Mark Cullinan, Lancaster City Council’s chief executive, has responded to claims from Conservative councillor Roger Mace that he was effectively ‘gagged’ from speaking on a proposal to consider take action on the escalating costs of Lancaster Market, which might include a move to the City Museum at last week’s Full Council meeting (see news story).
“Following the proposal of the motion on Lancaster Market by Councillor Peter Williamson, a procedural motion was proposed by Councillor Jon Barry to go straight to the vote,” Mr Cullinan told virtual-lancaster.
“Once a closure motion has been proposed and seconded it has to be dealt with before any other amendment can be considered, as set out in the council’s rules of procedure.
“The mayor, Councillor Tony Wade, as chairman of the meeting, did, however, ask if any councillor wished to speak against the motion. As no councillor indicated that they wished to do so, the procedural motion was put to the vote and was carried.
“As a result, Council procedures provided no further opportunity for any amendment from any councillor.”
The full minute from the meeting reads as follows:
NOTICE OF MOTION – LANCASTER MARKET
The following motion, of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15, was moved by Councillor Williamson and seconded by Councillor Histed:
“This Council considers that the current cost of Lancaster indoor market based in the Market Building, estimated at £500k per annum and increasing, is unacceptable and that action to reduce these costs is required.”
Councillor Barry put forward a procedural motion, seconded by Councillor Kerr:
“That the motion be put straight to the vote.”
The Mayor then asked Council if any Members wished to speak against the motion. As no Member indicated, the Mayor put the procedural motion to Council.
A vote was taken on the procedural motion. With many voting for and few against, the Mayor declared the procedural motion to be clearly carried and asked that a vote be taken on the original motion.
A vote was then taken on the original motion without further debate. With many Members voting for the motion and few against, the Mayor declared the motion clearly carried.
Resolved: This Council considers that the current cost of Lancaster indoor market based in the Market Building, estimated at £500k per annum and increasing, is unacceptable and that action to reduce these costs is required.
Councillor Roger Mace replies:
I note the explanation of the little known procedural device of a "closure motion" that was used at the Council meeting to curtail the debate. Operation of this device is set out in an extract from the City's Constitution, repeated at the bottom of this response.
The Press Release from the Conservative Group reported me as saying "Someone somewhere must have been afraid of what might be said during the debate or it would not have been curtailed before it had even started."
Council minutes are not a complete record of everything said in Council. For that reason it is frequently argued that council meetings should be videoed, so that a "webcast" can be made available for public scrutiny, and for greater accountability of councillors to their electorate.
In this case, the minute does not record that prior to the taking of the vote on the procedural motion I stood up following the question from the Mayor asking if any members wished to speak against the motion and said I wished to put an amendment, whereupon I was told I was "too late".
As it is not a verbatim record of what took place, the minute shows neither my attempt to put an amendment to the motion, nor that I was stopped from doing so.
EXTRACT FROM CITY CONSTITUTION
17.11 Closure Motions
(a) A Member, who has not already spoken in the debate, may move, without comment, the
following motions at the end of a speech of another Member:
(1) to proceed to the next business;
(2) that the question be now put;
(3) to adjourn a debate; or
(4) to adjourn a meeting.
(b) If a motion to proceed to next business is seconded and the Chairman thinks the item
has been sufficiently discussed, he or she will give the mover of the original motion a
right of reply and then put the procedural motion to the vote.
(c) If a motion that the question be now put is seconded and the Chairman thinks the items
has been sufficiently discussed, they will put the procedural motion to the vote. If it is
passed they will give the mover of the original motion a right of reply before putting
his/her motion to the vote.
Lancaster City Council CONSTITUTION
[May 2010] Page 15 [Part 4, Section 1, Council Procedure Rules]
(d) If a motion to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the meeting is seconded and the
Chairman thinks the item has not been sufficiently discussed and cannot reasonably be
so discussed on that occasion, they will put the procedural motion to the vote without
giving the mover of the original motion the right of reply.
J. R. Mace
The whole think stinks of fraud if you ask me, the council owns the land and sells it to a private firm who then rents it back to the council with a 100 year lease and works on a loss. I'm no detective but but work it out for yourselves, do you Think there might have been a golden handshake.