Agenda item

The report was presented by the Monitoring Officer who referred to the review which had taken place of the Constitution which was approved by the CFA at the September meeting. It was always anticipated that some changes might be required once the new Constitution was in use, hence the need for a discussion regarding some anomalies which had been identified with regards to voting procedures. The MO thanked

Councillor B Langford for raising, via email prior to the meeting, some questions and comments regarding various inconsistencies which the MO would respond to as part of this meeting.

It was noted that the Terms of Reference for this Committee were amended in the new Constitution to the effect that any major changes required would be submitted to the Full Authority but this Committee would have the power to discuss and make minor changes. The MO would also have the power to make other even more minor amendments such as correcting typing errors.

The MO then asked whether this Committee would like to have the power to make some decisions regarding minor amends and to make recommendations to the Full Authority for anything it considered a more significant change; this would require a change to the Committee’s Terms of Reference (ToR) if so.

County Councillor J Ash stated that they were keen to avoid creating unnecessary additional layers of bureaucracy and therefore considered it sensible for minor decisions to be discussed and approved by this Committee. Councillor B Langford noted that the appropriateness of this approach would depend on the nature and significance of the proposed change.

Members indicated that they were in support of the suggestion for this Committee to make decisions on minor changes and for the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee TOR to be updated to this effect. The MO went on to indicate that he would prepare a paper for submission to the Full Authority to address some of the other Constitution queries that were raised by Councillor B Langford.

Voting for Chair and Vice-Chair

At the extraordinary meeting of the Audit Committee on 18 August 2026, the Committee had considered the proposed new constitution for the Fire Authority.

One of the matters discussed was in relation to voting procedures and in particular anonymous votes versus named (recorded) votes. The Monitoring Officer was tasked with ascertaining what the correct course of action should be if both an anonymous and a named vote were requested for the same matter. Research showed that accepted practice would be for the named vote to take precedence in these circumstances (as set out in the standard textbook - Knowles on Local Authority Meetings and is also what happens at Lancashire County Council). This was now reflected in paragraph 41 of Standing Order 7:- If both a recorded (named) vote and an anonymous vote are proposed and voted in favour for the same item, then it is the recorded (named) vote that will take precedence. Paragraphs 44 and 45 set out the procedure for having a named vote.

There was then discussion about the voting mechanism for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Authority at the AGM. It was decided that this should be done anonymously by default (instead of the usual default of a show of hands). This instruction was reflected in Standing Order 5 at paragraph 4:- The Monitoring Officer will invite nominations for the Chair of the Authority, and if required for the Vice-Chair. Once moved and seconded a vote is taken, which will be an anonymous vote, and the new Chair (or Vice-Chair) will take up their role.

And also in Standing Order 7 at paragraphs 40:- The details of the exact procedural steps relating to any manner of voting shall be explained by the Monitoring Officer. The Authority shall normally vote upon matters by a show of hands expect where the vote is for the appointment of the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Authority (which will be an anonymous vote) or in accordance with paragraphs 44 to 47 below.

And paragraph 46:- An anonymous ballot may be held if it is proposed and five of the members vote in favour. Standing Order 5 also provides that an anonymous ballot must be held for the election of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Authority.

Whilst reviewing the new constitution in order to write internal guidance on the voting procedure, it became apparent that it was not entirely clear that the rule set out in paragraph 41 of Standing Order 7 – the named vote taking precedence over the anonymous vote would also apply to the vote for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Authority. In other words, whilst the starting point for the Chair and Vice-Chair was an anonymous vote, if a recorded vote was proposed and voted for by 5 members, in accordance with paragraphs 44 and 45 of Standing Order 7, this would override the rule about it being anonymous. It was understood that this was the intention of the Audit Committee but the standing orders as drafted could be mis-interpreted.

It was therefore proposed that the standing order was amended to make this rule clearer as follows:-

Standing order 5 paragraph 4: The Monitoring Officer will invite nominations for the Chair of the Authority, and if required for the Vice-Chair. Once moved and seconded a vote is taken, and the new Chair (or Vice-Chair) will take up their role. This vote will by default be anonymous unless a recorded vote is instead proposed and five of the members vote in favour of a recorded vote.

And also standing order 7 paragraph 46: An anonymous ballot may be held if it is proposed and five of the members vote in favour.

