Dear Scarborough Borough Council,

There are certain principles of governance to which all Local Authorities must adhere. These are set down in law and Councils are required to transcribe them into their Constitutions.

Amongst these are the following requirements;

Officers must remain politically neutral and support all members of the Council equally.

That certain Officer positions, such as the Directorate and Chief Officer, are politically restricted.

That Officers may not take part in political meetings.

Officers cannot be Members of the Council they work for.

The role of the Chief Executive when attending meetings of the Council is as Clerk to the Council, advising the Chairman on Constitutional procedure and officiating as ‘Returning Officer’ during any votes.
These provisions are vital to the separation of the political and operational functions of a Council and to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability.

At the meeting of the Council held on 14th May 2018, Cllr Vanda Inman asked a question of the Portfolio Holder for Legal & Governance, Councillor John Nock (whose remit includes the Legal Services department), a question in relation to the powers held by the Council with regard to the prohibition of any given Councillor from attendance at meetings.

This question was raised under the provision of Article 11.2 of the Scarborough Borough Council Constitution.

This rule allows a question to be asked only of the Mayor, a Member of Cabinet or the Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee.

Article 11.4 sets out the only possible forms of response to Article 11.2 questions, these being:

An oral answer;
Reference to a publication;
A written answer;
A refusal to answer, or
Nomination of another MEMBER to answer (who may also refuse to answer).

Questions to Officers are therefore not permitted under these rules, nor may Officers reply to the questions, because:

a response from an Officer is not included in the prescribed forms of reply;

Officers are not, and cannot, be Members of the Council;

a formal Meeting of the Council is political; and

questioning the Mayor, Executive and Committee Chairman is, ipso facto, political activity.

It was, therefore, surprising that the Chief Executive answered the question, instead of the Member to whom the question had been addressed - or a nominated substitute Member.

As I can find no rule or provision within the Councils Constitution I request that you provide me with the following information:

1) Under what Constitutional provision did the Chief Executive respond to the Councillor's question?

2) If no such provision exists, which Officers/Members are responsible for reporting the irregularity?

3) Has the irregularity been reported; and, if so, has a formal investigation been instigated?

4) Where an irregularity involves the Chief Executive, what provision is adopted to distance the Chief Executive from the investigation, thus to ensure that such investigation is not susceptible to undue influence.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Pickering

Dear Scarborough Borough Council,
I have not received an acknowledgement of this FOI could you please let me know the status of the request

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Pickering

Dear Petra Jackson,

Thank you for your response.
You cite Article 5.1 as being the constitutional arrangement by which the Chief Executive can answer a political question on behalf of the Elected cabinet member responsible for providing the answerer.
specifically that the Mayor invited him to do so.

This is unsatisfactory in that the article reference stated does not provide the constitutional authority requested for the Chief Executives intervention.

5.1 gives the Mayor the role of presiding over the meeting and in particular charges the post holder to uphold the Constitution with advice from officers.
The mayor has no authority under this Article to act outside the Constitution, in particular the breach of the constitution allowing a non prescribed response to questions in fact he has a specific duty to uphold it.
It also places a duty on the Mayor to ensure that Members can hold the Executive to account. The intervention in asking the Chief Executive to speak specifically prevented this for happening and is an extremely serious breach of the Mayoral duties.

The Mayor has no powers under clause 5.1 to ask the Chief Executive to respond.

In fact under this Article provision it is clear that the Mayor has failed in his duty to uphold the Constitution. as have the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer and other senior officers present , failed in their duty to advise the Mayor that such a response was beyond their powers.
You have also failed to identify the officers with specific responsibility in this matter. This information is not exempt and is still required.

I assume therefore that as this response implicates the Mayor and Senior officers in further Constitutional breaches that you have provided this clause in error and therefore ask for an internal review into this response so that you can provide the correct constitutional authority requested along with the omitted information.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Pickering