Protestors from Seaton, Honiton, Okehampton and elsewhere in Devon will converge on County Hall again on Tuesday 25th July from 1 pm, before the special meeting of Devon County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee at 2.15 which will decide whether to refer the closure of beds in the three hospitals to the Secretary of State.
NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group proposes to replace the beds with a new system of care at home. We shall be pointing out that:
The new system, which they have been developing only since March, has not been tested in winter, let alone a flu epidemic; it is uncertain that they will be able to staff it effectively over time given the complex travelling arrangements that it requires for medical as well as care staff.
The small number of beds (halved to 71) which they propose to retain across the 3 remaining community hospitals ignores the facts that East Devon has far more over-85s (the key users of community beds) than other areas of Devon and that these numbers are projected to treble in the next two decades.
The remaining beds will not be distributed in an ‘even geographic spread’ as the CCG claim but, concentrated in Tiverton, Exmouth and Sidmouth, give no provision at all in the Axe Valley which is the area of East Devon furthest from the RD&E.
The closure of beds is driven by the CCG’s aim of reducing the amount of rent which it has to pay to NHS Property Services for community hospital space, and is probably a prelude to the gradual elimination of community hospitals over the next few years.
Six speakers from the affected communities will address the Committee in the Public Participation session, and I shall be addressing them as County Councillor for Seaton and Colyton.
We urge that the Committee use its legal power to refer the CCG’s decisions to the Secretary of State.
Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”
“East Devon District Council’s chief executive will be asked to include an explanation of how 9,000 postal votes were sent out without an official security mark ahead of June’s General Election,
The postal vote pack sent out on May 25 to 9,000 voters by the Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Mark Williams, who is also the council’s chief executive, contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
East Devon District Council were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mr Williams issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.
The council’s ruling cabinet committee voted on Thursday to agree with the council’s scrutiny committee that his forthcoming report to Cabinet on his two priority areas after the Parliamentary Election must include the explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
Paul Arnott, the chairman of the East Devon Alliance, had previously raised concerns about the fact that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate what he called the postal voting ‘cock-up’.
He was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission. He queried this and was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.
He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.
Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.
“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they are saying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.
“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.
“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.
“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.
“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.
“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.
“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”
In response, Mr Arnott said: “The independents who campaign under the protective umbrella of the East Devon Alliance have both a right and a civic duty in the public interest to ask questions about this matter without fear of partial criticism from the council’s legal chief.
“Nothing is more serious than questionable practices in a general election, and Mr Gordon Lennox’s boss, Mark Williams, has had since June 6 to the present day to simply explain why he printed the postal ballot papers sent out with no watermark or QR code himself and did not commission them from a professional printers. He has disdained to give a much-needed open answer and his team have focussed on giving reasons why he shouldn’t have to be questioned about it at Scrutiny. Why?
“Mr Gordon Lennox’s time would be better spent persuading his employer to answer councillors about their election concerns than taking swats at me. I am a volunteer while he and his boss are both handsomely paid by council tax payers.
“This matter, and the arrogant manner in which it continues to be dealt with is the essence of why the East Devon Alliance had to be constituted. When we say this issue is not political, what we mean is that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents alike at EDDC should all be equally alarmed about yet another badly-run election paid for by local people. If they aren’t, they should be.”
“To: East Devon District Council c/o P Diviani and Sidmouth Town Council
Alternative plan for Sidmouth’s Port Royal – the 3R’s
Include our alternative plan for Port Royal: Retain, Refurbish, Reuse in your regeneration proposal in place of the current ‘multi-use development’.
Why is this important?
In October this year EDDC will decide on future development for the Port Royal area of our seafront. This follows a scoping study done in conjunction with Sidmouth Town Council. The large-scale development put forward in the consultation (and as proposed in the Local Plan) will have a huge impact on the views, use of the area and change its unique character. People in Sidmouth have been asking why the area can’t remain as it is, with subtle improvements and changes. We now call on EDDC to reconsider their plan for a large new building and adopt our proposal to Retain, Refurbish and Reuse. Retain existing buildings, allow careful refurbishment of the whole area and open up discussions on potential uses for the Drill Hall.
How it will be delivered
Delivery in person, to the Leader and Chair of EDDC and the Chair of STC”
Owl says: if the point IS scored, surely that speaks for itself! And anyone reading this supposedly “neutral” officer’s report is bound to wonder if it is, er, political!
“East Devon District Council’s monitoring officer has accused the chairman of the East Devon Alliance of political point-scoring after he raised concerns that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate a postal vote ‘cock-up’ ahead of the General Election.
Packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper were issued to more than 9,000 voters in the constituency.
East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mark Williams, the council’s returning officer, issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.
The ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election and asked the council’s scrutiny committee at their last meeting in June to interrogate the reasons why 9,000 unmarked Parliamentary ballot papers were issued to postal voters.
But in response, he was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission.
Mr Arnott queried this advice with the Electoral Commission, and says he was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.
He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.
The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.
“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they aresaying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.
“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.
“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.
“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.
“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.
“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.
“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”
The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
East Devon District Council’s Cabinet committee will consider the recommendation on Thursday, July 13.”
document to support the already approved “East Devon Local Plan.”
The Owners proposal is approx. 120% more development beyond the present developed area. The various coloured outlines show the proposed
development areas.
