Bloxham (Conservative, Raleigh) out, Jung (Independent) IN
Drew (Conservative, Sidmouth Rural) OUT, Barratt (Independent) IN
oh yes, good news indeed!
3 Conservatives elected in Budleigh – sorry Ms Mantell! Not good news.
Steve Gazzard re-elected in Exmouth (Lib Dem) – well done Steve!
An interview with Jeremy Woodward ,whose Freedom of Information (FOI) request set in motion a chain of events which has led to the Tribunal’s decision yesterday against EDDC, can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02q2k4d#auto at 3mins 30secs. It was broadcast again an hour later, at about 1hour 3mins.
Immediately following the Tribunal’s report, another FOI request on the subject of EDDC’s office relocation was sent,this time by Chair of Save Our Sidmouth, Richard Thurlow. Details at this link: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/knowle-relocation-project-progress.html
EDDC’s press release today (see our previous post) speaks of ‘lessons to be learned’ from the Tribunal’s scathing report, though it overlooks the fact that the criticism was “unanimous”, and not solely from the judge. There is no reference to the reportedly “discourteous” manner exhibited by EDDC , though the Council regrets that the Tribunal found it at times “unhelpful”.
To compare this press release with the one posted earlier today from Save Our Sidmouth (which contains the the Tribunal’s devastating comments), go to these links:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/05/council-prepares-to-release-documents-that-sparked-tribunal/
and http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/
… and, as usual, light (featherlight) on facts about HOW they intend to change.
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/05/council-prepares-to-release-documents-that-sparked-tribunal/
No, change has to be forced upon them: we cannot trust them to change themselves.
See this exchange between Cllr Susie Bond (Ind) and EDDC Leader Paul Diviani (Con). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZN2L_v6Js
EDW footnote: The Council had agreed to conduct an independent inquiry once the police investigation into ex-Councillor Graham Brown (following the Telegraph’s ‘Councillor for Hire’ sting, March 2013) had ended. Cllr Bond (who took the Feniton and Buckerell seat with 87% of the vote, after Graham Brown’s resignation from it), asks if the Council will conduct its own investigation, as decided.
The Leader’s response (with backup from Chair Graham Godbeer (Con) , heard in the background saying Cllr Bond was not asking a question ) is fairly typical of what has been regularly observed by the public at Council meetings.
The Chief Executive (Williams) and Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) along with ? who else must have taken the original decision to suppress the reports discussed in secret meetings when they were requested by Mr Woodward,
This decision to suppress the reports, to our knowledge was never brought to any public council committee. Who took the decision to suppress?
Eventually, the Information commissioner said that (redacted) reports should be published.
The ” council” then decided to appeal this decision. Who made that decision and why? Who reviewed it and agreed with it? How many councillors knew what was happening? Who thought up the idea of saying reports could not be published because the consultant was “an embedded employee” of the council?
The Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) was chosen to present the justification for suppression and appeal at the court case in August 2014. The council’s solicitor (Lennox Gordon) presumably must have been asked for advice (though at the Court case they had engaged an outside barrister to present the case). The Chief Executive and ? who else must have then sanctioned this course of action. It was, to our knowledge, never brought to any public council committee. Who else knew about this?
At the Court case, Deputy Chief Executive Cohen admitted that at least one report from the outside consultant (Pratten) had been changed by him – Cohen – before being given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were not aware of this at the time and (as far as we know) still do not know what was changed or why. Who else (if anyone) was involved in the decision to change the document before it went to them? Have members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee since seen the original? Would it have changed their views if they did not see it and have not since seen it?
Are there more reports (changed, not changed) other than those under review that they and other councillors should have seen prior to making an informed decision about relocation either to Skypark or Honiton/Exmouth and then sale of Knowle that might have affected their decision?
After the Court case in August 2014 it appears that EDDC dragged its heels in providing the judge with documents and insisted that some of them were illegible. However, subsequently, legible copies were found and submitted as late as March 2015. Who insisted that only illegible copies were available? Who knew that there were legible copies available and why were they delayed? Why the long delay?
Now that the court has heavily criticised all those involved, the decision can again be appealed, at probably even greater cost than the last appeal. We do not yet know the full cost of the last appeal except that it is more than £11,000 PLUS officer time, as EDDC never apportions cost of officer time to its work.
