Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Apr 2015

Posted under

Democracy, Monitoring Officer, Transparency

First councillor to be convicted of pecuniary interest offence

“Detective Inspector Neil Devoto of Dorset Police said: “This was a meticulous and impartial investigation into allegations under section 31 and 34 of the Localism Act 2011 following a referral from the East Dorset District Council (EDDC) Monitoring Officer. The Localism Act 2011 is relatively new and I believe that this is one of the first offences brought to trial under this legislation.

“Dorset Police is duty bound to consider evidence and investigate all allegations of criminality. In conjunction with the CPS a decision was made to bring charges. It was decided that charging Mr Flower was in the public interest. It is important that the public have confidence in local representatives and local politics and can trust that due process takes place.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22458:councillor-first-to-be-convicted-of-localism-act-pecuniary-interest-offence&catid=56&Itemid=27

Hhhmmm … wasn’t reported to Action Fraud then!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Mar 2015

Posted under

AONB, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Environment (local), Paul Diviani, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

From the archives 1 “Clean, green and seen” promise East Devon Tories in 2011

Below are parts of the speech made by Paul Diviani made when he was elected Leader of East Devon District Council in May 2011 :

“My experience has always been to ensure the business is based on economic fundamentals; for example, borrow only to create future wealth without overstretching your resource.

“Recessions do pass and our responsibility will be to help our many small businesses survive and prosper; our High Streets to retain or revert to smaller and unique outlets in the interests of local diversity; our youth to have the opportunity to live and work here; our many senior citizens to enjoy a quality of life they have earned; for the vulnerable to be protected; and for you as councillors to have the satisfaction of knowing you are part of that; and, more widely, for the people of East Devon to have the confidence that our aspirations are in harmony. Truly sustainable places are about happy communities, living and working together in wonderful locations. The future may not be orange, but it is bright.”

Some call it safe, clean and green – to which I would add seen.

“Safe comes through good design at the planning stage, through working with the police, fire and rescue and all the other services that deal with our society’s well-being, with particular emphasis on the vulnerable of whatever age.

“Clean is the public realm – paths and pavements on which we travel, the quality of our parks and pleasure grounds, efficient and convenient services, such as waste recycling and collection.

“Green will come as no surprise! Two-thirds of our district is nationally designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which makes East Devon such a fabulous place to live, work and play.

“Seen is about perception and reality and is all about effective communication. All too often we read that EDDC doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, sits in an ivory tower – the list goes on. The cynical view of the last government – decide, consult, do it all anyway – is not my approach.”

“Obviously, we [EDDC councillors] won’t all agree on everything but my path is one of consensus and inclusivity. I hope you will agree that we have a quite different looking Cabinet to align with the Officer responsibilities. We want to align talent and experience with positions rather than through patronage.”

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/s=clean+green+seen&submit=Search

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Monitoring Officer, Transparency

Monitoring Officer – some questions

Should a Monitoring Officer also be a council’s Legal Officer?

Mr Gordon Lennox is currently EDDC’s Principal Solicitor and appears to have had enough work to keep him fully busy in the job for some years. Can he also discharge the role of Monitoring Officer – a role which has kept others rather busy recently?

With the relocation now in train (or not depending on future decisions) won’t he have lots of legal work to do – or maybe he’s getting an assistant or two.

On a wider scale: Is there something of a mismatch in being the council’s Principal Solicitor AND Monitoring Officer given that the former is dedicated to guarding the interests of the council according to the law and a Monitoring Officer should be a neutral figure representing fairness. Do these always coincide?

The wider question is: how did the transposition of roles in EDDC take place and why has the Monitoring Officer’s job not been externally publicised since Ms Lyon left last year. Has it been subsumed into the Principal Solicitors job or is it still a separate one? Were councillors made aware of the change? Have any parts of either job description changed?

There is now a rule, it is said, that Acting posts should only be filled for a maximum of one year, after which the job must be filled permanently or deleted as a job – is this an Acting post (again) or not? If so, for how long?

And has Standards Committee been made aware of the changes?

The Monitoring Officer is the only person the general public can approach when they fear the Code of Conduct has been breached – we need to know what to expect.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2015

Posted under

EDDC, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Freedom of Information Act, Latest news, Transparency

New Monitoring Officer for EDDC?

Will EDDC have three Monitoring Officers in the space of a year? A specially stressful job in an authority which engenders an unusually high number of complaints, perhaps? Or simply a natural process?
Rumour has it that Henry Gordon Lennox is now poised to take over from interim MO, Ian Clarke, shared with South Somerset District Council.
If so, wonder when and where the job would have been advertised? And how many people applied?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Can you be sort-of but not really maybe whipped? Or was it just a birthday present for William Hague?

Tories tried to get the Speaker of the House (a Tory they seem to hate) removed by secret ballot as their last act of this Parliament (see post below).

Today’s Guardian reports that David Cameron rushed back to the House to vote for secrecy.

Were Tories whipped?

“Tory MPs say that although it was nominally a free vote, a three-line whip was imposed to be in Parliament. At a parliamentary meeting, Tory MPs were told it was Hague’s birthday and he deserved the present of not being defeated”.

Now we know what model our EDDC Tories follow!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, General Election, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Scrutiny: rotten from the top down and the bottom up

Here is what one of the 23 rebel Tory MPs said about William Hague trying to change the way the Speaker of the House is voted for – secretly instead of transparently:

“In a tearful speech, Tory MP Charles Walker, chairman of the Commons procedure committee, claimed he had been “played for a fool” by ministers over the issue.

