While an amendment to a standing order to punish unruly councillors financially has been abandoned, as it was found to be legally unsound, many councillors agreed that a committment must be taken to ensure that business is done efficiently in a way that showed dignity and respect to the chair.
Staff from a private security firm were manning the doors as Monday night’s council meeting took place. An amendment to a standing order asked for this increased security and demand for identification to continue, however many councillors expressed concerns condemning it as undemocratic and draconian. Despite these concerns the amendment was later passed.
The issue of penalising an unruly councillor who disrupts a council meeting was discussed and voted on by councillors in February, however, the councillors were told this week that legal advice, obtained from firm Blake and Kenny, found that in relation to the amendment to standing order 42 “there was no statutory power in the local government code which enables the elected council to suspend the remuneration or privileges of a council member or to direct that services be withdrawn”. Dublin-based barrister Stephen Dodd also advised that in relation to an amendentment to standing order 18, that it be amended to include that “a motion, the content of which is irregular, improper, or offensive, shall not be discussed at any meeting of the council, and the ruling of the mayor, after consultation with the council’s law advisor as to whether or not a motion comes within the standing order, shall be final”. The legal advice found that the wording of standing order 54 was in order but that the provisions requiring members of the public to give names and addresses and produce identification prior to being admitted to council meetings “should only be used for administrative purposes and in the interests of managing meetings due to limited space”.
Concerns expressed over asking public for identification
“I see no reason whatsoever that identification should be demanded and it goes against encouraging the public to take part in democracy. It’s draconian to exclude the public,” said Cllr Colette Connolly (Labour ), who then queried the cost of the getting the legal advice, as well as for the hiring of a private security firm adding “tax payers’ money was being used to fund it”. The concern for the cost of gaining legal advice was echoed by Cllr Padraig Conneely (Fine Gael ) who stated that “it has cost a lot of money to find out that the amendment [42] was wrong”.
Council needs to change the way it does business
Reminding the council members why this motion - to withdraw renumeration from unruly councillors - was first proposed by him, Cllr Peter Keane (Fianna Fáil ) began by saying that he was disappointed with the legal opinion received but that he would accept it. “The majority of councillors voted to change the way we do business so that it’s not held out to ridicule to the people of this city and that a modocum of respectability is given to the chamber. The battle may be lost but the war is not over. We failed to discuss the big white elephant in the room, and that is the way we do business,” he said.
Agreeing that things have to change, Cllr Declan McDonnell (Independent ) said: “Some councillors are talking about ‘I told you sos’ but that’s not why the motion is on the table. This isn’t about one councillor. I’ve had to apologise and others have had to in the past. It’s about the way we do business, we want a solution. I have to admire the eight [councillors] who said that something is wrong. Each of us have had a go at the mayor’s ruling but 99 per cent of us have accepted we are wrong.”
Describing amendment to standing order 42 as “totally inappropriate” Cllr Catherine Connolly (Independent ) acknowledged that the way council meetings have got out of control was “absurd”. She also deplored the hiring of a private security firm and called on the council to issue a welcome to the public and “let them make up their own minds about democracy”.
Cllr Donal Lyons (Independent ) called on all 15 members to “adhere to the rule of the chair” so that councillors will not be able to disrupt meetings and that the council does not “look foolish in the eyes of the public”. He added: “Councillors have been asked to withdraw their remarks, however, some have seemed unwilling to withdraw their remarks and are quite happy to see meetings abandoned for their own glorification.”
The councillors then voted to adopt the amendents to the standing order, except standing order 42, with nine for, two against, and three abstentions.