So, who takes the decision to appeal the appeal? The same people who suppressed the documents? The person/people who altered at least one document before it went to a committee? The people who said that some documents were illegible when they were not? The people criticised by the court for being “unhelpful and discourteous?
Who is left who has not been involved in this sorry saga who can be trusted to find out the answers and make decisions now? If we return the “same old” how can we be sure this will not be brushed under a carpet so precariously balanced on all that is now underneath it?
Brave independent councillors kept bringing this subject up time and time again only to be told to stop tilting at windmills. What is here is definitely not windmills.
Only a vote for Independents tomorrow can ensure that the carpet is lifted so that we can all see what has been swept underneath it all these years.
Including, of course, some searching questions about the seven year delay to a Local Plan which has left us at the mercy of rapacious developers.
The future is in your hands tomorrow.
Now we have had time to digest the findings of the judge in Information Commissioner and Jeremy Woodward (and many, many thanks are due to Jeremy and his occasional stand-in Richard Thurlow for doggedly pursuing this) there are SO many questions to be asked, some of which current commentators have already suggested. Now, where will the buck stop and who is going to answer questions ?
First and foremost we must be concerned with the damning evidence. In Tower Hamlets, when the Commissioners arrived to take it over, the first thing they did was sequester ALL documents and correspondence though it is believed that some were already missing. Is it possible that some of OUR evidence is vulnerable to deletion and shredding? We hope not but we cannot be sure. However, traces will abound everywhere and sometimes what is missing throws even more light on what is going on.
At best what has occured is incompetence and, at worst, deceit – as a correspondent says – which is it?
The questions people are posing:
1. The different versions of documents and their legibility. The Judge in the case is STILL not sure he has original documents or all documents. He says that for months EDDC said that they could not provide legible copies of documents and yet, at the last moment, some turned up. However, the judge also says that he is not entirely sure they saw ALL the documents they were meant to see – he refers to document 5A when he appears not to have been given document 5, for example.
2. At the hearing Richard Cohen admitted that he did not give an original version of a document to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but an “amended” one. Where is the original copy of THIS document and would it have changed what that committee decided?
3. Why did EDDC officers and top councillors keep delaying the process. Were they hopeful that this could be kept under wraps until after the election tomorrow. They almost managed it if this was the case.
4. How and why were the decisions to prevaricate made and by whom: was it CEO/Cohen/Diviani or a larger (or smaller) group?
5. How will those in (4) above manage to keep this from the NEXT Overview and Scrutiny Committee?
6. Who decides what goes to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee? Those in (4) above! And will it go to the Standards Committee? (Answer here: almost certainly not if the same people remain in power).
7. What is now the position of Knowle sale?
8. Who takes these decisions – officers and then the councillors are led by the nose, or councillors and then officers are led by the nose or a combination of councillors AND officers and then everyone else is led by the nose? We know from Councillor Peter Sullivan that, as a Conservative councillor, he was not allowed to see documents. Who was in the “golden circle”?
9. Why did NO-ONE blow the whistle when they realised what was happening? Why was it left to brave Independent councillors, bloggers and – most important – local resident Jeremy Woodward, to uncover this very dirty, dirty linen?
SOS may not be alone in thinking so. This press release has just been issued: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/
Links to the judge’s report are on the SOS website: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/tribunal-qc-makes-special-mention-of-discourteous-and-unhelpful-conduct-of-the-appellant-eddc/
The Judge’s report ends with this REMARKABLE paragraph:
‘ This Tribunal takes the unusual and unfortunate step of commenting on the conduct of the appeal itself.
We are unanimous in our view that this appeal has taken much longer than it should have done and the reason for this seems to be the failure on the part of the public authority, the appellant, to address itself with sufficient attention to the details of what information and documents it was sup- plying to the Commissioner and ultimately also to the Tribunal.
It was not until March 2015 that a fully legible copy of the disputed information was supplied and seemed to be complete. This is, in our collective experience, wholly exceptional and the time spent dealing with what we believe to be five different sets of disputed information is simply not a good use of the Tribunal’s time nor fair, in terms of delay, to the requester.
Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents.
We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly’.
A press release is due shortly, from Save our Sidmouth.
