Agenda item

To receive the report of the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager which seeks approval for the processes and assessment criteria for the various mechanisms for recognising good service to the City and/or the Council.

21.1       Council consider a report of the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager concerning proposals for processes and assessment criteria for the various mechanisms for recognising good service to the City and/or the Council.

21.2       Councillor Morgan (Chair of the General Purposes Committee) moved the recommendations set out in the report. He stated that Gloucester had a long history of recognising public service and that it was important to acknowledge people’s strengths and hard work. He advised that the proposals sought to formalise the Council’s processes and increase transparency.

21.3       Councillor H. Norman seconded the motion.

21.4       Councillor Haigh moved an amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Pullen, to delete recommendation (4), which proposed a protocol for the appointment of Honorary Aldermen. She explained that the Council had not suffered from its lack of Honorary Aldermen and that the existing mechanisms for rewarding and honouring exemplary service were sufficient. She stated that utilising the powers would raise expectations and create challenges for those tasked with agreeing appointments.

21.5       Councillor Morgan did not accept the amendment.

21.6       Councillor James stated that appointing Honorary Aldermen was a good way of recognising exemplary service in an historic city such as Gloucester. He explained that the appointment did not come with any privileges and there would be no cost to the Council. He noted that the Council already had the power to make such appointments, therefore it was appropriate to have protocol.

21.7       Councillor Hilton stated that the title of Honorary Alderman was outdated and that the existing mechanisms were adequate. He noted that Councillors who had stood down in the past had missed out the opportunity to be nominated and that the Council should not begin judging Councillors’ contributions.

21.8       Councillor Gravells advised that the system of Honorary Alderman appointments at Gloucestershire County Council worked well; it was not a political matter and was a good way for former Councillors to maintain their link with the Council.

21.9       Councillor Pullen stated that the title had no real purpose and was therefore unnecessary. He commented that the privilege of representing the people of Gloucester was enough of a reward.

21.10   Councillor Morgan remarked that the opinions given on the appointment of Honorary Aldermen were disappointing as it would add to the civic life of the City and provide an additional option for recognising exemplary service.

21.11   The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

21.12   Councillor Lugg moved an amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Smith, to delete paragraph 4 under ‘Entitlements’ in Appendix 4. She explained that there was an existing precedent for former Mayors to stand in for the Civics as and when required.

21.13   Councillor Morgan did not accept the amendment.

21.14   Councillor James advised that there was no suggestion that the existing precedent would be changed; it was an option to use if required.

21.15   Councillor Haigh raised concerns that Honorary Aldermen, by definition, would not be current Members of the Council, therefore they could not formally represent the Council and would be outside the realms of formal sanctions if they displayed inappropriate behaviour.

21.16   Councillor Hilton stated that he supported the amendment and did not agree with creating civic roles for individuals who were not elected Members of the Council. He commented that the County Council’s entitlements were more limited.

21.17   Councillor Morgan advised that the protocol offered options that may prove useful in the future and that he was confident that the decisions on attendance at events would be made appropriately.

21.18   The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

21.19   Councillor H. Norman noted that the proposals had been debated at other meetings and those present had made a number of amendments to the Honorary Alderman protocol. She reiterated that the Council already had the power to make such appointments and that protocol ensured that a process could be followed, including the requirement for the unanimous agreement of Group Leaders.

21.20   RESOLVED –

(1)            That the process and criteria for the nomination of Honorary Freemen and Freedom of the City detailed in Appendix 1 be approved.

(2)            That the process and criteria for nominations Freedom of the Entry detailed in Appendix 2 be approved.

(3)            That the process for the nomination of recipients of the Mayor’s Medal detailed in Appendix 3 be approved.

(4)            That the process, criteria and entitlements for the nomination of Honorary Aldermen detailed in Appendix 4 be approved.