PAPER B

 

 

                                                                                                                Purpose : for Decision

                        REPORT TO COUNCIL

 

Date :              24 NOVEMBER 2004

 

Title :               MAYORAL REFERENDUM

                       

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 24 November 2004

 


SUMMARY/PURPOSE

 

1.                  To note the receipt of a petition calling for a Mayoral Referendum, the outcome following the verification of this petition and to consider what action the Council should take as a consequence.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2.                  As Members will know, on 14 October a Petition was received calling for a referendum to be held on the Island to determine if there was support for the Island to have a directly elected Mayor in addition to the current 48 Councillors.

 

3.                  All 5,891 signatures on the petition were checked against the current Register of Electors with the following results:

 

·        1,457 signatures were excluded as not being on the Register of Electors;

·        34 were excluded because the entry was not legible or for other reasons the person signing could not be identified on the register;

·        40 were excluded as there was no accompanying signature;

·        5 were excluded because they were duplicated elsewhere on the petition;

·        3,331 were excluded as their first and surnames had not been included on the petition (as required by the relevant Regulations); and

·        There were therefore 1,024 entries which qualified under the legislation for the purposes of the petition.

 

4.                  The number of qualifying signatures was below the 5,288 required to automatically trigger a referendum.

 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

5.                  Nationally under the Local Government Act 2000 the adoption of a Mayoral style of local governance is one of the options available. This model has been selected in a number of areas across the country.

 

6.                  Locally in 2000/2001 when the Council were considering which model for Executive arrangements should be implemented, a consultation exercise was undertaken between November 2000 and March 2001 on the options available and these included Council Roadshows, the Citizen’s Panel, Focus Groups and consultation through Wight Insight and the County Press. The results of all these consultation methods was that, with the exception of the Citizen’s Panel, the preferred option was “Leader and Cabinet”. The Citizen’s Panel preferred option was a “Mayor and Cabinet” (as envisaged in the petition). In April 2001 Council considered this consultation exercise and determined that the “Leader and Cabinet” model be adopted.

 

7.                  The Council’s Corporate Plan gives a commitment to “strong political and management leadership” and the Plan envisaged that this would be provided through the current Executive arrangements.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.                  As set out above, in 2000/2001 there was detailed consultation on the proposed executive arrangements with the “Leader and Cabinet” being the preferred option.

 

9.                  Since the formal announcement of the result of the petition, a meeting has been held with one of the representatives of the petition organisers. Subsequently, a letter has been received from the organisers setting out their formal views. This letter is shown as a background letter to this report and can be made available to any member on request.

 

10.             The letter sets out the petitioner’s views which are that:

 

(a)               They believe that a significant and substantial demand for a referendum has been demonstrated;

 

(b)               They believe that the referendum should be held without delay so that its results can be taken into account when the new Council is elected;

 

(c)               It is procedurally and legally possible for the referendum to be held prior to the local government elections on 5th May 2005; and

 

(d)               That the Council should hold an all postal ballot for the referendum on the grounds that this would not incur significantly greater costs than a traditional ballot and indeed, in their view, could lead to lower costs

 

The letter also explains that if the Council do not proceed to call a referendum, then they intend to continue to collect the required number of valid signatures to trigger a referendum at some point in the future.

 

OPTIONS

 

11.             Having noted the results of the petition verification exercise, the Council has the following options:

 

12.             Option 1 – to hold an immediate Mayoral Referendum

 

Determine to adopt and send to the Secretary of State, a proposal to adopt a new form of executive which requires a referendum, and to resolve to hold that referendum as quickly as possible.

 

13.             Option 2 – to hold a Mayoral Referendum at some time in the future

 

Similar to option 1 but determining that the Mayoral Referendum be held at a later date.

 

14.             Option 3 – to do nothing

 

The requirement to hold a referendum is triggered by the receipt of a valid petition – an event yet to happen. However the petition organisers can add valid names to those currently submitted, the only restriction being that the names have to be collected within a 12 month period and must be on the Register of Electors at the time that the petition is deemed valid.

 

EXTENT OF SUPPORT, TIMING AND BOUNDARY COMMITTEE PROPOSALS

 

15.             There are a number of other factors that Council need to consider.

 

16.             Extent of Support

 

17.             In considering if the Council itself should call a referendum, it should consider the results of the petition and assess the extent to which support has been expressed for a referendum.

 

18.             Whilst technically the petition fell considerably short of the legal requirements, it should be noted that the 3,331 names rejected as not having given their full name could be identified as Isle of Wight Electors and thus it is clear that 4,355 electors had expressed clear support for a referendum – roughly 4% of all electors.

