Fiery Meeting As Wrexham Council Vote To Remove Political Balance

In a passioned debate, where the Council Leader appeared to threaten resignation if the vote failed, Wrexham Council has scrapped political balance on its Executive Board.

The vote on the proposals was eventually easily won, however stinging criticism at the move was launched during the meeting.

Council Leader Mark Pritchard appeared to align the vote on the proposals to a vote of confidence, stating that he would not want to lead any council that was not compliant – the debated crux of the changes.

Our report was first to cover the extra £63,000 due to be spent in the move – alongside some saving proposals and meeting time changes planned. The meeting revealed that legal costs of £1600 had been incurred so far, and the ‘extra’ £63,000 was part of an unspent budget. For full details of the proposals put forward, you can read our summary here.

On a technical note Cllr Kevin Hughes said “I would like to request a recorded vote is taken”, he subsequently got the required support of 10 other members to enable it.

Cllr Carole O’Toole asked if the proposed changes had been discussed at scrutiny or member workshops, and answered her own question: “No”, referring to ‘unseemly haste’ in the changes describing them as a ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’.

Cllr O’Toole proposed amendments including one that ‘the proposed changes be deferred to allow for meaningful consultation at a workshop’ and brought back at a future date.

Cllr Mike Edwards gave a brief history lesson on previous mention of a Cabinet style, we said ‘hang on a minute’ ‘we tried out a new system and then made it happen successfully’. Cllr Edwards appeared to relish the thought of being ‘told off’ by the Welsh Audit Office, again mentioning that Councillors had not been given enough time to discuss either the democratic or financial implications.

Cllr Derek Wright spoke against the proposal saying it was ‘unfair, unjust and immoral’ in terms of cost, and slated the lack of consultation saying it was a pre-decided move; ‘this decision appears to have been made weeks before other group leaders were told’.

Referring to the Council Leader’s own words Mr Wright said “This is not a brave or difficult decision, it is the opposite”

Cllr Kevin Hughes said it was ‘incredulous’ to make a major change to the constitution with such short notice and two thirds through the democratic period. Mr Hughes said: “This will do little to enhance local democracy”.

Cllr Hughes was the first to mention the move to daytime meetings, saying there had been a ‘lack of consultation’, pointing out that the workshop itself was held during the day and arranged at short notice.

Addressing the Council Leader Mark Pritchard he said: “I dont understand why this change has been rushed through, when in March you endorsed the politically balanced Executive Board?”

Cllr Dana Davies said this was a ‘chaotic and turbulent couple of weeks’ saying the final decisions on who would be nominated for each portfolio came down to 24 hours. Cllr Davies stated: “This is a political decision”.

Cllr Davies went on to ask questions of the finances, saying: “Seven senior salaries are paid. The opposition sit on the Executive Board and are not paid. The current administration would take all the seats and would be paid a senior salary. This is an additional spend that is not in the budget. What is going to be cut to allow this feathering of ones own nest?”

Cllr Davies put forward the Labour Group’s amendment asking to refer the report to the constitution working group to undertake a further ‘fundamental review’ on the proposals.

Appearing narked, Cllr Andrew Bailey sarcastically told how he was due to miss a ‘how to improve consultation’ workshop, sighing stating four words: ‘shut stable door bolted’.

Repeating a saying he observed ‘it is amazing how rotten the fruit goes as it falls from the tree’, inviting other Councillors to work out what he meant.

Cllr Arfon Jones said of the changes, “It is unnecessary”, restating the compliance answer he received yesterday from the Welsh Audit Office, saying the move was a ‘power grab’.

Councillor Malcolm King echoed the point: “We are getting conned here somewhere. We don’t have a recommendation from Audit Wales to changes the Executive Board” going on he said “We don’t have to change it, so why are we destroying it?”

“If you are removing opposition from the Executive Board, why do you have to appoint extra posts? Where will the cuts come from to pay for the jobs for the boys? How many old people will lose their Homecare as a result of this.”

“What recourse is there for the public who have had no say in this?”

“Lets face it this is a political decision being rushed through for unexplained reasons. We and the public deserve to know what the reasons are”

“You should feel ashamed to be putting it forward” inviting the response from Council Leader Mark Pritchard to ‘answer questions’ rather than ‘give a speech’ regarding cuts.

Councillor Bob Dutton referred to legal advice costing £1600, and expressed concern “members have to deal with a difficult situation” due to extra workloads due to the extra work due to the cuts being made.

Councillor Arfon Jones introduced a point of order, referring to details of a 19th November 2014 meeting between Wrexham Council and the Welsh Audit Office, reiterating his point that the issue was aside from the balance of the Executive Board.

Wrexham Council’s Head of Corporate and Customer Services answered saying he had a telephone call ‘just before Easter’ and specified there were two issues, one questioning the chairing compliance, but there was infact a second issue raised involving the Executive Board balance.

Council Leader Mark Pritchard replied to points made with the strong position of: “I would not want to be Leader of any council that is not compliment of the measure”

Going through point by point Mr Pritchard said: “We are not changing the running of the Council at all” playing down the change saying “there is no massive change at all”.

“We are entitled to pay 18 senior salaries, we have paid it in the past, and we are proposing we will do it again.”

“With regards to staffing, has someone put this out on a tweet to stir the pot, there will be no staffing issues at all if we take away the political balance tonight”

“With regards to the budget, the money is always there to pay 18 senior salaries, it was underspent, so it is there”

“With regards to the consultation, I was told a fortnight ago that Wrexham Council was not compliant. I was told 5:30pm I then spoke to Group Leader to the Group that was affected”

“As quickly as possible I told all the Group Leaders that we were not compliment with the measure” referring to telephone calls made within hours.

Mr Pritchard made a lengthy point on salaries that have been paid and could be due to be paid, “All parties will pick up salaries, apart from Plaid. Up to this evening Plaid did also have a salary”

Explaining his reason for moving from 7 to 10 members of the Executive Board he said: “The workload and commitment that is required to deliver the changes to this local authority” referring to the cuts and Local Development Plan work ahead saying later “We need a strong Executive Board to deliver that”.

Mr Pritchard said he expected ‘more openness and transparency’ due to the formalising of the opposition and paid positions, meaning that accountability could be a full time job.

Summing up and referring to historic references through the evening Mr Pritchard said: “At the time it was right, but now is not the time to have a politically balanced board.”

The debate was wrapped up just before 8pm, with Councillors still wanting to speak (specifically Councillor David Bithell) but legal advice was given that a vote should take place as the debate had ended.

Councillor Kelly queried why the voting was started without a recorded vote, however the proposer confirmed it was on the ‘substantive’ item only.

The amendment proposing deferral (and others) failed to pass with 36 against to 3 for with 8 abstentions.

The vote was slightly farcical, with a request ‘can people put their hands up again’, and the abstentions being recounted going from 3 to 8.

The second amendment proposal, to refer the report to the constitution working group also failed to pass with 29 against, 14 for and 3 abstentions.

A third amendment proposal also failed to pass with 29 against, for 14, with 3 abstentions.

The initial recommendations were then put to the recorded vote where each Councillor shouted out if they were for or against the motion.

The proposals were accepted with 30 for, 17 against, and zero abstentions.

It appears four Councillors were also absent.