Mr Williams, in his capacity as Electoral Returning Officer, contacted Count Agents with the following information. Under the heading “Count Schedule and Location” it says:
“Due to the obligations of the Returning Officer, it will not be possible to hold local counts for the local elections this year. All counting will take place at East Devon District Council Chamber, Sidmouth on Friday 7 May *and estimated timings are enclosed with this letter.”
It seems his staff for which he had a budget of more than £120,000 doesn’t include a proof reader … or anyone who knows that the elections take place on Thursday 7 May and the count commences on the morning of Friday 8 May 2015 (district).
And what EXACTLY are these new obligations that mean votes are not counted where they were cast?
A GOVERNMENT inspector is challenging East Devon District Council to explain a series of decisions it’s made regarding future, district-wide development before he gives his long awaited stamp of approval.
In April last year, planning inspector Anthony Thickett rendered the council’s draft Local Plan 2006 – 26, as “unsound with serious evidential failings”.
Since then, the council has been working hard to address the short fallings, including that the plan’s 15,000 housing target was not justified by evidence submitted which the inspector dubbed “inadequate and not up to date”.
Mr Thickett also rendered the absence of an up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) as a “serious failing” which made making a full assessment of need difficult.
So the council went back to the drawing board and now year on, in March, the council approved its latest draft which saw a number of significant changes:
The council is now recommending an alteration and extension to the period it covers, from April 2013 to March 2031.
And, as a result of the long-awaited SHMA, the council has said that, based on job projection growth, 17,100 homes should be built across East Devon over the next 18 years – 950 per year, and 200 more per year than originally projected.
The council has now launched an eight-week public consultation and as part of this information gathering phase, the inspector has submitted a number of questions, the answers of which will help him inform his conclusions.
Despite the council having already sought to address any issues raised by the inspector last year, a council spokesperson said it was “usual practice” for inspectors to raise challenges to Local Plans at this evidence reviewing stage.
But one East Devon resident, David Daniel, from Budleigh Salterton, has raised concerns that the plan could be set to fail again because the questions that the inspector has asked, echo clarification that he sought over a year ago and which formed the basis for the failure of the plan.
For example, a year ago, the inspector instructed the council to make more progress assessing the need for gypsy and traveller sites and to identify locations where sites could be created – but, now a year on, Mr Thickett has said the council has “failed” to allocate land to gypsies and travellers in the Local Plan which therefore, “does not accord with national policy and is unsound”.
He asks how the failing can be rectified. The inspector also asks whether the council has “robust and reliable” evidence to support the revised housing target of a minimum of 17,100 new homes between 2013 and 2031. He goes on to ask: “Assuming 17,100 is the right number; does the plan make adequate provision for its delivery?”
The council spokesperson would not confirm whether the inspector’s questions suggested that the issues he has raised have not been adequately answered.
But one East Devon resident, David Daniel, from Budleigh Salterton, has raised concerns that the plan could be set to fail again because the questions that the inspector has asked, echo clarification that he sought over a year ago and which formed the basis for the failure of the plan.
For example, a year ago, the inspector instructed the council to make more progress assessing the need for gypsy and traveller sites and to identify locations where sites could be created – but, now a year on, Mr Thickett has said the council has “failed” to allocate land to gypsies and travellers in the Local Plan which therefore, “does not accord with national policy and is unsound”.
He asks how the failing can be rectified. The inspector also asks whether the council has “robust and reliable” evidence to support the revised housing target of a minimum of 17,100 new homes between 2013 and 2031. He goes on to ask: “Assuming 17,100 is the right number; does the plan make adequate provision for its delivery?”
The council spokesperson would not confirm whether the inspector’s questions suggested that the issues he has raised have not been adequately answered.
Mr Daniel, said: “The questions make devastating reading and there is a very real possibility that the council’s revised plan will be rejected for the second time.
“His principal reasons for throwing out the last plan were: That the housing targets were not based on empirical evidence; there was no five year land supply; that the plan period was too short; and there was no plan for gypsies and travellers.
“When reading the inspector’s latest comments, as consultation questions, it seems as if the council has failed in the past year to provide satisfactory answers to any of these.
“Without an adopted Local Plan we are at the mercy of uncontrolled development.”
A council spokesman said: “We have sought to address all the issues in the draft local plan and the inspector is now reviewing the evidence and seeking public opinion.