“East Devon District Council recently asked local people about a planning
The Local Authorities proposal for Greendale Business Park. “No further expansion beyond the present permitted developments already permitted”
The Owners version published in a document called the “Greendale Masterplan” which is included in the published consultation documents.
This proposal, known as the “Villages Plan,” will provide planning guidance until 2031 for the larger villages in East Devon and two large industrial sites of Hill Barton and Greendale.
The Villages Plan is not yet approved but the owners FWS Carter and Sons have submitted a “masterplan” proposing a massive 120% expansion to their site. There is considerable local concern that further expansion at Greendale Business Park will now continue.
The company`s agents have submitted a multitude of documents to support their claim for continued expansion and in a bid to overcome possible objections have re-introduced a “liaison group” which they claim is:
“To provide better lines of communication and wider understanding”
A few years ago, following a great many complaints, contentious planning applications and planning appeals the owners of the Business Park were asked by the County Council to invite Planning, Environmental Officers and locally elected representatives to form a liaison group.
This was a success for a few years, but was disbanded by the management 18 months ago, however they held a liaison meeting on Wednesday June 21st at their offices.
There is local concern over who the owners invited to attend.
There was no invitation for members of the Residents Association, Woodbury Parish Council were restricted by the company who named two Councillors they wished to attend. Most controversially the “Terms of Reference” was changed by removing the word “Local” from “Local Elected Member of the District Council” and the invitation was sent to Conservative Budleigh Town and District Councillor Tom Wright but not the current ward member.
The local ward Councillor Geoff Jung (EDA Independent) who is also the secretary of the Residents Association and a Parish Councillor says:
“This is not the normal practice for a “Liaison Group”, but the company has the right to invite whoever they wish to these meetings.”
“It`s totally “legal” but it`s certainly not democratic, I am unable to represent people as a member of Residents Association, nor as a Parish Councillor, nor as a District Councillor”. “I now have the most bizarre situation that I must direct residents with local concerns to the new Chair of this Liaison Group, Conservative Exmouth Town and recently elected Local County Councillor Mr Richard Scott.”
“It`s standard practice that a District Councillor represents his own ward at Liaison meetings and this requires the approval of the District Council. Cllr Wright has ignored this protocol and attended but, I am very pleased to hear that planning officers from the District Council will not attend the meetings until my inclusion is agreed.”
“There are serious local concerns regarding the recently submitted “Greendale Masterplan” and I suspect that the re-introduction of this Local Liaison Group is to do with these expansionist plans”
The Planning History.
Thirty years ago, the business park was a farm with some agricultural buildings which the owners claimed to be “redundant for farming use” They were given permission to be converted to Industrial units. More agricultural buildings were built and again allowed to become Industrial. Many of planning applications were “retrospective” (Built or converted prior to Planning Permission being submitted.
In 2009 the Business Park was permitted to enlarge to its present size as an “Exception Site to the then Local Plan” This was because the East Devon Business Forum (chaired by disgraced Conservative Councillor Graham Brown who boasted to a daily Telegraph “sting” reporter that he could provide approval for planning for a fee). The Forum claimed there was an acute lack of Industrial land available within the district.
Steadily the owners have built a very large Business Park in the open Countryside which was never the local planning authorities policy.
The residents of the rural village of Woodbury Salterton consider that any further expansion will destroy their beautiful village set in the open countryside, and for the last 10 years have campaigned for better planning protection.
The Local Authority with their recently approved Local Plan decided on the location for housing and commercial land, and agreeing with the village residents that further expansion of Greendale Business Park would not be appropriate or suitable.
The Local Plan is a blueprint for district planning until 2031 and includes policies for commercial and industrial developments to be built close to urban settlements. Substantial commercial opportunities exist at Cranbrook, Exeter Airport and on land known as the West End (on the outskirts of Exeter). This is to follow the Government`s planning policy that people should not be required to commute far from their homes to a place of work.
The village community, through their Residents Association, their Parish, District and County Councillors have strived for a sensible balance of development and the proposals included in the Local Plan and the emerging Village Plan are a direct result of 10 years of hard work of campaigning and lobbying.
Councillor Geoff Jung says:
“The decisions for both the Local Plan and the Villages Plan were decided democratically and agreed by full Council and by a Government Planning Inspector. The owners of Greendale must not be allowed to bulldoze further and further into the countryside.”
Posted by Martin Shaw, DCC Independent East Devon Alliance councillor for Seaton:
“The Health Scrutiny Committee meeting at County Hall yesterday was incredibly frustrating for the 60 or so supporters of Seaton, Honiton and Okehampton hospitals who attended. It resolved nothing and there will be another meeting before the end of July to consider the matter again (I will tell you when the date is fixed).
The speakers in the public participation at the beginning were good, much better than most of the committee discussion. My speech is at 0.34.50. You may have seen that we also made a good splash on regional TV.
There WAS progress, I think, in pinning down the irrationality of the decision to close Seaton’s beds. Speeches supporting Seaton were made by Martin Pigott, Vice-Chair of Seaton Town Council, Mike McAlpine, Chair of the committee for the Axe Valley Health Hub, Cllr Ian Hall of Axminster, as well as myself.
The issue was picked up on the committee, especially by Cllr Hilary Ackland, who twice challenged Dr Sonja Manton of the CCG on the issue. Manton declined to answer Ackland’s specific question.
