Daily Archives: 16 May 2014

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Public gagged, councillors gagged … and the strange case of the Legal Highs!

Decisions this week, likely to be rubber-stamped by Cabinet and Full Council, mean that now the public must make written representations in advance before being (possibly) allowed to speak at the Development Management Committee (only 5 objectors will be allowed 3 minutes each on a first come, first served basis).

Councillors are now to be banned from putting motions that are not appropriate to the business of the council – the final arbiter probably being the Chief Executive (or perhaps one of his Deputies – see post below).  The Council’s Constitution will be so amended – even though the introduction of the amendment has not followed the procedure laid down in the current Constitution!

Proposed by Councillor Bloxham who recently put forward a motion to ban the use of Legal Highs and who spoke so eloquently for 27 minutes recently, emphasising that restricting public questions should be an essential part of saving time for committees.

So Councillor Bloxham, which councillor is that is using Legal Highs – I think we should be told!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Newton Poppleford

Comments

2 Comments

Guilty, not guilty, punish, don’t punish … the mad, mad world of the EDDC Standards Committee

Councillor Salter, Independent parish Councillor, Newton Poppleford Parish Council.  Spoke out against a develop near to him which majority of councillors seemed to be in favour of, majority of parishoners appeared not to favour.  Reported to police because “anonymous” complainant said he should have declared a pecuniary interest.

Police found no case to answer.  “Anonymously” reported to EDDC for declaring a personal interest but then staying in the room and voting.  Monitoring Officer decided he had a case to answer.  Hearing yesterday, most of the day.

Conclusion:  Yes, he did break the rules.  Three councillors then met in private to decide his punishment (1 Independent, 2 Tories).  Majority decision:  no punishment as he was deemed to have been speaking for the people of Newton Poppleford not just for himself!

Truly, it is a mad world, my masters – with shades of the situation in which which (Independent) Councillor Giles had to face at Ottery St Mary where he was found guilty by his parish councillors when he reported some of them to his (Independent) district councillor because they had not told her about a secret meeting they were having with developers – suggested punishment by majority vote: ban him from the Planning Committee but they voted again and decided not to punish him.

Ottery Town Council and Councillor Giles were then investigated by the Monitoring Officer:  town council found deficient, no charges against Councillor Giles but no apology for his treatment.  And between Independent Councillor Giles and Independent Councillor Salter, Lib Dem Councillor Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem) dragged before the Monitoring Officer (again) for failing to respect another (Tory) Councillor at Exmouth town council and forced to apologise and be named in the press.

Can anyone see a glimmer of a pattern here?

Our Monitoring Officer is one of the two Deputy Chief Executives and each time these hearings take place an independent consultant is brought in to investigate.

Is this the best (or the most appropriate) use of this officer’s time?  How many man and woman hours are being wasted in this way, lost income for the councillors being investigated and all the council’s costs being paid for in the end by US and our council tax?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Lies, damned lies – and Minutes!

It isn’t just Lord Salisbury and his Cabinet who would be proud of Norman Tebbit – he is almost certainly a hero to some at EDDC:

…. Finally, to the problem that bedevils coalition ministers: the feeling that after just one term in government, quite a few of them have been around too long. Francis Maude, Cabinet Office supremo and cutter-in-chief, is one such, and a peek at his parliamentary biog explains why: “Member for Horsham 1997–; Member for North Warwickshire, 1983-92; Contested North Warwickshire byelection 1900.” He didn’t win, of course. That’s a shame. Lord Salisbury and his cabinet would have thought the world of him.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/15/hugh-muir-diary-paxo-permutations

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2014

Posted under

EDDC

Councillor Key misses the (decimal) point!

What would you say was the average number of public speakers at planning meetings over the past year? 10? 15 perhaps?  It’s actually 1.5.

Councillor Graham Troman presented his research on this to last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), in the debate on how to shorten the length of the currently unwieldy planning meetings. Reducing the number of public speakers was one suggestion in Cllr Bloxham’s proposals for resolving the problem.

Cllr Troman found that between May 2013 and April 2014 (i.e. the latest twelve-month period), there were 165 applications heard by the Development Management, with 249 contributors (including parish councillors) to public question time (maximum of 3 minutes allowed per speaker)…so an average of 1.5 public speakers per planning application.

But these complicated calculations seemed all too much for Cllr Key to take on board. He remarked that Cllr Troman had “overestimated himself” , and that an average of 2 people was more accurate.

Which left more than one of his fellow councillors wondering, “If he doesn’t understand 1.5, does he understand 4.5 minutes (= the time limit for 1.5 public speakers)?

 

After a rather rambling discussion, which jumped from one agenda item to another, and saw a marked division in voting between the majority party (not all of whom spoke), and the other councillors, the motion to have new rules on speaking was passed., with some amendments.  Amongst these were: listing and publishing in advance, the precise material planning applications to be addressed; introducing a buzzer system for time limits to speaking; insisting on pre-application for public questions; and stronger powers for the DMC Chair.

Cllr Bloxham’s report will now go to Cabinet, and then back to Full Council for approval.