20th December 2009, revised

A Councillor made what some might think a quaintly eccentric ‘on the hoof’ request at the Council meeting of 14^th December 2009. 

Another own goal

He seemed to challenge past mayor Cllr Adrian Jones for adhering to the convention of strict Mayoral impartiality during his term of office.  He demanded to know where any such principle is justified under the Borough’s constitution.   Tossed in following an earlier ‘own goal’ by one of his colleagues, did he perhaps imagine that his question might provide a late ‘drop goal’ to equalise?

But it was it a ‘drop goal’?  Or yet another ’own goal’?

The acid test for any councillor’s action or behaviour is what the public would make of it.  

We are confident that most members of the public, if asked, would expect a Mayor to stand aside from Party politics; and that they would regard it as unthinkable for the the Borough’s ’First Citizen’ to refrain from observing the highest standards of impartiality in his public utterances and in the conduct of Council meetings.

 This ‘axiomatic imperative’ is so glaringly obvious that it should not need the elaboration the questioner sought. 

But, for guidance, that principle is also explained clearly in ‘Civic Ceremonial’ - the standard handbook kept in the Mayor’s Office so that new Mayors may acquaint themselves with ‘best practice’.

 This is how Mayoral neutrality is described in ‘Civic Ceremonial’:

“…… the concept of the politically neutral Mayor is still prized by many people.  Local government is very clearly a political system today in almost every area and some would argue that the role of Mayor cannot be divorced from politics.  However the role of Mayor as ‘First Citizen’ and the widely accepted idea of the Mayor representing all of the people of the authority does support the idea of political neutrality.  ……………………….  Whatever form this neutrality takes it is generally accepted that all Mayors should not vote in Council Meetings except in exceptional circumstances.”

An example of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is given in an appendix which first reminds us that the Mayor’s casting vote is provided by Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972.  We are also told that in a legal judgment arising from a case involving Bradford City Council it was deemed that the Mayor’s absolute legal right to vote could not be fettered by any external matter or convention. 

In other words despite what any higher standards of ‘best practice’ might suggest any Mayor can still, at his or her discretion, fall back on the legal entitlement to vote and cannot be condemned for doing so.  It follows that it is a matter for the Mayor’s own judgment based on his or her own conscience.   Examples were quoted in the appendices.

The advice continues:

The Mayor will always be free to vote with his/her free conscience ……”

Although the Mayor has this absolute legal right to vote he/she is nevertheless reminded earlier that:  

“……… the Mayor is traditionally neutral and steps back from politics for the term of office.”

And:

“So, to become Mayor, one has to have … despite the fact that most councillors went into local government via a political party, a willingness to assume a non political stance for 12 months.”  

Like his predecessor, and we believe many previous mayors, Cllr Adrian Jones chose, when this guidance was drawn to his attention, not to vote or to become involved in controversial issues.  He would have voted only had it ever been necessary to keep the Borough within legal time frames.

Mayors are given further advice on when to use a casting vote.

“…… where a casting vote would create a final decision, the Mayor should use the casting vote to maintain the existing status quo.  This would mean that existing policy would not be changed by the use of a casting vote.”

None of this, of course, supersedes (nor contradicts) the provisions of Wirral’s constitution and any Wirral Mayor must proceed within its requirements. But what perhaps may have confused the questioner is that observing the highest standards of impartiality does not in any way offend any requirement of the Borough’s constitution. 

We do not think any Mayor past, certainly not present, and we hope not future, would accept such an implication. Even if it sounded like it we do not think that, on reflection, the questioner would want to either. 

We hope this small contribution to his researches into ‘best practice’ will be received in the helpful and supportive way intended, and we will remain willing to assist him and his Party colleagues whenever they get things wrong, which seems to be much of the time.