Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Comments

3 Comments

Hugo Swire – is he really OUR back bench MP?

Swire wrote on Twitter three hours ago:

Just had an excellent briefing from Saudi Foreign Minister HE Adel Al- Jeubir

Prior to that, his previous tweets were about Venezuela, Bristol University’s research into Lyme Disease and a whinge about the Express and Echo wanting to know where he went on holiday (he refused to tell them). Plus tweets on Brazil, Colombia and Florida.

And where does East Devon fit into his political life one wonders? Is he in denial that he is now just an ordinary back bench MP like hundreds of others?

Tonight there is an important meeting of Sidmouth Town Council to discuss the industrial units that Ford’s want to build on land belonging to Sir John Cave (his former landlord when he deigned to live in East Devon many years ago). Will he be there? In your dreams.

Quite a contrast to our other local MP Neil Parish – who spoke against further development in Feniton, attended local meetings and spoke at the planning inspection where it was turned down.

It seems Swire can’t accept his new demotion and still thinks he’s at the Foreign Office – and he might as well be for the good he has done for his constituency since he was fired by Theresa May along with his other Old Etonian mates George and David.

He always took a strong interest in Middle Eastern affairs – perhaps he sees opportunities for some lucrative consultation work which will keep him away from the trials and tribulations of his so-called constituency.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Four out of seven north-east councils vote against devolution Sunderland, Durham, South Tyneside and Gateshead reject proposals including election of north-eastern mayor”

” … Paul Watson, chair of the North East Combined Authority (Neca) of the seven councils, described the vote as disappointing. He said: “Each of the seven councils which make up the Neca has always made clear that they support the principle of devolution for the north-east. Following the outcome of the EU referendum and the subsequent changes within government, council leaders have been equally clear that to move forward, the new government must provide assurances regarding the terms of the region’s devolution deal.

“Extensive discussions and negotiations have taken place with government and within the region over recent months but unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it has not been possible to reach an agreement which all of the seven local authorities feel able to support. Although this is disappointing we will continue to work together with government to achieve our ambition of a stronger regional economy with improved opportunities for residents and businesses.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/north-east-councils-vote-against-devolution-sunderland-durham-south-tyneside-gateshead

Compare and contrast with Devon and Somerset where councils are happy to vote like sheep for devolution, knowing almost nothing about, having been given minimal information by their Leaders and their business pals on the Local Enterprise Partnership.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Art and Culture, Austerity cuts, EDBF, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Thelma Hulbert Gallery

EDDC Cabinet Meeting – 14 September 2016: highlights

Agenda here:

Click to access combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf

Highlights:

Forward plans: discussion on public toilets at Cabinet in November 2016. Closing them or charging for them?

Next relocation update: 21 December 2016 Cabinet meeting
in line with burying bad news at the start of a long holiday.

Business Support and Thelma Hulbert Gallery reviews – no dates set.
Obviously a new grouping to take the place of the East Devon Business Forum and giving the Gallery longer to lose its (subsidised by us) money. Perhaps it will be relocated to the new HQ (wonder how much costs are increasing on that?)

Agenda Item 12 – Port Royal, Sidmouth – Scoping Study and Project Brief.
Whose scope, whose project?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability, Transport (local)

Sidmouth Town Council – change of venue for Sidfotd Business Park discussion on Wednesday 8 September 2016

“Sidmouth Town Council is set to consider Fords of Sidmouth’s revised application, which it submitted to offer ‘additional reassurance’.

More than 100 people attended the last meeting on the plans, when concerns included the impact on the roads, flooding and a lack of demand locally for employment land.

Wednesday’s meeting will be held in St Peter’s Church Hall from 6.30pm.

Fords’ revised documents have triggered a second consultation, so it means residents can have their say on the proposals until Friday, September 16, by visiting the district council website.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/second_meeting_to_discuss_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4680606

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, EDDC, Transparency

“Law Commission consults on reform to law on misconduct in public office”

Consultation is from

5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016

Owl guesses that many comments will emanate from East Devon!