I feel we can build on this at the re-run meeting. We also have an opportunity to challenge the CCG (who are answering questions from councillors) at EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee on Thursday at 6pm. EDDC doesn’t have any power but I think we should keep up the pressure on the CCG. I have put down to speak. If anyone else can do it – email Debbie Meakin dmeakin@eastdevon.gov.uk.
Would anyone who can come to this meeting – whether to speak or not – let me know (cllrmartinshaw@gmail.com)?
Thanks to all who came and who sent emails (they really had an effect).
Apparently, she and other Tory councillors decided her committee didn’t have time to study the CCG’s response to their earlier meeting and the CCG needs more time too.
Stitch-up?
What do you think?
Awaiting more news from independent EDDC councillors Claire Wright (on the committee) and Martin Shaw (newly elected East Devon Alliance DCC councillor).
For clarity, Owl has NEVER attacked Mr Swire’s family but HAS called into question his employment of his wife as his parliamentary assistant on a salary of £35,000 per year.
The employment of family members is also frowned upon by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which plans to stop this practice forthwith:
“East Devon constituents have responded after the district’s MP Hugo Swire took to twitter to complain of the ‘vile’ abuse he and his family had received on social media during the campaign. Hugo Swire was re-elected to Parliament as East Devon’s MP on Thursday after securing 29,306 votes – 4,000 more than he received when he was victorious in 2015.
Independent challenger Claire Wright came second with 21,270 votes as she cut his majority from 12,000 to 8,000.
But no sooner had Mr Swire, who has been the MP for the area since 2001, had his victory confirmed, he launched an attack on Ms Wright and her supporters, claiming he had been “lied to and libelled” by her “vile” fans on social media in an interview with the BBC.
He also accused both The East Devon Alliance and East Devon Watch of being ‘vile’
He also took to twitter and after announcing he was deeply honoured to be re-elected as the MP, said he was taking time out from twitter to drain the swamp of vile comments from Claire Wright’s not so charming followers.
Mr Swire told the BBC that his camp “fight it very straight”.
“We don’t answer back and perhaps we made a mistake not doing that on social media,” he said.
“I and my family have been lied to and actually very often libelled in a constant stream of abuse on Twitter and on some websites.
“There’s something called East Devon Watch which is again tied in with the East Devon Alliance – they’re all the same sort of people and frankly it’s time to call them out now. It’s no good them hiding behind their nice little smiles and pretending they are independent. These are not, they are vile, some of these people.”
Claire Wright has said that she and her team where not behind any of the ‘vile’ abuse that he received during the campaign.
But, Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance said he had no idea what Mr Swire, a former foreign minister, was on about, and said he was a ‘graceless winner’.
Mr Arnott said: “The poor man clearly needed a good night’s sleep. We”ve all heard of bad losers but graceless winners are a rarer species. We can”t pick the bones out of his troubled blurt but as Chairman of the East Devon Alliance I can say that he hasn’t the slightest clue what he is bleating about.”
East Devon Watch – represented by an anonymous Owl, runs a blog which claims to ‘shine a light into the darkest corners of East Devon’. It also responded to Mr Swire’s comments.
They posted: “East Devon Watch has never made any secret of supporting (but not being part of or supported by) East Devon Alliance. EDW has never hidden behind a nice little smile – there is nothing to smile about with the politics of East Devon. Indeed, crying would be more appropriate!
“There is no pretending to be independent – EDW is indeed indepdent and proud of it.
“EDW will continue to hold the politics and politicians of East Devon to the light and looks forward to doing so for many, many years.”
As of Sunday morning, 43 people had replied to his tweet. Of them, only two had come out in support of Mr Swire while the other 41 were a mixture of personal abuse, voters appalled at how the area’s MP views his constituents, and comments saying that he does not engage with his constituents.
@UmLittlePlums said: “We are still your constituents and you’d do well to remind yourself of that. The result aside, you are deeply unpopular.”
Kelly Hammond said: “You really need to stop insulting the very people you have been elected to represent. May not have voted for you, but you’re still their MP.”
Linda Bowen said: “Wow… seriously? There’s a reason these CONSTITUENTS didn’t vote for you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why rather than insult them.”
Francis Clark said: “Probably no worse than the bile spewed by the Tory rags. The right wing press lies constantly. Why no opprobrium from you then?”
Joe Hellier-Brown said: “Just wanted to congratulate you for at least having the decency to OPENLY slate the people you represent. Fair play!”
Claire Whiter said: “Don’t worry we’ll be watching you now. Don’t think you can get away with being useless any more.”
He did get some comments in support, with Michael Smith saying: Sorry to hear this. Campaigns should be fought on all fronts but always with respect. Didn’t vote for you but congratulations,” while Liam Chick said: “Well done Hugo. East-Devon is now stable.”
In a panel interview the Exeter University politics expert Professor Jason Reifler said that a robust discourse was part of the British political system.
“Politics is not for the faint-hearted, and if you are going to get into it, particularly in the national system, you have to weather some attacks,” he said.
“It’s never good to go after someone’s family or say something about a candidate but those things do happen. Far more distressing are attacks on the democratic process. People don’t like sore losers, they also don’t like sore winners, this would be a good opportunity to show the stereotypical British stiff upper lip.”
Former Lib Dem Devon County Councillor Des Hannon said: “I think attacks on people’s families are absolutely out whichever way they go, that’s just not acceptable but anything that’s at Hugo, frankly he pretty much incited himself by his attacks on Claire Wright and also as part of an absolutely entrenched establishment in East Devon which has assumed it has a right to rule permanently there with no flexibility and Claire is feeding off that – the more he protests this the better it will be for her.”
