse the amended recommendations.
The Leader approved the amended recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations
Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Leader.
