Decision details

Council considered a report which sought Members’ approval for the Council’s criteria and process for conferring the title of Honorary Alderman and also for a definition of the role and limitations of Honorary Alderman.

The Council had conferred 13 Honorary Alderman since district councils were permitted this right under section 249(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. 

The Act stated that “a principal council may, by a resolution passed by not less than two thirds of the members voting thereon, at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object, confer the title of Honorary Alderman on persons who had, in the opinion of the Council, rendered eminent services to the council as past members of that council but who were not then members of the council."

The agreed and published process and criterion for conferring the title of Honorary Alderman was not prescriptive, there was also no statutory guidance or definition of “eminent services”.  The Council would need to set its own criteria for the appointment of Honorary Aldermen as well as a definition of the role and limitations and proposals relating to this were set out in the report.

Councillor Ross Walker queried the cost to the Council of conferring an Honorary Alderman.  The Leader replied that the cost would be in relation to an aldermanic badge, certificate and gift, and their name entered on to the Roll of Honour Board within the Council Chamber. 

Councillor James Watson rejected the proposal for Honorary Alderman and put forward an amendment to the motion that the Council adopt a policy that the Council should not confer the title of Honorary Alderman.  The Chair advised Councillor Watson that his proposal was not an amendment to the motion but was a direct opposition of the recommendation in the report.  The Governance Manager reaffirmed to the meeting that under section 249(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, it was a right of a council to confer the title of Honorary Alderman and Councillor Watson’s proposal would be an amendment to the Council’s Constitution if Members agreed not to take up the right to confer the title of Honorary Alderman.

Councillor Roberts queried why the criteria for ‘years’ of service’ had been reduced from 25 to 16 years.  The Leader replied that previously the length of service criteria had been 30 years and this had been reduced to 25.  The Leader felt that 16 years was still a long time for the qualifying period when Members worked extremely hard for their residents and the Council as well as the pressure on their families’ lives.  He felt that this hard work and commitment should be recognised and acknowledged.

Moved by Councillor Steve Fritchley and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor

RESOLVED that (1) the criteria to be used in the process of conferring the title of Honorary Alderman to a nominated individual, as set out in the report, be agreed,

(2) the definition of the role and limitations of an Honorary Alderman, as set out in the report, be agreed.

Councillor James Watson voted against the recommendations.

Having previously declared an interest in the following item of business, Councillor Mary Dooley stayed in the meeting, and having previously declared an interest on the following 2 items of business, Councillor James Watson left the meeting;

Members were advised that a recorded vote would be taken on the recommendations for the Medium Term Financial Plan 2020/21 to 2023/24 report.