“… The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office.pdf

on a new statutory offence aimed at tackling the problems with the existing law.

It has put forward two forms that the offence would take and invites consultees to say whether either or both should be taken forward into legislation.

Option 1 is described as a ‘breach of duty model’ and would involve the creation of a new offence of breach of duty by a public office holder with a particular duty concerned with the prevention of harm. …

… Option 2 is meanwhile described as a ‘corruption based model’. The consultation proposes the creation of a new offence that borrows some elements from the existing offence of police corruption under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but applies to all public office holders and improves, the Law Commission said, upon the section 26 offence in a number of ways.

The offence under Option 2 would be committed when:

a public office holder (as defined in statute);

abuses his or her position or a power or authority held by virtue of that position;
by exercising that position, power or authority with the purpose of achieving an advantage for the office holder or another or causing detriment to another; and
the exercise of that position, power or authority for that purpose is seriously improper.

A third option discussed in the consultation paper is that the current law should be abolished without replacement. However, the Law Commission’s provisional proposal is that this step should not be taken.

Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said: “It is vital that the public have confidence in their public officials and in the legal framework that sets the boundaries of their conduct. The offence of misconduct in public office is increasingly being used to bring public officials to account but recent high-profile investigations and prosecutions have brought the problems with this offence into sharp focus.

“The existing law relating to misconduct in public office is unclear in a number of fundamental respects. There is urgent need for reform to bring clarity and certainty and ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28243%3Alaw-commission-consults-on-reform-to-law-on-misconduct-in-public-office&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Private is private but public is scrutiny – but by whom?

Owl thinks private lives should be private – but if you have a public life that puts you in direct conflict with that private life (such as heading an inquiry into drugs and prostitution) then you should be prepared to be held to account. But who does that accounting?

The Daily Telegraph explains the difficulty:

“The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament is clear: “Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity …”

During a parliamentary career that has lasted almost 30 years so far, Keith Vaz has faced many questions about how well he lived up to that standard. …

… His chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs committee does not just give him a prominent public position and an additional salary, it also gives him regular direct contact with senior ministers and officials, and privileged access to some of the most sensitive official information about matters of crime and national security.

In short, Parliament has chosen to ignore all of the questions about Mr Vaz’s conduct over many years and reward him with a position of great power and responsibility.

Time and time again, serious concerns have been raised about the “integrity and probity” of Mr Vaz. Every time, the parliamentary authorities have failed to investigate those concerns with the tenacity or objectivity requited to give the public full confidence in their findings and in Parliament as a whole.

This newspaper has argued over many years that MPs sadly cannot be trusted to police their own conduct, calling instead for independent oversight, perhaps from a body similar to the US Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog solely composed of non-politicians.

Mr Vaz is living proof of why politicians cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/04/keith-vaz-is-living-proof-that-mps-cannot-be-trusted-to-regulate/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, EDDC, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief “

The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

The article raises very serious concerns about the business sense of our Local Enterprise Partnership, which seems blind to the economic realities of the Hinkley C project.

We know, of course, that many members of our LEP have enormous direct and indirect investment in the project and presumably need it to continue to allow their own interests to thrive.

But is it in OUR interest to allow them to trouser likely profits from such an unbalanced deal?

They will say that they are doing this for our benefit, of course – more jobs, more houses, etc. But with Brexit we now look towards having fewer people coming to this country from the EU (though exceptions would doubtless be made for French and Chinese workers) and much higher import costs if we do not have free trade in the EU. Plus the business case for renewables is strengthening all the time, especially as battery storage research and implementation has made enormous progress.

Our LEP members know all this but only last week its CEO was telling us how hard he and his members are battling to keep the project going:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=a36a037523&e=fa5cdb1f1

We have to ask: who are they battling for – and why?

The great scandal of LEPs now lies before us: small (very small) groups of business people who look to their own interests before those of the residents where they live. Often in secret and with minimal or no scrutiny. And who pursue their own interests even when they put them at odds with the majority of people in the areas they purportedly represent.