 

19.             Members will wish to judge themselves how this support is expressed locally and whether the above results show significant support across the island.

 

20.             Timing

 

21.             The legislation sets out detailed timing considerations, the two most critical of which for the Island are:

 

(a)               That at least 2 months prior to any referendum the Council has to send to the Secretary of State its proposals for the form of governance being tested by the referendum. This would essentially mean a redrafting of the Council’s constitution to reflect the changes that an elected Mayor would bring; and

 

(b)               That if any proposed date for a Mayoral Referendum falls 28 days either side of a date set for a usual Local Government Election, then the referendum shall be held on the same day as that election. As Council elections are due on 5 May 2005, if a Mayoral referendum would otherwise fall to be held somewhere between the 7 April and 2 June, then it will be held on the date of the elections.

 

22.             Whilst from an administrative and cost point of view (in terms of the physical delivery of a referendum) there are clear merits with having the referendum combined with a local election, there is a real danger that such a combination could cause some confusion as electors will be asked with one ballot paper to indicate who they would like to see elected as Councillor to the current system and then at the same time be asked if they want the current system changed.

 

23.             If the Council felt that any referendum should be held before the May Elections, then the latest that the referendum could be held is at the end of March, with the necessary paperwork being submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of January. This would require the Council at its January meeting to approve a new draft constitution that would be adopted if the referendum supported such a change. The legislation requires that before undertaking a referendum, the Council has to consult on the proposals to assess if there is demand. My advice to the Council is that the very fact of the petition having been submitted with the signatures of 4,355 Island electors indicating their preference constitutes sufficient consultation for this purpose.

 

24.             If a March Referendum returned a “yes” vote for an elected Mayor, the first such election can only be held in May or October arising three months after the date of the referendum. In this case the election would take place in October 2005.

 

25.             Boundary Committee

 

26.             Additionally Members will be aware that the Boundary Committee have been approached to undertake a review of the number of Electoral Divisions we have with a view to reducing them. It is anticipated that this work will commence in 2007 and any recommendations implemented as from the May 2009 elections. It may be considered premature to consider any changes to the local governance structure in advance of the work of the Boundary Committee.

 

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

 

27.             The ongoing potential cost implications of a Mayoral style of governance can only be determined following detailed considerations.  However, a Mayor would be an additional Councillor and would be entitled to an Allowance – based on national benchmarks, this would probably be set between £40 – 60,000 per annum.

 

28.             The cost of a “stand alone” traditional style referendum is in the region of £70,000 (approximately the same for an election). If the referendum was conducted on an all postal basis, the cost would be approximately £80,000. This would be unbudgeted expenditure and need to be provided for by the Council.

 

29.             The additional cost of combining a Mayoral referendum with the May elections will be in the order of £10,000 and will consist of additional printing and some additional staff costs for processing and counting.

 

30.             In the event of a “Yes” vote in a referendum, the formal election of a Mayor would cost between £70,000 and £80,000 (see paragraph 27 above) unless it was combined with another election.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

31.             This whole area is heavily regulated and the report highlights the various legal provisions.

 

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

 

32.             Taking each of the three previously identified options in turn:

 

33.             Option 1 – Hold an Immediate Referendum

 

There are two possible scenarios within this:

 

a)     Hold the referendum before the May elections

 

This could remove any possibility of confusion on polling day and would make it clear by 5th May exactly what the immediate future of the Council would be (ie whether or not we would be moving fairly quickly to a mayoral executive arrangements).

 

This would cost an additional £70-80,000 and would require Council to agree the detailed arrangements by the end of January. This is a challenging, but not impossible timescale.

 

b)     Hold the referendum with the May elections

 

This has the potential to cause some confusion with the electorate.

 

However it is only likely to cost about £10,000 more than a traditional election and provides more time for the proposed arrangements to be worked up consulted on and approved by Council.

 

34.             Option 2 – Hold a Referendum in the Future

 

The Council could agree to hold a referendum in the future – say six months after the May 2005 elections and work up detailed proposals between now and then. This clearly gives more time but would cost an additional £70-80,000 for the referendum.

 

35.             Option 3 – do nothing

 

The Council could decide to simply note the current position with the referendum and await the submission of further petition(s).

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

36.             Members’ instructions are requested.

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

37.             Petition received on 14 October. Letter from the “Campaign for a Referendum on a Directly Elected Island Mayor” to the Chief Executive Officer dated 11 November 2004.

 

 

Contact Point :           Mike Fisher 823103 [email protected]

 

 

MJA FISHER

Chief Executive Officer