Agenda item

This report summarises the issues discussed at the Civic Working Group meetings held since the last Charter Trustee meeting in July 2024 and seeks support for any recommendations arising.

The Sheriff and Chair of the Poole Civic Working Group, Cllr Mark Howell,   introduced the report and moved the recommendations therein.

In support of the recommendations, it was highlighted that as a result of the advice received from the King’s Counsel (KC), the Charter Trustees’ remit was limited to:

• Appointing a Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Sheriff;
• Ensuring the safe custody of the Charter of Incorporation; and
• Acquiring, holding, administering, maintaining and improving historic property of a ceremonial nature.

It was confirmed that the Charter Trustees were only able to fund events that supported this remit.

The Standing Orders had therefore been reviewed for amendment to reflect this more limited remit, though as part of the review additional changes were recommended, including:

-       Addition of explicit permission to appoint support from outside of the Council;

-       Addition of the option to appoint a Ceremonial Advisor to advise on ceremonial matters and also engage with the community.

The Sheriff updated Trustees on accommodation and the previously discussed Mayor’s Parlour at the Guildhall. Trustees were advised that work following the resolution passed at the Council meeting on 15 October 2024 was still underway and a further update would follow once completed.

Concerns over support to the Charter Trustees had been raised and officers were currently drafting a Service Level Agreement which would allow for Trustees to agree the support to be provided.

Some Trustees remarked that under the new remit the Charter Trustees would be unable to offer grants such as those previously given to the Twinning Association and Society of Poole and suggested this was a compelling argument for the Community Governance Review that was currently underway.

Other Trustees suggested that considering that the lifespan of the CT could be limited as a result of the Community Governance Review, Trustees should be cautious regarding time and costs of undertaking any legal challenge to the KC advice.

The Sheriff suggested that support for events would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis taking into account of what other Charter Trustees were doing.

In response, officers advised that they were required to advise on what was lawful, and other Charter Trustees elsewhere in the country could be undertaking actions that were unlawful. While the Civic Team was absolutely dedicated in supporting the Mayoralty and the Trustees, caution would need to be exercised to ensure Trustees were not seeking expenditure that was deemed to be unlawful.

Trustees queried the consequences of a challenge on expenditure. Officers suggested that any challenge could result in reputational damage due to unlawful expenditure paid for by the residents of Poole.

Trustees queried whether BCP Council could empower the Charter Trustees to carry out events on its behalf. In response, Trustees were advised that the proposed Standing Orders section 1(a) set out the right for the Charter Trustees to “carry out any business permitted by law.”  The CWG would therefore review events as required and negotiate with officers on how to deliver them. For example, the Beating of the Sea Bounds had been agreed as permissible under the new remit.

Some Trustees suggested that contrary to the KC advice, twinning should be a matter for the Charter Trustees. The Sheriff advised that the KC advice on twinning had been accepted, though Trustees would hold BCP Council to its twinning support obligations.

The reason for the proposed removal of ‘Charter’ from ‘Charter Mayor’ in the Standing Orders was queried. In response, it was confirmed that ‘Charter’ was proposed to be removed to clarify the role of the Mayor, though this could be reverted if Trustees were minded to do so. Trustees agreed to remove the word ‘charter’ as proposed.

Trustees sought clarity on the updating of the Mayoral Boards, as previously referred to by the Mayor. Officers agreed that the Boards would be reviewed for updating.

Some Trustees suggested that the full KC advice should be shared with all Trustees. The Sheriff advised that the CWG was initially refused sight of the KC advice, which was subsequently shared with all members of the CWG. The CWG had also refused to pay for the KC advice, as Trustees had not commissioned it, and the budget set out in agenda item 6 reflected that BCP Council was now paying for this.

Officers advised that the KC advice was BCP Council’s advice and was protected by legal privilege.

Trustees suggested that the proposed Order of Precedence should remove reference to Aldermen, as creation of Aldermen was not a Trustee function, and to add ‘freewoman’ alongside ‘freeman’ (or make the wording non-binary).

It was agreed that Aldermen would be removed, and that officers would review the legislation to ensure inclusion of the correct wording as permitted by regulations.

RESOLVED that:

Following acceptance of legal advice regarding the remit of the Charter Trustees, and subsequent review of the Standing Orders, that the proposed amendments to the Standing orders be approved subject to the removal of the reference to Aldermen from the Order of Procession and the inclusion of appropriate wording regarding freemen and freewomen.

Voting: Unanimous.

ACTION: Officers to review Mayoral Boards for updating.

(Councillor Trent left 18:49)