Our East Devon Business Forum seems to have been a practice run for our Local Enterprise partnership, and we all know how that ended – also coincidentally in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability, Transparency

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’


“This letter, copied with the author’s permission, was published in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read, on page 4 of last week’s Herald, that residents have got a second opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed business park between Sidbury and Sidford.

Then on page 10, I read that the County Council have withdrawn it’s proposal for a path between Sidbury and Sidford, because Ford’s have offered to pay for it, should they get permission for the business park.

The proposed path is now part of a section 106 agreement between the District Council (as the planning authority) and Fords. Such an agreement is described as a ‘ a DEAL to mitigate the impact of development’. I wonder if the use of the word ‘deal’ indicates what is really happening here- that the offer to fund the path is being used as a “bargaining chip”, to quote Stuart Hughes. As the business park has yet to receive the go ahead and another period of public consultation is in progress, I wonder how the council can justify their decision?

I have written to them to ask for an explanation and I suggest others do likewise. Meantime, may I urge readers with concerns about the proposed business park, to write or email the District Council. The reference number to quote in correspondence is: 16/0669/MOUT. The deadline for comments is 16 September and not 2 September, as is given in the EDDC website.”

Yours sincerely
Alison Kerruish,
Sidford

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, East Devon Tories, Economy, Hugo Swire

So now we know why there are no affordable homes! Only Labour supporters live in them so Tories won’t build them!

“David Cameron and George Osborne refused to build more council houses because it would “create Lab­­­­our voters”, Nick Clegg has revealed.

In a tell-all interview on Coalition life, the former Deputy PM also accused cynical Osborne of shamelessly slashing benefits simply to boost Tory popularity.

Speaking ahead of the publication of his memoirs, Mr Clegg said: “Welfare for Osborne was just a bottomless pit of savings and it didn’t really matter what the human consequences were.

“Focus groups had shown the voters they wanted to appeal to were very anti-welfare and therefore there was almost no limit to those anti-welfare prejudices.”

Mr Clegg said this vote-chasing approach was also behind the Coalition’s dismal failure to build more much-needed social housing.” …

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-george-osborne-wouldnt-8759040

Well, it makes a sort-of sense in the mad, mad world of Tory politics.

Wonder what Swire has to say about it?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Regeneration

Moirai – not quite an Oasis in Swindon

We know from various FOIs that EDDC’s Alison Hayward (who has the terribly impressive title of “Strategic Lead – Organisational Development and Transformation) has had a number of meetings with Moirai, EDDC’s (previously??) erstwhile preferred partner for the Splash/Queens Drive development in Exmouth, and that she appears to have been only EDDC officer present at some such meetings.

We also know that six, as yet unidentified, Exmouth Town Councillors had a visit to the Swindon Oasis Leisure centre. This centre appears to have been portrayed as a model of what can be achieved in partnership with Moirai.

In an effort to keep councillors fully informed on all aspects of Moirai, may we draw attention to the latest Private Eye and its Rotten Boroughs column.

It reports:

HEALTH WARNING
Swimmers hoping to cool off in Swindon’s Oasis pool have been stricken with a nasty bug called cryptosporidiosis – aka “crypto” – which triggers diarrhoea, fever and nausea. Of some 30 recent cases in the town at least 10 have been positively linked to the Oasis, which is outsourced to Greenwich Leisure Ltd.

Yet the council and Greenwich Leisure kept the pool open for three weeks after being warned there was a problem with the water.

A mother alerted environmental health after her son became ill on 19th July, but the pool was not closed until 12th August.

Public Health England has confirmed that some of the reported cases of infection from the pool date back to May.

This is not unfamiliar ground for Greenwich Leisure. It runs Chesham Leisure Centre in Buckinghamshire on behalf of Chiltern District Council. Eleven children and four adults were hospitalised after swimming there in 2014. An investigation found they had been affected by the chemical content of the water, which Greenwich had failed to test. In the same year 800 residents of Reading signed a petition protesting at the “filthy” Greenwich-run Rivermead leisure centre in the town.

