“Recognising the need for a transparent and objective process in the evaluation of motions and composite motions submitted to this council, this council agreed to amend the current practices concerning the Provost's discretion in ruling Motions, Composites, and Amendments as competent or incompetent.
To this end, the council proposes the following amendments and initiatives to standing order 23 and 24 respectively.
1. Establishment of a Documented Evaluation Criteria: The council shall develop a clear, documented criteria that includes a matrix or benchmarking to assess the competency of Motions, Composites, and Amendments. This criteria will be designed to minimise subjective decision-making and ensure that all Motions, Amendments and Composites are evaluated against predefined, objective standards.
2. Formation of a Cross-Party Working Group: A Cross-Party Working Group will be established, comprising members from different political affiliations within the council and officers. The purpose of this group will be to define the criteria and standards to be used in the documented evaluation process. The criteria and process developed by this group will be presented for approval at the next full council meeting.
3. Guidance on Motion Competency: In cases where a Motion, Composite or Amendment is deemed incompetent, the Provost will continue not only provide the reasons for such a ruling but will also offer feedback. Officers will, when applicable, engage with members on how to amend a refused motion, composite, or amendment to meet competency criteria. This approach ensures that members have a clear understanding of the deficiencies and encourages a constructive pathway towards compliance, fostering a fairer and more democratic process.
Amended Text Proposal for Standing Order 23:
"The Provost shall consider any Motion, Amendment or Composite submitted in accordance with this Standing Order. Utilising a documented evaluation criteria developed by the council, which includes objective criteria and benchmarks, the Provost will assess the competency of the Motion, Amendment or Composite. Within five days of receipt of the Notice of Motion, should the Motion, Amendment or Composite be deemed incompetent, the Provost will continue not only provide the reasons for such a ruling but will also offer feedback. Officers will, when applicable, engage with members on how to amend a refused motion, composite, or amendment to meet competency criteria. This approach is aimed at promoting fairness, transparency, and democratic values in the council's decision-making processes."
This motion emphasises the commitment of this council to enhance the objectivity, transparency, and democratic fairness of council's procedures, ensuring that all members regardless of political affiliation, have a clear and equitable opportunity to contribute to the governance and decision-making processes.”