“It is usual practice for inspectors to raise challenges on Local Plans, which is what Mr Thickett is doing. Housing is invariably the highest profile issue. The purpose of the inspector’s questions is to gather more information to help inform his conclusions on the Local Plan.”
from a correspondent (happy to be named as Sandra Semple):
Didn’t Archant promise a purdah period?
Aren’t councillors supposed to show an imprint when they distribute pre-election material?
Under a heading “My Election News” a councillor identified as Peter S makes various political claims:
I made a complaint about this in the column (Sandra S) which was removed almost immediately by the newspaper which has allowed other comments to continue (no, actually it refuses to accept my password!)
[Subsequent posts to this make an interesting read as readers take the councillor to task for admitting that he took a decision on incomplete information – his Cabinet having denied other councillors the rightt to see many of the documents that led to their decision – Ed EDW]
Electoral Commission document states:
You must:
• Use imprints on all your campaign material, including websites. See paragraph 1.26 below for more information.
Websites and other electronic material
1.33 You should also put an imprint on electronic material, such as websites and emails. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced.
Click to access Part-4-The-campaign-P-and-C.pdf
Is this an appropriate use of the Streetlife ethos (chatting about what is going on in your local community)? And why was my comment censored?
1 Offence of campaigning within a prescribed area
(1) It shall be an offence to engage in campaigning activity within a prescribed area around a polling station on the day of a relevant election at any time during the period in which the polling station is open.
(2) In this Act, “campaigning activity” means—
(a) the promotion or distribution of any literature associated with election candidates, political parties or associated organisations;
(b) the use of audio equipment, whether stationary or mobile, for the propagation of messages relating to an election; or
(c) oral communication for the purpose of eliciting voting intentions or influencing the casting of a vote.
(3) The “prescribed area” referred to in subsection (1) shall be an area represented by a circle with a radius of 250 metres from the main entrance of a polling station.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/027/07027.i-i.html
The latest blog post of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:
It’s been a fascinating run up to the 2015 election.
I’ve enjoyed dropping off my leaflets to the houses in Feniton, Gittisham and Buckerell and chatting to those who were at home and had time to talk to me. People are really engaged with this election and want to talk about national issues as much as local ones … and there was a lot of interest in the ‘rise of the Independents’, as one resident described it.
There were several recurring themes which were of concern to everyone in my ward … planning inevitably being at the top of the list.
On the stump, Question 1:
What about the attenuation tanks?
This is a continuing issue in Feniton, where developer Wainhomes eventually succumbed to pressure from me, the Parish Council, EDDC and the media, and provided the attenuation tanks which were required of them following the planning inquiry in 2012. However, the Parish Council is not happy with the system the developer was forced to install and has grave concerns that the tanks will fail. This is an unresolved issue and a great worry to those who live ‘downstream’ of the site.
There is quite reasonably very little faith in developers and the promises they make to sweeten the offer of concreting over precious sites. Residents still bemoan the loss of the tennis courts which were such a feature of life in Feniton before the developer of the existing Acland Park site bulldozed them in pursuit of profit. Promises were made that they would be reinstated, but the tennis courts never reappeared.
On the stump, Question 2:
Whatever happened to the Graham Brown affair?
The police investigation into former Councillor Graham Brown was closed with no action taken in 2014 as there was insufficient evidence to take the case forward. End of story.
My concern is not with the individual, but what process allowed anyone whose main source of income was building and development to be put in a position of such authority (he was for some time Chairman of the Local Development Framework panel, the committee set up to steer the Council towards adoption of a Local Plan, identifying possible sites for development and deciding on strategic allocations for development within the district), and who must have found it extremely difficult not to confuse the two roles. I have called on a number of occasions for an internal inquiry at EDDC to look into the lapse in decision-making which allowed this to happen. Each time I posed the question, I was met with the response that the matter was in the hands of the police and therefore any internal investigation would be inappropriate.
At the full Council meeting in February, and given that the police investigation had concluded, I asked the question again.
I was surprised on this occasion when my request for an internal inquiry was met with the minimal response, ‘Why?’, with no further explanation. In other words, whether the former councillor was charged with any misdemeanour or not, EDDC never had any intention of conducting a full internal inquiry.
Something to think about for the next council.
On the stump, Question 3:
What is the East Devon Alliance?