What the Private Eye story doesn’t say is that Moirai run the Oasis at Swindon and that they are still engaged in the possible development of another part of Swindon known as the North Star development.

They used to outsource the day to day management to a company created by two of their directors and called Oasis Operations Ltd.

The two Moirai directors ceased to be directors of Oasis Operations Ltd in February 2013. A Mr Wojeichowski became the sole director and later changed the name to MW Contract Services Ltd. That company went bust in January 2014. Greenwich Leisure subsequently took over the day to day running of Oasis.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Transparency

EDF staff reps go to court to get Hinkley C decision to proceed annulled

“Five staff representatives on the board of EDF have filed a legal complaint seeking to annul the utility’s decision to go ahead with its Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain, EDF unions said in a joint statement on Wednesday.

On July 28, EDF’s board voted 10 to seven to proceed with the 18 billion pound project to build two nuclear reactors. All six staff representatives and one other board member voted against, while one board member resigned in protest against EDF’s strategy.

The unions argue that EDF Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy and representatives of the French state should have informed the board that they knew the British government wanted to take more time to review the contract.

Hours after EDF’s board approved the project, the UK government postponed its decision until early autumn. Days later, in an email to top EDF executives, Levy admitted that the night before the board meeting he had been told new British Prime Minister Theresa May wanted a bit more time.

The nuclear reactors carry huge risks for both France and Britain. EDF will assume the up-front costs, which unions say could jeopardise the firm’s survival, while Britain has committed to pay a price twice current market levels for the power generated by the plant.

“Some board members discovered they did not benefit from the same level of information as the CEO and government representative,” the CGT, CFE-CGC and FO unions said. The moderate CFDT union did not sign the statement.

The unions added there was no justification to push the board to vote on the project in a hurry.

EDF declined to comment on Wednesday.

Law firm Alain Levy, which represents the five union board members, said in a statement it had filed a complaint with the Paris commercial court, asking it to annul the vote because Levy had not shared essential information with all board members.

A first hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept 5.

Source: Reuters
http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/UKDomesticNews/~3/rCGvD5kV93M/uk-edf-britain-nuclear-cgt-idUKKCN11617T

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Transparency

Devon Tory election expenses conflict?

From a correspondent:

“West Mercia’s Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Chris Singer was with Devon and Cornwall police until Dec. 2015, the Commander for Plymouth and before that Torbay.

Even if no Election Expenses offence was committed by Alison Hernandez and Kevin Foster, any outcome may be tainted by Devon and Cornwall Police passing that to a force whose ACC was with them at the time of the General Election in May 2015.

Does any potential conflict of interest in passing that investigation to West Mercia risk bringing both constabularies into disrepute?”

Indeed, a very good question.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Transparency

Council record- keeping – an EDDC example

A recent comment on the original article:

“This finding should come as no surprise to EDDC.

In a decision published in January 2004, the Ombudsman found against EDDC in regard to a number of complaints concerning planning matters in Exmouth at Camperdown Terrace. The Ombudsman noted that

‘material relating to the application was misleading and gave no indication that the council was being asked to approve a 6.8 metre high metal boat racking system at the end of their small gardens, nor that the racks would be used for the storage of large motor boats which are moved around the site by a gigantic fork lift truck.‘

Consultees were not provided with sufficient information to make informed comments.

The Council’s record keeping was very poor and there was a failure to give adequate consideration to the points raised by the consultees and others who commented on the application. The Ombudsman found maladminstration causing injustice and recommended that …..

(g) “undertake a review of the record keeping by planning officers and the delegated decision making arrangemnents to ensure that proper records are kept and delegated decisions are made on the basis of written reports, so that those affected may see how a particular decision has been reached.”

The most striking sentence for me is “Consultees were not provided with sufficient information to make informed comments”. Anyone knowing anything about the Exmouth Masterplan consultation, in regard to Elizabeth Hall v Premier Inn, will appreciate how EDDC said one thing meant something quite different, how wanting to see the EH site improved was taken as meaning approval for a Premier Inn. EH is but one of very many examples.