Members agreed for the MO to make this technical change to the constitution.

Abstentions

Paragraph 42 of standing order 7 was currently: The Chair and Monitoring Officer shall ascertain the number voting for or against any question and their declaration as to the result shall be conclusive.

However, whilst writing internal guidance, it was highlighted that the constitution did not make it clear how abstentions from voting would be treated. Guidance made it clear that even if a member abstained from voting, they were still “present” at the meeting for quoracy purposes. However, if they were included when counting the total number of voters for and against an issue, then in practical terms this would amount to a “no” vote which was unlikely to be the intention of the person abstaining. Alternatively, if any abstentions were excluded from the count, then that was likely to reflect a more accurate representation of the intentions of the members.

As examples to demonstrate this, if out of 25 members present at a meeting, 5 abstained, 11 voted for and 9 voted against, there would be a difference in outcome depending on what rule was adopted. If the rules were that all 25 members were present and entitled votes (including those that abstained) were counted, then as only 11 had voted for the issue, this was not a majority of 25 and the resolution would not be passed. If the rules were that any abstaining members were discounted however, then the 5 abstaining would be removed from the equation and the majority of those actually voting would be 20. As 11 voted in favour, which would be a majority of 20, then the resolution would be passed.

A review of how other local authorities and Fire Authorities deal with this showed that there was no consensus. Some appeared to count abstaining members in the overall count of votes cast, whereas others did not. It was recommended that the constitution was amended to make it clear that if a member abstained, then they would be entirely discounted from the votes cast.

The suggested amendment to paragraph 42 was: The Chair and Monitoring Officer shall ascertain the number voting for or against any question and their declaration as to the result shall be conclusive. All matters shall be decided by a simple majority of members present and actually voting for or against the matter. For clarity, members who abstain from a vote will still count as present for quoracy of the meeting, but will not form part of the count in determining the simple majority.”

The MO proposed to take this recommendation to the CFA for adoption.

There was a question from County Councillor J Ash regarding whether abstentions from voting affected meeting quoracy. The MO responded that this was not the case.

The MO then referred to a number of discrepancies which had been highlighted in the standing order section of the Constitution.

It was noted that a correction was needed to reflect changes in government set thresholds for contract standing orders. The DoCS indicated that clarification was needed on which thresholds needed to be reported on in order that this could feed into relevant Committee Terms of Reference. In relation to waivers for contract standing orders over the value of £100,000, it was suggested by the MO that this should be signed off by the Chair of the Authority for the sake of expediency rather than the Full Authority. If Members were in agreement, the MO would put forward this recommendation to the Full Authority.

The MO then referred to the introduction of a new procedure for disciplining Statutory Officers (the Chief Fire Officer, DoCS and MO) – this might entail the setting up of another committee which would require terms of reference.

There was a discrepancy discussed in relation to committee meetings – this was regarding who would give the consent for a non-member of a committee to attend the committee meeting. The MO felt that this decision would be best discussed with the Chair for the sake of expediency and the MO would make a recommendation to this effect.

Councillor B Langford had also made a point about where the approval of the Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) sat which the MO would discuss with Councillor Langford outside of this meeting.

The MO then referred to the addition of a new report to the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee regarding expenditure outside of budget of up to £200,000 which the CFO was authorised to make under the Scheme of Delegation. The Committee would be asked to note the report and the MO will make an amendment to the effect to the ToR.

In relation to Councillor B Langford’s query regarding approval of any significant and permanent changes to Service delivery, the MO drew Members’ attention to the Scheme of Delegation. This left high level strategic decisions with the Authority and operational matters with the CFO. The rationale for drafting the wording this way was to give sufficient transparency for decision making whilst providing sufficient flexibility to the CFO. For the time being, it was agreed to leave the wording as it was.

The Chair invited further comments and questions.

The external auditor, representing Grant Thornton, L Luddington shared advice that Audit Committees should not have any roles in scrutiny or decision making on matters such as changes to the Constitution and that they would send the MO a copy of the guidance for reference. The Chair proposed that this item was therefore deferred until after the guidance had been seen. This was seconded by County Councillor J Ash.

Resolved: - That the Committee deferred the item until guidance had been shared regarding the role of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee in any decision making process.