There was lots of interest on the doorstep in this umbrella organisation formed to support independent candidates.
It’s a lonely business being an Independent.
I chose to stand as an Independent in 2013 so that I was not constrained by party politics which, to my mind, should have no business in local government. But standing alone means that you don’t have the backup of the party machine to write your leaflet for you and even pay for it to be printed, as well as the advice of those who have been councillors before.
Had it existed at that time, I would have welcomed the help and advice of the East Devon Alliance to steer me through the minefield of the election process. Two years on and EDA candidates have the support of their leader, Cllr Ben Ingham, whose 25 years of experience is invaluable to those who don’t know how the system works. Their excellent website (http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/) has given the candidates an on-line profile and their YouTube videos have reached a wide audience.
Once elected, every ‘Independent EDA’ candidate will work hard in their ward and represent that ward at Council. No Party Whip to ‘encourage’ them to vote in a particular way and no question of being lambasted by senior party figures if they fail to conform.
Final thoughts
Don’t forget to voteBut whatever the issues and whatever hue your politics, the main thing is to make your voice heard and Remember To Vote. The turnout at elections has fallen steadily from an all-time high of 83% in 1950 to just 65% in 2010, reflecting disillusionment and mistrust of party politics.
If you want to change the status quo, Thursday 7 May is the day to make a difference!
Andrew Moulding and Steph Jones’s election leaflet issued in Axminster, seems designed to misinform.
A close look at the leaflet (above..click to enlarge) reveals some apparent misconceptions and economies with the truth:
Moulding/ Jones: Imply East Devon Alliance is centred in Sidmouth.
Incorrect: EDA Chair lives in Colyton; Vice-Chair in Feniton; vast majority of East Devon Alliance Independent candidates are from other parts of the District.
Moulding/Jones: Suggest Knowle is just adapted bedrooms and bathrooms.
Incorrect: Only the old part, which was once used as a hotel, then as flats. No serious attempt has been made to market this individually to fund update of the newer building, which consists of purpose built offices in 1970-80s, with outside space for extension if required.
Moulding/Jones: Move will save £6m over 20 years.
Figures are disputed ( posts on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com may explain why ‘Sidmouth’ is a painful subject for EDDC Deputy Leader, Cllr Moulding) – and some withheld documents concerning office relocation are still under legal review (Tribunal decision imminent: Information Commissioner and J. Woodward vs East Devon District Council).
Moulding/Jones: Why Honiton and Exmouth? “Because Honiton is more central, and Exmouth is the largest town.”
Then why did they previously support Skypark (which could not be less central) and selling the site in Honiton? In reality, a newbuild office at Honiton is just the fall-back plan, as the Honiton site couldn’t be sold for enough money to make a move to Skypark financially viable. And Exmouth has only now come into the equation, as space at the Town Hall has become available. The leaflet makes no mention of the issues of running a split site; nor of existing air pollution problems where the £7m newbuild HQ at Honiton would be sited (no such problem in Knowle parkland!), etc.,etc.
Moulding/Jones; Why is Local Plan taking so long? “Because we want to get it right”
Or is it because EDDC are struggling, having got it so wrong in the past, and exasperating the Inspector, who rejected the previous one? (Remember the 53 ‘minor changes’ which the Inspector found to be ‘major’? SIN blogged the story: https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/sum-thing-amiss/)
Moulding/ Jones: Why so much new housing in Axminster? “Because you wanted it!!”
Who are ‘you’? Does it embellish the town and help it to thrive? Or is it symptomatic of consequences when deciding where to build the massive number of new houses EDDC has chosen to opt for?
Moulding/Jones: Do you have a plan for the future of Axminster. “Yes, we have a vision.”
Who are ‘we’, and has the vision, with no neighbourhood plan yet in place, been led by speculative development?
This leaflet, along with quotes from Hugo Swire in the local press yesterday (https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/05/02/east-devon-alliance-responds-to-hugo-swire-misinformation/), show tired tactics which are looking rather stale. On May 7th, East Devon voters may well show they’ve had enough of them.
Leaving aside whether “a group of Sidmouth residents” is the most dangerous thing on the planet (actually, the perpetrator of that remark may well be right!) it is how members of East Devon Alliance have been (oh-so-very-wrongly) described by Councillor Andrew Moulding, we have but one comment to make on his remark.