“… In East Devon postal votes were sent out to voters without an official security mark. The acting returning officer for the East Devon constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week reassuring postal voters that if they had not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. “We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted,” William said.
Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, expressed his dismay at the situation, calling for the new government “to centrally digitise the issuing of ballot papers and remove the potential for fraud in all levels of elections”. …”
“Calls have been made for East Devon District Council’s returning officer to resign from his post after a total of 9,000 postal votes were sent out without the correct security mark.
The Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week to reassure postal voters who have not yet returned their postal votes after the postal votes after packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
A total of 9,000 postal voters were affected by the mistake, which has been put down to ‘human error’ and people are being reassured that little damage has been done.
But the chairman of the East Devon Alliance has said they are appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake after the ‘disaster’ of the 2015 elections, in which Parliamentary, District and Town council elections were all held on the same day.
The Electoral Commission have been informed of the postal voting error.
A statement issued by Mr Williams said: “It has come to my attention that the postal vote packs we issued on 25th May contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper. This has affected a total of 9,000 postal voters.
“I want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted. I apologise for the error but want to reassure postal voters that they should still complete their postal voting statements and return their postal voting envelopes back to me for validating as part of the normal postal voting process.
“To be valid, a postal vote has to be accompanied by a valid postal voting statement containing the voters date of birth and signature. After these are checked, the envelope containing the postal voting slip is opened and the slip is put into a sealed ballot box where it is kept safe until the formal count. My postal vote opening teams will ensure that all validly completed postal votes are double checked so that they will go forward to the count along with all the other votes that will be cast on polling day itself.”
But the ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election.
Mr Arnott said: “The East Devon Alliance is appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake. In 2015, after the debacle of the elections for town, district and Parliament, we wrote a measured report, in which our concerns included his prematurely calling results at his chaotic count for district elections with no reference to candidates or agents even when majorities were easily within the need for a recount.
“As a result we are not confident that two current serving councillors were duly elected. He had no control over who was at the count itself, and we know about the 2015 disaster with the postal vote. All our concerns in 2015 were mirrored by a report from the Electoral Commission.
“As a result, I was successful this year in demanding that the County Solicitor’s office and the Electoral Commission observed the County election last month. Under this level of scrutiny the conduct of the 2017 county election was unrecognisable from the disgrace of 2015.
“Now we are witnessing the final tragedy for democracy in East Devon because Mr Williams remains in position to make what must be his final mistake.
“How is the electorate meant to trust that he forgot to check before sending out no fewer than 9,000 postal votes that they did not bear any proper markings? It’s his job to check them and to have a commissioning relationship with the printers.
“How did these ballot papers, which frankly any of us could have run off from a home printer, ever get to be created? This must be the last election he ever runs and we will be issuing a report on this and take it to the highest level. The dog has eaten his homework for the last time.
“Meanwhile the only honourable act for Mr Williams himself is to resign from all future electoral activities, including voter registration, his laxity in which was condemned by a committee in Parliament. I never thought I would live to be a 55-year-old citizen of one of the most beautiful parts of the world and be unable to assure my children that they are able to trust the electoral processes here anymore than in some underfunded and unfortunate part of the developing world.”
A spokesman for East Devon District Council said that the mistake was ‘simply the result of human error for which we apologise’.
They added: “A total of 9,000 postal votes were involved but as we have outlined in our statement the issue has been remedied. We want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so as we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted.”
A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said: “The Electoral Commission is aware of the issue surrounding postal ballot papers in East Devon which were issued without an official mark. We were contacted by the Acting Returning Officer and provided advice, and steps have been taken to ensure that these ballot papers will still be counted and nobody will be disenfranchised in the UK Parliamentary General Election.”
Following the 2015 elections, the East Devon Alliance raised concerns with Mark Williams about some aspects of the election that required immediate corrective action as part of their response to the East Devon District Council request for comments on the 2015 elections.
THE FULL RESPONSE THEY PROVIDED WAS
Comment 1 about issues during voting: Mark Williams (as the District RO) would not take responsibility for ensuring that EDA candidates and agents across the District could have access to apply seals to boxes and packages as they were taken from Polling Places and, after verification and separation of the national election papers, were transported to the Knowle for final counting. For all District election concerns about issues outside the East Devon constituency, MW referred the EDA to the RO’s for the other constituencies within East Devon District.
This led to a number of unsatisfactory standards in the District elections, specifically:
1.The ballot boxes used in that part of the East Devon District in the Tiverton and Honiton Constituency were not rigid boxes (flexible cloth), so an elector could reach to touch previously cast ballot papers. At least one of these ballot boxes was damaged so that previously cast ballot papers were in full view.
2.None of the flexible cloth boxes could be sealed with the EDA seals, which were purchased following MW’s email illustrating what was a suitable seal. This caused great confusion and distress to candidates and polling officers alike.
3.The EDDC District election unused ballot papers and other information from the Central Devon Constituency RO were returned in an unsealed clear plastic bag.
4.When the ballot first opened at 7am Colyton Polling Place did not allow for privacy in voting. At first, only open tables were provided.
5.Conservative election advertisements for the District were placed within the premises of Polling Places in Otterhead. There was disagreement and delay between the East Devon RO (MW) and the Tiverton & Honiton RO as to who should take action to deal with this.
