Agenda item

To receive the report of the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager concerning mechanisms for recognising good service to the City.

The Committee considered a report of the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager concerning mechanisms for recognising good service to the City.  Members were asked to review and formalise the processes as detailed in the report.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager advised that the report had been presented to the Constitutional and Electoral Working Group at its meeting on 22 March 2016.  The report remained largely unchanged however amendments had been made to reflect the discussions of the Working Group and a protocol for the appointment of Honorary Aldermen had been added. 

Honorary Freeman

Councillor Coole made a general observation, suggesting that the word ‘Freeman’ could be substituted for a more gender neutral word such as ‘Freeperson’.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager advised that the legislation referred to Freeman and then Freewoman were added later.  She would check the legislation before finalising the report.

Freedom of the Entry

The Committee noted that this would only apply to military units.  Councillor Haigh enquired whether nominations are to be made by the units themselves or if this was a decision for Members to consider. 

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager commented that any proposals would require Group Leaders approval. 

Mayor’s Medal

Following discussions at the last Constitutional and Electoral Working Group, this process had been amended to note that the agreement of two-thirds of Group Leaders be required in order to proceed.

Councillor Haigh questioned why any agreement from Group Leaders was required if the choice of recipients was in the gift of the Mayor and then questioned why there was a lower threshold for Group Leader approval than for the other honours.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager explained that a lower threshold was proposed in recognition of it being the Mayor’s choice, but that the approval of two thirds of Group Leader was proposed in order to provide a check and balance on the decision because it would be made by an individual.

The Committee agreed that this was acceptable.

Honorary Aldermen

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager commented that this was an additional appendix to the previous report and that a protocol was proposed should the Council decide to make use of the available powers.  She explained that the nomination process and criteria were similar to the other protocols, but that the main difference was that the appointment came with a number of entitlements.

Councillor Haigh commented that she was opposed to the appointment of Honorary Aldermen and did not believe it was necessary to introduce such a protocol as it would put more burden on the Council. She was concerned about the limitation of two per year and the emphasis on long service, which was adequately recognised in the form of long service certificates, and stated that Honorary Alderman appointments were not necessary when other awards were already in place.

Councillor Hilton agreed with Councillor Haigh and commented that such appointments had been discussed in the past.  He stated that choosing worthy candidates would be problematic and that it was likely that those who had served in a Civic role would be unfairly favoured.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager advised that the draft protocol could be amended.

Councillor H Norman disagreed and stated that she believed the Council should make use of the powers where appropriate; she noted that Group Leaders would have to agree all appointments. She suggested that the reference to length of service and the restriction on the number of appointments each year be removed.

Councillor Haigh moved an amendment to the effect of removing the proposed protocol for the appointment of Honorary Aldermen from the recommendations to Council. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Hilton.

The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

The Chair stated that the report should proceed and Council should be given the opportunity to comment on all aspects.

Members discussed the proposed entitlements for Honorary Aldermen and agreed a number of changes, including a reference to which Civic events they should be invited to. They agreed to remove the reference to length of service and the restriction on the number of appointments each year. They also agreed that former Councillors who retired from service prior to the introduction of the protocol should not be eligible for nomination and that nominees must have concluded their service no more than 12 months prior to their nomination.

The Committee agreed to recommend a revised protocol to Council for approval.

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that:

1.         Subject to any further amendments, the process and criteria for the nomination of Honorary Freemen and Freedom of the City detailed in Appendix 1 be approved.

2.         Subject to any further amendments, the process and criteria for nominations Freedom of the Entry detailed in Appendix 2 be approved.

3.         Subject to any further amendments, the process for the nomination of recipients of the Mayor’s Medal detailed in Appendix 3 be approved.

4.         Subject to any further amendments, the process, criteria and entitlements for the nomination of Honorary Aldermen detailed in Appendix 4 be approved with the following amendments:

(a)       Removal of the reference to long service.

(b)       Removal of the restriction on the number of appointments each   year.

(c)       Inclusion of a restriction preventing Councillors who retired from  service prior  to the introduction of the protocol from being eligible.

(d)       Inclusion of a restriction that nominees are only eligible within 12 months of their retirement from Council service.

(e)       Specifying that attendance at Civic events is restricted to Remembrance Sunday, the Annual Civic Service and Gloucester Day.