Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Apr 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Free speech for councillors is an important part of our democratic process says Eric Pickles today

Over on claire-wright.org the popular Independent councillor is being given a very hard time by Tory Whip/Not the Tory Whip Phil Twiss for daring to disagree with him and his party as he smarts from having to defend the indefensible when one of EDDC’s leading Conservative lights (Councillor Bloxham) attempted to bring in complex bureaucratic rules to gag the public at Development Management Meetings (rules so complex and comprehensive it took him 27 minutes to explain them).

He would do well to note the pronouncement of HIS boss and Whip, Eric Pickles, who has today said in an article about how he is thinking of prosecuting five councils for using the council newspapers for political purposes:

Eric Pickles said:

“Localism needs robust and independent scrutiny by the press and public, and municipal state-produced newspapers suppress that. ‘Town Hall Pravdas’ not only waste taxpayers’ money unnecessarily, they undermine free speech.

“I have given written notice to councils most clearly breaching the Publicity Code, noting that Parliament has passed new laws to tackle this abuse. We are prepared to take further action against any council that undermines local democracy – whatever the political colour.”

He added: “We have changed the law to protect the free speech of councillors. If councillors and political parties want to campaign and put out political literature, they are very welcome to do so, and it’s an important part of our democratic process. But they should be using their own money, rather than taxpayers.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Apr 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Local Plan

Comments

3 Comments

“You are going to get a backlash”, Full Council is warned

Due to technical problems with the sound system , last night’s Full Council meeting may not have been recorded. So several short reports on this EDA website are intended to give an idea of the meeting, focusing on its most crucial  discussion points.

Firstly, proposed changes to rules on public speaking.

Opinions were strongly divided:

Cllr Button (Lib Dem) said that ” the Council should not even suggest that public speaking is being restricted”,   at a time when public confidence in the Council has been seriously eroded, with East Devon now left with the consequences of having no Local Plan  in place. “You are going to get a backlash,” he warned.

But Cllr Howe (Cons) disagreed. “I think we must restrict public speaking,” he told the Chair

An EDA observer sums up as follows:

‘The aim of the recommendations seemed sensible – reduce the risk of poor planning decisions by preventing overly-long meetings . But the proposed solution was bureaucratic, involving pre-registration, last minute shuffling of the order on agendas, overhead slides projecting planning law guidelines, disclosure of private contact details of speakers (Data Protection issues?), limitation of numbers of speakers supporting or objecting, extra opportunity for applicants or their agent to speak, a new timing clock and lots more.

What emerged eventually was recognition that all that was needed was stronger Chairmanship – reduce duplication, proper reading by members of Officers’ reports instead of word-by-word reading out by Officers, and smarter time management, particularly at Development Management Committee meetings.

The referral back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC ), made at last night’s Full Council meeting,  could lead in that direction.’

It was noted that Cllr Bloxham  spoke for 27 minutes last night in his first explanation of the new rules. The four questions from the public took less than 10 minutes in total.

The Overview and Scrutiny could bear this in mind when they look at how to overcome the present problem of unduly lengthy meetings.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Apr 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

A question for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee: How will the “Lucky 5” be chosen and by whom?

It was agreed at last night’s council meeting that the issue of public speaking should be referred back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

A couple of questions for them – irrespective of the morality and ethics of eroding democracy.

1.  Fifty letters of objection arrive on the same day in the same post.  Who decides which ones are opened first?

2.  Who will decide whether the first 5 objectors chosen in this “first come, first served” recommendation are representative of the whole?  What if they are not?   Say the first 5 objectors all make the same point – for example, that they don’t like the colours being chosen – but Objector 6 makes a killer point that would undoubtedly affect the outcome – for example that what is being contemplated is demonstably against the law – what happens then?