6.The Presiding Officer in Feniton illegally prevented a number of voters from casting their District vote. MW blamed the illegal behaviour of this PO on poor training by the Tiverton & Honiton RO.
7.Polling Places in Seaton had hour-long queues of voters. Who was responsible for predicting the popularity of voting in this town?
8.A Liberal Democrat candidate was allowed to hand out an electioneering leaflet (it said “Vote Liberal” and had the candidate’s imprint on it) inside the Polling Place at Axminster. This was reported by EDA to the Presiding Officer but no action was taken to prevent it happening.
We believe that the RO for the District elections should have responsibility for ensuring the safe and secret transport of information from the casting of electors’ District votes to their receipt at the final count location (Knowle). We also believe that the RO for District elections should have overall responsibility for the satisfactory conduct of the whole District ballot.
Comment 2 about Candidates’ and Agents’ experiences at the District election count.
Whilst we acknowledge the difficulty of running three elections on the same day, we believe that there was sufficient notice and central government funding so that the organisation could have been much more effective. At our meeting on March 4th we signalled our concern about this, and were concerned that MW refused to consider providing separate ballot boxes for the district and parish elections. This mechanism would have done much to ensure the visible integrity of the counting process
“Bearing in mind that most of the EDA candidates had no previous experience as a candidate, we believe that more help should have been forthcoming from MW to ensure that their legal rights as candidates were not inhibited.
“Specifically:
1.There was no general briefing for candidates and their agents about the procedure that would be followed at the count
2.There was no check of who was allowed into the count. As a result, the room was very overcrowded and observers were inhibited from carrying out their function of observing the counting agents.
3.It is a requirement for the RO to provide facilities for Party agents to check that their seals on ballot boxes are unbroken. The arrangements for this were inadequate because the EDA agent was kept out of the area where the boxes were brought prior to opening them.
4.It is a requirement for the RO to share the verification results with candidates and/or their agents prior to proceeding to the count. This is the relevant statement in the EC instructions for ROs: “Any agent may make a copy of this, and indeed you should make available copies of this for the agents present once verification has been completed”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
5.It is a requirement that the RO should share with candidates and agents the reasons why he has decided to reject various ballot papers. This is the relevant instruction from the EC booklet on dealing with doubtful ballot papers: “When undertaking the adjudication of ballot papers it is important to ensure that the process is carried out in full view of all candidates and agents present at the count”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
6.The multi-member Ward ballot papers were sorted in different ways by different counting agents. There was no standard way of doing it. Observers watched as some agents were trying to sort ballot papers into piles based on all the possible permutations of voting. At this point the agents were very tired, so this was an enormous task for them and led to many challenges from observers. We recommend that a simpler standardised approach be taken to pre-sorting the ballot papers that requires decisions between at most three or four different piles on each sort.
7.The multi-member Wards were counted using the “grass skirt” method.
[For an explanation of the “grass skirt method” see here
Only one person was involved in preparing and counting the grass skirt, which is the most complex of the vote permutations, whereas other, simpler counts were always checked by at least one other person. The grass skirt was used extensively in the counts for some of the closest Ward results in the District.
8.It is a requirement for the RO to share the count results with candidates and/or their agents prior to announcing the result for their Ward. This is so that candidates can request a recount if the result is close. This is the relevant instruction in the EC instructions for ROs: “7.34 Once satisfied, you must advise candidates and election agents of the provisional result and you should seek their agreement on the announcement of the result. You should make clear that the candidates and agents are entitled to request a recount”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
9.Many of the declared results for the District Council do not have a complete statement about the reasons for rejection of ballot papers as required by law. Given that candidates and agents were not made privy to the reasons for rejecting individual ballot papers during the count, this gives some cause for concern.
We understand that previous East Devon District elections have not been hugely competitive and this may have led to some casual practices in verification and counting of votes. However, publicity and debate prior to the 2015 elections should have led the RO to expect a high turnout and close results. Because of this we believe that the RO should have taken particular care to ensure that election law and the spirit of election law were more carefully followed.
A report from Elizabeth Gorst, the Electoral Commission representative for the 2015 elections, said:
Feedback for the attention of Mark Williams, Returning Officer:
1)You explained to me that postal vote identifiers were not checked for postal votes delivered to the count. You should ensure that you make provision to check 100% of postal vote identifiers, even for postal ballot papers being delivered last-minute to the count. A 100% check is now a legal requirement.
2)Some less experienced candidates and agents were not clear on the processes being followed to count the multi member wards – separation of block votes, grass skirts etc. At one point this resulted in a heated exchange between an observer and a non-supervisory member of count staff as to whether there was a better way to count the votes! We would recommend that you provide a written guide to attendees in advance of the event of the processes that will take place.
3)Some count staff themselves did not appear to be clear about the processes they had to follow and particularly in respect of the multi member count. For example I noted staff at the start of the count who were not familiar with extraction of block votes or the use of grass skirts and were initially looking puzzled/confused about the processes they were being asked to undertake. This in turn impacts on the confidence of observers. Additionally, as I raised with you, during verification there was a mixture of face up and face down verification being carried out. We would recommend that you review your provision of training to count staff. Also that written instructions are provided in advance of the event to all count staff.
4)You announced the start of each local government ward count (no PA system in place). It is also helpful if the ward name on the empty ballot box is positioned in such a way as to be visible to observers throughout the count. The same advice applies to verification.
