Council passes proposal to limit number of motions
Cllr Adrienne Wallace said the proposal was 'the slow withering away of democracy'
LOCAL councillors engaged in a spirited debate at this month’s meeting of Carlow County County before narrowly passing a proposal that restricts councillors to bringing just one motion to a meeting. Councillors were previously able to propose an unlimited number of motions per meeting.
Cllrs Will Patton, Adrienne Wallace, William Quinn, Andy Gladney, John Cassin, Charlie Murphy and Jim Deane spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Cllr Patton called it “an actual attack on democracy” arguing that motions allow members to raise topical issues and concerns from constituents.
Cllr Wallace likewise called the proposal “the slow withering away of democracy”. She noted that a number of restrictions had been brought in over the past few years such as how members must now give 14 days’ notice when proposing a motion. She argued that councillors are elected to do their job and should not be limited by time concerns.
Cllr John Cassin called the proposal “absolutely ludicrous,” saying that he had never seen more than five or six motions on the agenda, so these restrictions are addressing a non-existent problem. He viewed the motion as an attack on local democracy to hide government ineffectiveness.
Cllr Willie Quinn said that an earlier agreement that limited members to two motions worked fine and called for a roll call vote.
Cllr Charlie Murphy called the restrictive proposal an attack on democracy and an attempt to stymie free speech.
Cllr Jim Deane said the proposal was “a blow to democracy,” that all motions are important in his opinion and that he did not support the “muzzling of counsellors”.
Cllr Andy Gladney told the meeting that the motion was “taking away democracy and the rights of all counsellors”.
Cllrs Fintan Phelan, Fergal Browne and mayor of Carlow Ken Murnane were in favour of the motion.
Cllr Phelan said that there was nothing in the proposal that prevents a councillor from submitting and seconding another motion. He also clarified that the strategic policy committee, which cllr Murphy had earlier referenced, has members of staff and statutory agencies which allows for motions to be considered in their fullest sense.
Cllr Murnane pointed out that the council originally used this policy during the covid pandemic when “it worked fine” and made things more efficient for everyone.
Cllr Fergal Browne said that he “did not see anything new with this proposal really” and felt that it just tidied up what the counsellors were already doing. He suggested that the council review the policy after one year.
Cllr Patton then addressed some of the arguments that had been put forward in support of this motion. In response to cllr Phelan, he said that as motions always come after council business, reducing the number of motions would not make the meetings more efficient. He said that cllr Browne would not “really be affected by notice of motions” as he is “often the first to leave meetings”.
Cllr Browne responded vehemently, asking the chair to ask cllr Patton to retract his accusation and said: “It’s an absolute outrage coming from you. My attendance record at meetings speaks for itself.” Cllr Brian O’Donohue then made a point of order that the council was not actually discussing a motion but rather an agenda item.
“There is nothing to stop members in this chamber looking for an item to be on the agenda,” cllr O’Donohue said. He also pointed out that per the standing order, members are only supposed to speak once per agenda item, but members are usually permitted to speak more than once. Members can also request groups to come and present to the council as another way for the general public to get their views across.
He told the meeting that members also have the chance to give their views during the chief executive’s report.
“Which, in fairness to our current chief executive, is an absolute free-for-all and I enjoy it thoroughly,” cllr O’Donohue said.
Cllr Wallace then said that motions are already going to the SPC and then are directed to other meetings if the question is not right for council, so there is no need to limit motions.
A vote was then taken and the motion passed by a slim majority with ten voting in favour, seven voted against and one person was absent.
