Agenda item

This report outlines the reasons for the call-in of the decision made by the Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities in consultation with the Executive Leader including Corporate Services, Policy, Strategy and Partnerships on 21 February 2024, in respect of the Civic Protocols Review.  The report also sets out the powers and role of the Corporate Services, Climate Change and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in dealing with the call-in.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in of the decisions made by the Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities in consultation with the Executive Leader including Corporate Services, Policy, Strategy and Partnerships on 21 February 2024 in respect of the above matter, along with the committee’s remit and powers in relation to the call-in.

[7.02 pm Cllr Rose re-joined the meeting.]

The decisions were contained in the extract from the relevant Decision Sheet at Annex 1 to the report.  The original report was attached at Annex 2.  The decisions had been called in by Cllrs Mason, Steward and Orrell for the following reasons:

·       Key Decision This should have been a key decision as a minimum; the Lord Mayoralty affects all wards and all members of the council. They are by statute the first citizen of the city and York’s Lord Mayor is second only to the City of London, holding the title Right Honourable (which only York and London do within England). The ancient right to appoint a Mayor comes from royal charters dating back to 1212 and the office is of immense standing in York, the UK and internationally. Any change to how the office operates is significant to our city and the country. In regard to the office of Sheriff, York is one of only a small number of cities who retain the right to appoint a sheriff independently of the Crown. This right comes from royal charters and letters patent. The office of Sheriff of York dates back to 1396 and its current legal standing is as a “Local Officer of Dignity”. 

The paper makes changes to the roles of the Lord Mayor and Sheriff which affect the constitution in regard to their duties, in particular “To act as an ambassador for the City locally, nationally and internationally”, “actively promoting and supporting local business and economic activity”, “actively promoting and supporting local tourism”, “residency in the Mansion House”. This alone should have meant a full council decision. 

Article 7, 3.2 of the constitution helps define Key Decisions as:

c) whether the decision is likely to be a matter of political or other controversy

d) the extent to which the decision is likely to result in or attract substantial public interest.

It was clear such significant changes to the Mayoralty and Shrievalty of England’s second civic city, which had no consultation whatsoever, would meet the above criteria.  

·       Consultation and Analysis  Lack of consultation is of great concern. There are only 3 members of the council with any experience of civic office, none were consulted. Other interested parties were not engaged with, including the Civic Trust and former Lord Mayors and Sheriffs. Indeed, no group leaders, councillors or the public, charities or businesses were consulted. There was no consultation with other CYC officers in terms of the Lord Mayor’s and Sheriff’s roles in promoting economy development or with organisations such as Visit York in regard to tourism. The only consultation was with the incoming Lord Mayor, who at the point of the decision being made was not known to the public and their views were not shared in the paper. No alternatives or comparisons were given.

·       Equalities Impacts The lack of any equalities impact assessment meant the executive member could not take account of how these changes will affect members with disabilities or those with poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. A full EIA should have been provided.

·       Lack of Financial Detail Details regarding the actual costs were not articulated. The paper fails to offer any detailed financial breakdowns or budgets. There is no cost benefit analysis against monies spent or context on positive impact. The executive member gave the media a figure of £53k ahead of the meeting, but at the meeting a different figure of £130k was given by officers.

The proposed savings are not articulated, with the exception of the reduction in allowances. The paper fails to properly describe where and how the savings will be made and their impacts.

The paper made no mention of purchasing new “badges of office”, nor any costs, yet at the meeting officers said new civic regalia was being commissioned. The executive member was not given any financial costings for these when agreeing this.

The Calling-in Members, Cllr Mason, Steward and Orrell, each addressed the committee in turn, expanding on their reasons for the call-in and then responding to questions from Members.

The Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities and the Leader then addressed the committee regarding their decisions, and responded to questions.  Officers responsible for the report to Executive spoke to clarify aspects of their report and to answer questions. 

Finally, Cllr Mason summed up on behalf of the Calling-in Members and the Executive Member summed up the Executive position.

During the above process, it was confirmed that:

·       There was no expectation that the number of events attended would be reduced, a list had been produced of the funded events, and the events calendar would be agreed with the incoming LM.

·       The LM would continue to choose their own charities, in line with the newly codified protocols.

·       The decision had been made at the Executive Member’s decision session due to the recognised importance of the civic office.  The Monitoring Officer had provided advice that in his view the decision would not have a significant impact on two or more wards and was therefore not a key decision.

Under the provisions of the council’s constitution at the time the call-in was made, Members were asked to state individually whether they considered the core principles identified in the call-in request (Annex 3) had been breached or not.  The following options were available:

·       In the event of the majority of Members finding no breach, the call-in request would be immediately closed with no further action unless the Committee identifies any areas worthy of future exploration by the scrutiny function.

·       In the event of the majority of Members finding a breach, the called in decision would be referred back in full for further consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Executive.

With six Members finding there had been a breach, and seven Members finding there had not been a breach, the call-in fell and it was:

Resolved:             That the call-in request be closed.

Reason:                To determine the outcome of the alleged breach in Executive Member decision making.