Also, anyone who is familiar with EDDC’s answers to FOIs will be all too familiar with EDDC’s failure to keep proper records of decision making.

The record of this Ombudsman’s finding is no longer available online but I have the 24 page report should anyone want it.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Councils need to keep proper records of contractual decisions

East Devon District Council does like its private, non-note-taking meetings …

“A judge has issued a warning to contractual authorities that might be tempted to minimise the amount of paperwork they keep particularly where they fear that a high profile procurement exercise might be challenged. Helen Prandy reports.

In finding in EnergySolutions EU Limited v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) that a contracting authority had made “conscious decisions” in relation to sparse record keeping a High Court judge noted that serious consideration appeared to have been given to restricting the keeping of contemporaneous records of evaluation because it was known that these would be disclosable in litigation.

The court took the view that if the evaluation process is performed in accordance with the obligations under the Regulations then they would present no danger to the Authority because they would constitute an ‘audit trail of the decision making’.

He also went on to find that a proposed destruction of notes relating to the evaluation was extremely worrying given the express obligations of transparency on public authorities under the Regulations.

In the absence of adequate contemporaneous documents a court is forced to rely on the recollection of witnesses. Documents may be embarrassing but the memory of witnesses is extremely unreliable and is just as likely to lead to an ‘embarrassing’ revelation. In this most recent case the witness most closely involved with the evaluation admitted on cross examination that he did not accept that inconsistency in evaluation of bids might amount to unequal treatment.

The judge found the almost complete absence of documents relating to a critical dialogue phase of the procurement and a reliance solely on the memory of witnesses to “verge on the incredible”.

The case arose under the 2006 Regulations and there is a requirement now under Regulation 84(8) of the 2015 Regulations to keep “sufficient documentation to justify decisions taken in all stages of the procurement procedure…” and to do so for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the award.

This case is not the first where a deliberate failure to keep documents has created problems for a contracting authority. However tempting it might be it is always far better to have a clear audit trail of reasons for evaluation decisions at every stage, including moderation, and for that audit trail to be in writing.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28164%3Aexplain-yourself&catid=53&Itemid=21

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Dorset, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Honiton/ Gittisham, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

(Re)location, (Re)location, (Re)location

Dorset has announced a decision to work towards mergers of its councils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-37196316

It does rather beg the question: what is to happen to West Dorset Council’s brand new HQ, built at a cost of more than £10 million?

It was always going to be a risky venture, when mergers and reorganisation were even at the time of the planned move being spoken of as a possibility.

To be fair to WDDC, their existing premises were very poor, very old and haphazardly arranged on three sites. They expected to sell the sites for £2.5 million, but in the end only achieved £1 million.

We do hope that our district council – in its desire to move to a spanking new set of offices in Honiton – has taken note of Dorset’s (un)intended consequences.

If such talks are abroad in Devon (which is already pretty much merging with Somerset if our Local Enterprise Partnership has its way) then it surely would be a dereliction of duty or even a misfeasance in office to consider such a move when it could be almost immediately redundant.

But, as in all important decisions in East Devon, we the residents will be the last to know what is being decided behind those closed doors in our names.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Transparency, Voting

Cameron aides given massive pay rises before he left office

“David Cameron gave some of his special advisers bumper pay rises just months before they were given generous severance packages, it has been reported.

The former prime minister upped the salary of some of his advisers by as much as £18,000 – or up to 24%, according to an analysis by Civil Service World.