5)When the ballot papers have been removed from a ballot box at verification or count stage, the empty box should be shown to agents and observers so that they can be satisfied that it is indeed empty.
6)A PA system should be in operation to ensure that all attendees at the count can clearly hear announcements
7)We recommend that you review your processes for stacking and signposting ballot papers on the individual counting tables. As an observer it was difficult to see what the various piles of ballot tables on the paper related to. Staff were also confused by moments about what ballot paper should go where. Sorting trays with labels would improve transparency and auditability.
8)We recommend that you develop a suite of paperwork for count staff and supervisors for recording counted votes. I noticed staff on count tables relying on A4 pads of paper to add up the total number of votes for each candidate.
9)Count staff seemed to be missing other stationery items – personal mobiles phones were being used as calculators and I noted staff working on grass skirts having to share pencils.
10) Because of space constraints there was at times insufficient room on the tables for ballot papers. Completed grass skirts and other items were having to be stored on the floor beneath the tables. Wider tables would have alleviated this to some degree, but we would recommend that the detail of the count processes you will undertake are considered at an early stage as part of the selection and layout of your venue.
11) I was not clear that candidates and agents were being consulted on provisional results before proceeding to a declaration. Our advice to Returning Officers is that ‘you should advise candidates and election agents of the provisional result and seek their agreement on the announcement of the result…… This process should be undertaken within the framework of maximum openness and transparency….. so that all candidates and agents can have confidence in the processes and the provisional result provided.
12) I was also not clear on the process for adjudication of doubtful ballot papers. Because there was no distinct tray on the counting tables for doubtful papers (see point 6), it wasn’t easy to see the audit trail of those papers and how they were being adjudicated on and who was carrying this out. I also couldn’t see that agents were being given the opportunity to review rejected ballot papers.
13) It may be that the points I mention in 11 and 12 were being undertaken, but because there was no PA system, I was unaware that candidates and agents were called by the Returning Officer to hear the provisional result and review the rejected ballot papers. Usually the candidates and agents are called over a PA system to receive the provisional results. This ensures that all those entitled to hear the provisional result are aware that the Returning Officer is ready with this information.
14) You mentioned to me the space constraints of the venue and your consideration of other venues. Certainly for the local government count, the number of observers present meant that it was impossible to move freely around the count tables and clearly observe the processes taking place. We would recommend that you consider venues other than the council offices for future counts – not only in terms of the number of observers, but also the number of count staff you require to conduct the count to your planned timescale.
15) Your actual count timings varied from the estimates you had announced. High turnout, three-way verification, the complexity of the multi-member local government counts, available staffing resource (determined by venue size) and the lesser ability of some count staff all impacted on this. You will have gathered some valuable experience on timing and we would recommend that for future elections you review the experience of 2015 and factors influencing the timing of the count in establishing your resource requirements. For future events, it could be worth making calculations of likely numbers of ballot papers to be processed and then producing a sample of mock ballot papers on which you carry out tests of your timings and processes
16) At the local government count on Friday morning, there was no control of admission to the count. Given that only certain individuals are permitted by law to attend the count, such controls need to be in place.
The news comes after it was revealed East Devon was chosen as one of eight UK constituencies to be monitored as part of an international mission to ensure elections are fair.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has announced that the constituency will be one of its target seats for the general election.
An Election Assessment Mission (EAM) will be conducted in the area from June 4 to 9 by Phillip Paulwell, an MP from Jamaica who will lead a team of Observers from the Commonwealth.
The Mission, which is being arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK) as it did in the 2015 and 2010 general elections, will also observe elections in seven other UK constituencies to oversee:
polling
counting
post-election complaints or appeals
The team will compromise of three parliamentarians and one election official from Tonga who will monitor Election Day procedures at polling stations, meet with candidates, returning officers, local officials, community groups and other relevant stakeholders in order to assess the conduct of the election.
Another local blog (Facebook – Devon United) republished this article from East Devon Watch originally blogged 3 YEARS AGO
“What a GREAT time to be an Independent candidate!
Grassroots rebellion over arrogant leadership in Devon and Cornwall
By Western Morning News | Posted: October 05, 2014
By Phil Goodwin
Westcountry councils face a growing rebellion from a grassroots movement weary at being ruled by an out-of-touch and “arrogant” leadership, the Western Morning News on Sunday reports today.
Campaigns have sprung up across the region in opposition to a perceived centralisation of power which has left many voters feeling removed from the democratic process.
A revolt in Cornwall has seen parish councils form an alliance against the “emerging dictatorship” of the unitary “super council” and threaten to picket County Hall in protest. [Last week, Cornwall’s Lib Dems and Independents again formed a ruling coalition]
In Mid-Devon, a petition has been launched against the cabinet-style of government, where decision-making power is confined to a handful of senior Conservative figures. [Conservatives majority refused to make the change]
In East Devon a quasi-political pressure group has been formed to unify opposition after a series of controversial planning issues. Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, said chief executives and unelected officers wield excessive influence and are answerable only to a powerful political elite. [EDA had its first county council success this month and Independents at EDDC now number 16].
“What we see now is a kind of corporate CEO mentality which is just not appropriate at a district council,” he added. “This not Wall Street – it is East Devon, and we are supposed to be following a localism agenda.
“The effect is setting a tone of unelected arrogance – we would like to see a return to the wise and kindly town clerk approach of days gone by.”