Why is Seaton resident and Conservative (and formerly a Lib Dem) councillor Stephanie Jones standing with Andrew Moulding in Axminster so that a Honiton resident Jenni Brown (whose address is the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton) with no obvious connection to Seaton can stand in Seaton?
And where another candidate who is standing against former Tory Bob Buxton in Dunkeswell also lives (Colin Brown):
Click to access dunkeswell.pdf
You may be able to ask them both as the Monkton Court Hotel:
http://www.monktoncourthotel.co.uk/
Colin, Jenny and Joe are serving morning coffee, bar snacks, comfort food and afternoon tea. Come and relax in front of the fires or chill out in the sunny orchard -umbrellas can be supplied if necessary!
will be a polling station on election day:
Click to access 1505Nominations%20for%20MP.pdf
And it has been the venue for a number of EDDC and local Tory events such as the Tiverton and Honiton Conservative Association Pie and Pudding Club:
Of course, anyone who fulfils the criteria in East Devon can stand anywhere in the district but it does seem a bit like musical-chair Tories – or perhaps pass the parcel would be a better description!
For the original article on the most dangerous people on the planet see our old friend:
http://realzorro1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/axminster-tory-district-council.html
Anyone wanting to find out EXACTLY where independent East Devon Alliance candidates emanate from can find out here:
http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/
(follow candidates tab)
Before you vote on 7th May, want to know who’d like to replace the current EDDC, and why? On the http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk website, EDW sees that 14 candidates have already taken the brave step of presenting themselves on video.
On each candidates’ page, click on video intro, and scroll down to video just below candidate’s pic. Videos currently available for Paul Arnott (Chair..standing in Coly Valley Ward) ) Ben Ingham (Leader..standing in Woodbury & Lympstone) ), Cathy Gardner (Communications Director..standing in Sidmouth Town) ), Steve Horner (standing against P. Diviani in Yarty), Martin Shaw (Seaton), Megan Armstrong (Exmouth Halsdon), Rob Longhurst (Woodbury & Lympstone),Val Ranger Newton Poppleford), Mark Daugherty (Exmouth Brixington), Marianne Rixson (Sidmouth, Sidford), Les Cotton (Budleigh Salterton) , Dawn Manley (Sidford, Sidford), Matt Coppell (Ottery St Mary Rural), Robert Crick (Exmouth Littleham)….more coming soon (if they can be caught for a few minutes’ filming between leafleting, we’re told!)
It just doesn’t seem his style!
This is how EDDC puts it:
“East Devon Returning Officer Mark Williams has apologised for an error identified on the Postal Voting Statement sent to some electors on Friday 24 April.
This concerns guidance for voters on the number of candidates to vote for. In some local council wards with two or even three seats, an elector can place up to three votes. The error in the Postal Voting Statement incorrectly suggests the elector should vote for just one candidate.
For the Local Government election (green ballot paper), the guidance states: ‘Where an election is required vote for only one candidate by putting a cross (X) in the box next to your choice’.
It should state: ‘Where an election is required vote for no more than the number of candidates as stated on the top of the ballot paper by putting a cross (X) in the box next to each of your choices’.
The Returning Officer has written to every elector affected by the error to inform them that the mistake has been found and to advise what they should do next. Those who still have their ballot papers can simply follow the newly corrected advice.
Electors who have already returned their green ballot papers after following the incorrect guidance can telephone the elections team and request a new ballot paper. Their first ballot paper will then be destroyed. The number to ring is 01395 517402.
If in any doubt follow the guidance on the face of the ballot paper.”
Which begs the question: why have an instruction paper if you can follow the guidance on the ballot paper! Re-inventing the wheel?
For those who have worked with me they will know that I am not quiet when something is not right for our city.
Pete [Council Leader] and his colleagues will recall how vocal I was about my serious misgivings for the swimming pool proposal behind closed doors. I made my grave concerns over the pool’s price tag and resulting risk to the council’s finances very clear and repeatedly articulated serious doubts over the claimed wider benefits to city centre.
That was the right and proper way to conduct myself as a local authority officer.
Wonder what some of EDDC’s officers would say if they could? Unfortunately, some of those who could have spoken have accepted gagging clauses in their pay-offs.
East Devon Watch 