The double-digit hikes were ordered despite pay rises being capped at 1% across the public sector. Trade unions and taxpayer groups said the increases were “shameful” at a time when government departments have faced cuts. …

… Seven out of 10 of the Downing Street advisers reappointed after last year’s general election – and who therefore became entitled to bigger severance packages – received pay rises of up to 24% in 2015, according to Civil Service World. This far outstripped the 2% average pay award across the private sector in 2015.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/30/david-cameron-gave-pay-rise-of-24-to-some-special-advisers-before-resignation

The huge pay rises also affected their redundancy packages, which were increased from four and a half months pay to six months:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/15/cameron-gave-aides-extra-severance-pay-against-official-advice

We were NOT all in it together – only the cronies, many of whom also got gongs from Cameron (along with his friend Hugo Swire).

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Dorset, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Tory Dorset MP slams council mergers as anti-democratic

“Plans to reorganise local government in Dorset in a bid to save cash are an “attack against democracy”, an MP has claimed.

Chief executives from all nine councils in the county presented four shake-up options at a meeting on Thursday night.

Proposals include the possible merger of Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch and East Dorset.

Christchurch MP Chris Chope said merger plans would be “suicide” for residents.

Dorset’s councils said they receive £142m less per year in government funding now than in 2010-11, and need to cut spending by £200m a year by 2019-20, with further cuts of £30.4m estimated by 2025.

Anthony Alford, leader of West Dorset District Council and vice-chairman of the Dorset Leaders’ Growth Board, said considering change was “essential” in order to reduce costs “and ensure councils are sustainable for the future”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-37196316

Aahh, a “Dorset Leaders Growth Board” – shades of our old East Devon Business Forum and our Local Enterprise Partnership! True, no democracy there!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Voting

Election expenses probe to be concluded by November – and Hernandez talks about her past

Irrespective of whether the election expenses scandal was accidental or planned, rules dictate that those elections should be run again. Will this happen? Of course not – rules are made to be ignored when you are in government:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/crime-commissioner-expenses-probe-to-conclude-by-november/story-29657648-detail/story.html

And where will this leave our Police and Crime Commissioner who recently did an interesting interview with a local radio station:

“The controversial police and crime commissioner who admitted smoking dope as a teenager has now confessed her love for hard-core gangsta rappers.

Alison Hernandez, who faces an investigation into the scandal over general election campaign spending, recently admitted smoking cannabis

Now the Tory police and crime commissioner (PCC) has revealed she was a one-time “fly girl” and a fan of California outfit NWA (Niggaz Wit Attitudes).

group’s debut album in 1988, Straight Outta Compton, began with the track “F**k tha Police”, a protest against police brutality and racial profiling.

Ms Hernandez, who grew up in Torbay – one of the most deprived areas in the South West – also told twitter followers she used to listen to Public Enemy, famous for the track Fight the Power, made famous in the Spike Lee movie Do the Right Thing.

The Exeter-based PCC’s revelations came during an internet discussion on the Cornish Truro Hour.

She chose the Beastie Boys’ (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party) for David White’s BBC Cornwall show then explained how the New York trio sparked her love for Hip Hop.”

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/police-and-crime-commissioner-alison-hernandez-loves-gangsta-rappers-nwa/story-29537612-detail/story.html

Well, that’s Torbay for you ..!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency

EDDC cannot be sure what assets it owns and whether it is maintaining assets they no longer own

Some input from the Scrutiny Committee here, thinks Owl!

“The following paragraphs detail all findings that warrant the attention of management.
The findings are all grouped under the objective and risk that they relate.
1.
Risk:
The Authority is not aware of all assets/land owned.” …

…The Principal Estates Surveyor believes EDDC could be maintaining assets that is no longer owned by EDDC because of a lack of interface between different systems. We understand that the Strategic Lead – Housing is currently looking at reducing the amount of cost/time spent maintaining land that is Devon County Council’s jurisdiction. …

… there is no senior officer with overall responsibility for managing the asset management system including the required changes needed to improve usage of the system. There is a risk that limited actions are undertaken to imp
rove the usage of the Uniform system as a result of lack of responsibility and ownership at a senior level. …

… 2.
Risk:
Land or assets owned by the Authority cause injury or harm to a member of staff or member of the public due to insufficient inspection, record management and actioning of work.

Click to access 010916amfcombinedagenda.pdf