Labour’s Local Government Act of 2000 introduced modifications to the old committee system, including the cabinet and leader model, which is common throughout Devon and Cornwall. This allows the ruling party to populate the cabinet with its own members, regardless of the make-up of the council. [Still the case in East Devon]
In Mid-Devon, where the Conservatives hold a 57per cent majority of the 42 seats, the Liberal Democrats and Independents have no representation and all of the senior power is concentrated in nine Tory councillors. [Still the case in Mid Devon]
The same set-up can be seen at Devon County Council, where Tories hold 61per cent of the seats but all the cabinet posts, and at East Devon District Council, where a 71per cent majority holds 100per cent of the cabinet posts. [No change]
The Campaign for Democracy in Mid-Devon hopes to collect the 3,000 signatures required to force a referendum on the style of governance. [Didn’t happen]
Nick Way, a Lib Dem member at the authority, supports a return to the committee system. “I think it is more democratic, particularly for a small authority like us,” he said.
“The current system is almost like a dictatorship of the majority – at the end of the day they have a majority but a change would make it easier for their back-benchers to have more of a say and influence policy.”
Harvey Siggs, a Somerset county councillor and vice chairman of South West Councils, says he understands the frustration given the cuts but disagrees with claims of a democratic deficit.
“In Somerset we spend a lot of time trying not to be remote,” he added.
“A good cabinet does its absolute best to be as transparent as possible and we still have to be accountable to the full council.
“With the pace of life and all the things that need to be dealt with, I don’t think the committee system is fit for purpose.
“All too often the disaffected people are around planning. There are winners and losers but mostly, the losers don’t complain.”
[Somerset’s Leader, Conservative John Osman was deposed by a Lib Dem this month but Tories still have a stranglehold on the council]
In Cornwall, representatives of 15 parish councils packed a hall in Chacewater last week in a bid to rally all 213 town and parish councils to join a revolt against Cornwall Council. [unsuccessfully]
The gathering came in response to the infamous “Chacewater Letter” which branded the unitary authority an “emerging dictatorship”.
The letter, in July, criticised Cornwall Council’s lack of communication, its savings plans, planning policy, arms lengths organisations and highly paid officers.
At the highly charged meeting on Tuesday, fellow parish councillors agreed and declared change at Cornwall Council must happen.
More militant members called to draft in the local government ombudsman, for the formation of an alliance of parish councils and even for protests at the doors of County Hall.
Truro City councillor Armorel Carlyon, who chaired the meeting despite her own council not endorsing the criticism, told those gathered she could see the “democratically elected members being airbrushed out of the picture” by non-elected council officers.
Well, the bad news is that Paul Hayward and Marianne Rixson (East Devon Alliance)were unsuccessful in Axminster and Sidmouth but good news is Claire Wright (Ottery, Independent) was re-elected with her usual stonking majority and Martin Shaw (EDA) pipped nearest rival Helen Parr to the post in Seaton.
For Devon four years of mainly same old, same old but with the added twist of massive cuts, privatisation and bec closures in the health service, the decimation of environmental controls and increase in air pollution and an education system cut well beyond the bone.
Add our expensive Local Enterprise Partnership and Brexit to this mix and the air could get really toxic!
The Western Morning News has today covered in detail the situation in Colyton where police investigations are ongoing into aspects of its Village Plan.
When asked questions by the newspaper on this – via its CEO Mark Williams – EDDC hid behind rules covering “purdah” before local and general elections, when council officers must maintain political neutrality and avoid politically contentious subjects and instead went on the offensive against the EDDC Councillor (Cathy Gardner) who brought it into the open, querying where Councillor Cathy Gardner had got her information from, saying it had been known to only three senior officers.
He added that those three officers did not intend to comment until after local county elections on Thursday this week – and (possibly) even not until after the General Election, if anyone involved were to indicate that they wished to stand for Parliament. He said:
“…The council cannot comment on how Councillor Gardner became aware of the police investigation. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer were surprised she raised this at a public meeting”.
THIS IS WRONG.
First, because the act of drawing attention to Councillor Gardner breaks his own rule! He is not willing to discuss if any councillor is involved in criminal proceedings in Colyton but IS prepared to discuss Councillor Gardner’s action in drawing attention to it.
Secondly, purdah can be overridden if it is in the public interest as this surely is.
Thirdly, had she not raised this matter at a public meeting – where was she expected to raise it? In private? Far, far too much of THAT going in at EDDC!
Purdah is NOT law, it is advice. Or, as the Local Government Association puts it, Civil Servants ARE (REPEAT ARE) ALLOWED TO:
“Use a politician who is involved in an election when the council is required to respond in particular circumstances, such as in an emergency situation or where there is a genuine need for a member-level response to an important event beyond the council’s control. Normally this would be the civic mayor (as opposed to the elected mayor in those areas with elected mayors) or chairman (that is, someone holding a politically neutral role). If the issue is so serious, it is worth considering asking the council’s group leaders to agree to a response which would involve all of them.”
As EDA candidate Paul Hayward points out on his Facebook page:
“Over the last 8 years, across the whole of Devon, decisions have been made by a majority group with no effective opposition. Result. Cuts, cuts and more cuts.
But in 2017, it only takes 7 seats to change and a new era of cooperation, debate and compromise can begin at Devon County Council.
Services can be protected. Fair funding can be applied. National party politics can be taken out of local government.
