The Constitution Committee convened to discuss and make recommendations on several key issues, including adopting electronic voting for council meetings, proposed changes to the Health and Wellbeing Board's terms of reference, and a review of the council's approach to motions. The committee agreed to recommend that the council adopt electronic voting and also approved changes to the terms of reference for the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Electronic Voting

The committee resolved to recommend that the council adopt electronic voting and approve changes to the Rules of Procedure to enable it. Rob Ayliffe, the Monitoring Officer, explained that the technology was already integrated into the existing microphone units and software system, and could be enabled at minimal cost.

The benefits of electronic voting were outlined as:

• Lowering the risk of vote miscounting.
• Eliminating the need for a roll-call during recorded votes.
• Removing ambiguity as to whether a member has cast their vote.

A draft amendment to the Rules of Procedure was included in the Electronic Voting - Constitution committee paper - oct 2025.

A member suggested documenting working practices around how and when electronic voting is used. Another member asked whether votes would be automatically published online. It was clarified that this was not a standard part of the technology and only 'recorded votes' would be included in the minutes. The committee agreed that it would be custom and practice to display the electronic voting in the minutes, with a discussion at a future meeting around whether the voting should be displayed live during the webcast.

One member suggested that all members' votes should be logged on the system for public view in any future specification for an e-voting system.

Health and Wellbeing Board Terms of Reference

The committee resolved to recommend that the full council approves and adopts the amended Terms of Reference for the Gloucestershire Health and Wellbeing Board, and their integration into Section 3 of the council's constitution.

Claire Proctor introduced the report, explaining that the review had highlighted several proposed changes for consideration, including additional text to clarify the statutory and non-statutory duties of the board, as suggested by the council's audit team.

The amendments included clarification that the Chair of the board would be appointed by the Leader of the Council and further details on the way in which the Vice Chair would be appointed. Proposals also included widening the membership of the board and introducing new voting arrangements.

The Constitution Committee report ToR review SEPTEMBER 2025 outlined the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference, including:

• Clarification of the statutory and non-statutory duties of the Health and Wellbeing Board.
• Clarification of the appointment process for the Chair and Vice Chair.
• Clarification of the length of tenure for committee members.
• Specification that the Board will meet in public three times a year.
• Widening the membership to include one elected member representative from each of the 6 district councils.
• Amending the voting arrangement to ensure representation of all member organisations or sectors in the voting system, while also recognising the votes of statutory members or organisations.

A member asked if any of the new members would be eligible to be vice chair, and whether they would have a casting vote if they subsequently chaired the board. It was confirmed that they would be eligible to be Vice Chair, but it was explained that individual organisations would have an individual vote.

Motions

Councillor Stuart Graham introduced a Reform proposal for consideration of Motions that he believed balanced group size and fair access, while giving rotational opportunity for smaller parties and independents. This proposal stemmed from concerns expressed by Reform councillors that the current process was not a fair one and did not reflect proportional representation based on group size. He expressed concerns that the changes made previously by the committee had negatively impacted the opposition groups.

The Reform proposal stated that every group would be guaranteed at least one motion per meeting regardless of size, with the ruling group fixed at one motion per meeting. The top three parties by size would be prioritised in the motion order at each meeting, with the remaining parties and independents rotating across successive meetings.

Councillor Graham also suggested that there should be additional council meetings that focused only on motions, and that motions that included an action to write a letter should not be included within the list of motions to be considered by council.

The Chair stated that the approach to motions had varied throughout the years, and that the aim of the current approach had been to ensure smaller groups had an opportunity to have a motion debated at council. The aim was to try the proposals for six months and then review it at Constitution Committee.

One member raised the restriction of the two hour time limit for motion discussion and how that had been abused in the past by groups submitting multiple motions which were taken on a first come first serve basis. It was felt that the current process was an improvement on that.

Noting the upcoming review in six months, it was suggested that a discussion on motions might include discussion of the overall time limit and a potential time limit per motion, as well as the views expressed by the Reform group.

Members sought further clarity on the detail within the Reform proposals, suggesting there was inconsistency within the paper. Members requested that the documents referred to by Councillor Graham be recirculated to members and any concerns he, or other members had, about a breach to the Constitution be addressed to the Monitoring Officer direct.

Whistleblowing Policy

The committee noted the changes to the Whistleblowing Policy final - July 2025 with tracked changes. It was confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee had received a report on the policy and the scrutiny of that would sit with the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The council's whistleblowing policy is designed to allow employees to raise concerns about malpractice within the council. The policy states:

Elected Members and senior managers of Gloucestershire County Council are committed to running the organisation in the best way possible and to do so we need your help. We have updated this policy to reassure you that it is safe and acceptable to speak up and to enable you to raise any concern you may have about malpractice at an early stage and in the right way. Any reported concern will be taken seriously. Rather than wait for proof, we would prefer you to raise the matter when it is still a concern.

Data Protection Officer

The committee noted the changes to the council's constitution following the appointment of a new Data Protection Officer, Nicholas Holland, as detailed in the Data Protection Officer - Amendment to the Constitution.

The General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 require organisations meeting certain criteria to appoint a Data Protection Officer¹.