[Peter Marrington]

We insist that those calling the decision in can't hear the Call In.

[Keith Gordon]

I agree with Peter

[Peter Foulsham]

At Wyre, any group of members calling an a decision has to identify its Spokesperson and that Spokesperson is not able to be part of the committee hearing the call-in. (S)he would have to sit aside. We did agree, however, that the other signatories to the call-in could be part of the committee hearing it as, up until that point, all they had done was to question the decision. Predetermination was not an issue, as those members would hear the evidence given and then make up their minds, based on that evidence.

I accept that this way of dealing with a call-in remains open to criticism, but we have found that it is a pragmatic approach that has worked for us.

[Matthew Garrard]

I agree with Peter but disagree with the other Peter and Keith. A call-in is a group of Members expressing concern about the way that a decision has been taken and wanting to take a closer look at it - through overview and scrutiny. There shouldn't be any predetermination and excluding them from taking that closer look would seem to undermine the process more than including them.

[Ross Cook]

Thanks for the replies. The decision has been taken to allow Members who have called the decision in to sit on the Committee and I have now been advised that the first signatory will be a sub on the Committee - so now seeking to establish whether they will present the call-in as well.

The decision is pretty much based on the theory that the action of calling the decision in is not the same as predetermination and are confident that Members will consider all of the evidence with an open mind.

Any restriction on who can sit on the Committee could cause a perceived unfairness as we are a fairly evenly balanced authority 17:11:8 (Committee = 7:5:3) and so to take five members from one group out of the equation would change the make-up of the Committee.