On May 4th, please choose to mark Independent, East Devon Alliance on your voting slip.”
Does anyone else find it ironic that Tory candidates are saying that they will “fight for” local hospitals, fairer funding for schools and our precious environment when it is THEIR party that brought the CCG’s that are already cutting beds by stealth, the unfair school funding and which wants to loosen environmental regulations as soon as possible to enable more building on green fields and who are trying to stop frightening air pollution figures being published?
The Tory battle cry seems to be:
“What do we want?”
“No bed cuts, fairer funding for schools and a healthy environment!”
“When do we want it?”
“Er, whenever Mrs May says we can have it, pretty please?”
“When will it be?
“Brexit means Brexit!”
Have fun with that one – and if you vote for the Tories in Devon just hope you, your children and grandchildren can afford a private education and health care and never need to go to an NHS A and E or GP – or breathe the air in our towns, cities and countryside – tall order!
We need a credible opposition at DCC to fight for us. Claire Wright has done a magnificent job fighting for our schools, our hospitals and our environment at DCC – but could do even more with an army of like-minded councillors alongside her whose battle cry would be:
“What do we want?”
“Our fair share in a clean, green Devon”
“When do we want it?”
“When our voters empower us to get it”
“When will it be”?
“When you vote Independent on 4 May!”
It appears only two of Sidmouth’s DCC candidates were prepared to attend tonight’s husting, which has now been cancelled at short notice – Stuart Hughes (Conservative ex- Monster Raving Loony) and Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance).
Such a pity as there are burning questions for the Sidmouth and Sidford candidates, and the incumbent in particular, such as:
Asking Councillor Hughes why he seems to value photo-opportunities and silly songs
over action (for example, Alma Bridge…talk for years…no action)
The state of our roads in Sidmouth and Devon – Councillor Hughes having been in charge of them at DCC for years.
His worrying lack of preparedness about said highways when he should have known the information about them that should have stopped Sidford Industrial Estate ever getting into the local plan – information Sidmouth Councillor Rixson uncovered and used to help to stop it. A story of too little too late.
Councillor Hughes also needs to clarify his views on the NHS. While Sidmouth retains beds in this round of cuts, no-one can predict the future and the hospital will certainly come under pressure with extra patients from Axminster, Honiton and Seaton.
Unfortunately, a vote for Councillor Hughes is a vote for cuts – NHS and just about everything else including social care and education – big DCC responsibilities.
Councillor Rixson, and the local community, stopped the industrial estate. Councillor Rixson is an indefatigable supporter of our NHS and sees the issues way beyond the narrow confines of whipped party politics.
Councillor Rixson is the ONLY credible contender to beat Councillor Hughes, given the results from the 2015 election and to help beat any future cuts in the pipeline.
No wonder other candidates didn’t plan on turning up!
Three major developments may affect how people choose to vote in Devon County Council elections next week.
First, and most tantalising, is the ongoing serious allegation that there seems to be a police investigation ongoing into Colyton’s EDDC villages plan, see here:
Seven volunteers resigned from the project, their letter stating:
… This is the community’s plan, not the parish council’s or a few of the individuals who seem to control it. The entire community has the final say in what goes into it. We urge all residents of the parish to ensure that the plan is truly representative of everyone’s collective aspirations for the parish in the coming years. Our concern is that a few could perhaps dictate how the communities are shaped, which would be disastrous for the parish as a whole. … http://www.colyton-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=104098&headline=COLYTON
Colyton voters might be advised to perhaps go for a DCC councillor from outside the parish this time round.
Second is, of course, the closure of Axminster Hospital in-patient beds to the north and scheduled closure of Honiton’s in-patient beds to the west and Seaton’s to the south. DCC candidate Mrs Parr (Conservative) is on record as having been persuaded by CCG plans to close these beds. Jim Knight, who having been passed over for selection is standing as an “Independent” Conservative (whatever that is – how do voters differentiate it from UKIP these days?) is between a rock and a hard place on this one too?
DCC has the major committee for holding health authorities to account and Independent Claire Wright is doing a sterling job of fighting for us, but she desperately needs the help of others prepared to fight with her.
So, who is left?
Well, that’s the third issue.
Let’s dismiss tha Labour candidate – who had to be parachuted in from Exeter who no-one (including Labour activists) seems to know anything about!
Let’s also dismiss Peter Burrows (Lib Dem) – who declined to face voters at a recent hustings (but apparently crept into the back of the room towards the end). Who uses family connections to the health service to boost himself, rather than his own actions, which are surprisingly thin on the ground. Also Burrows has recently become notorious as a censor on the 1500-strong Facebook group, ‘It’s Seaton Devon Thank You Very Much’, of which he is administrator. After deleting posts by Shaw and others about the hospital beds, he even removed Shaw – and various other people with no connection to his campaign – from the group, provoking a considerable backlash.
With this controversy around Burrows’ role, Knight could come in ahead of him and see Burrows struggling to come third as in 2013.
This leaves the field wide open for the only other contender – Martin Shaw, Independent East Devon Alliance. Shaw has been vociferous in his support of retaining beds at Seaton Hospital, instrumental in organising a legal opinion to fight closures and has proved to be something of a tiger in his role on the town council’s planning committee.
Will voters feel minded to dismiss the “same olds” of the past and vote for someone untainted by past choices and misdemeanors?
East Devon Watch 