Mr Walker said he had attended Mr Hague’s leaving drinks this week, spending 20 minutes saying goodbye to his special adviser and speaking to Deputy Commons Leader Tom Brake and Chief Whip Michael Gove, “all of whom would have been aware of what was going on”.

He said: “I have been played as a fool and when I go home tonight I will look in the mirror and see an honourable fool looking back at me and I would much rather be an honourable fool in this and any other matter than a clever man.

Labour MPs got to their feet and gave the Tory MP a round of applause – something that is not supposed to happen under Commons rules.”

…Labour’s shadow commons leader Angela Eagle said Mr Hague should be “ashamed of himself” for “going along” with what she claimed was a plot by David Cameron to get rid of Mr Bercow.

“It is a petty and spiteful act because he hates his government being properly scrutinised thanks to this reforming Speaker,” she told MPs.
In a statement, she added: “This is a humiliating defeat for David Cameron on the last day of this Parliament. Instead of talking about ways to improve the lives of working people, in the last week all the prime minister has done is play petty partisan games and arrogantly talk about his retirement plans. In today’s vote decency and democracy prevailed.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32061097

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, General Election, Transparency

Another Conservative uses his last day in office to defeat democracy

Conservatives do not like their fellow-Conservative Speaker of the House, John Bercow, who was elected in a transparent ballot. So, William Hague is using the last day of this Parliament to try change it so election of Speaker is done by secret ballot.

Why? So Tories cannot be seen NOT voting for someone of their own party.

“William Hague, who is Leader of the Commons until he quits as an MP, tonight stunned opposition parties by drastically tabling the change to the rules.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011690/Plot-oust-Bercow-William-Hague-use-day-MP-change-rules-make-easier-oust-Speaker-election.htm

What can you say except: DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE

who trample on democracy and who want EVERYTHING decided behind closed doors.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

It’s not which party you are, it’s whether you are in the majority!

Here are Conservatives talking about the actions of the Labour majority in Plymouth. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is (in this case provision for travellers sites) and it is spooky how the amount of money spent by the majority party (Labour) is so similar to that spent on relocation so far here in Tory East Devon.

What matters most, it seems, is that it seems the party in power likes secrets, the party that isn’t in power doesn’t and there seems to be nothing to choose between them!

“… Labour voted to call the meeting into secret, evicting the public and the Press, after accusing Cllr Beer (Con) of releasing “commercially sensitive” information about a travellers site being considered in the north of Plymouth.

Council leader Tudor Evans (Lab) told the monitoring officer he wanted to hold the rest of the debate in private, saying he couldn’t be sure the Tories “could be trusted” not to mention privileged information again.

Labour councillors supported the call, upon which Tory councillors walked out en masse.

Tory leader Cllr Ian Bowyer, speaking outside the chamber, said Labour had “completely overreacted”.

“It is undemocratic to exclude the public from this debate and they should be ashamed of themselves,” he said.

“We won’t be party to that debate if it is not in public.

“There is no point in debating in secret about things that residents are concerned about.

“They [Labour] have been happy to spend £750,000 on clean-ups since they came to power three years ago, but our argument is that enough is enough and that tax payers have the right for their money to be spent wisely.”

Exactly the argument used against TORY secrecy in East Devon!

Source: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Conservatives-walk-council-meeting-refusing/story-26218708-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Council redundancy payoffs for senior staff must be disclosed

Several high profile officers have left East Devon District Council recently. We look forward to details of their payoffs – which it seems are NOT protected by “confidentiality agreements” (gagging clauses) they may or may not have signed:

In a letter earlier this month to Rother’s Leader (Cllr Carl Maynard), Hopkins highlighted a “clear legal requirement” within the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011 for authorities to publish certain information on senior remuneration in their annual statement of accounts.
He noted that the secondary legislation set out the separate elements of remuneration that must be published for certain senior staff, and that this included any payments made in connection with the termination of employment.

“Such payments cannot be protected from disclosure by confidentiality agreements,” the minister said. “To be absolutely clear, neither the Code of Local Authority Accounting nor past judgements by the Information Commissioner can override these statutory obligations.”

Hopkins also said that the DCLG had, in light of the approach Rother had taken in its annual statement of accounts, taken the opportunity to look at the local authority’s broader approach to transparency.

This had raised further concerns, the minister suggested in the letter, including that the council did not appear to be following best practice on Localism Act pay policy statements.

“Our guidance states that councils should ensure that pay policy statements are easily accessible to the public as stand alone documents, not hidden in committee papers. Your council does not appear to have followed this guidance,” Hopkins said.

The minister said he was also concerned that the information published on Rother’s website on senior salaries did not meet the requirements of the mandatory Local Government Transparency Code 2014.

“Indeed, I note that your council has stated that it intends to achieve compliance with the Code by April 2015,” Hopkins wrote. “Councils’ statutory obligations under the Code are very clear – the first set of quarterly data had to be published by 31 December 2014 and the first set of annual data had to be published by 2 February 2015.

“It appears from your website that your council has not published data in a number of important areas, for example, contracts over £5,000, land and assets, senior salaries, an organisation chart, trade union facility time, parking revenues, grants to the voluntary sector and the like. This is a significant failing.”

Hopkins said that, in light of this, he had decided to withhold Rother’s new burdens funding for 2014-15 in respect of publishing data in 2014-15 under the Code.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22297:dclg-to-withhold-funding-from-district-over-transparency-qfailingsq&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

The “transparency gap”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22281:ico-calls-for-action-to-tackle-qtransparency-gapq-caused-by-outsourcing&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, Transparency

Local newspapers “vital for democracy”

The Budget document said: “Local newspapers are an important source of information for local communities and a vital part of a healthy democracy.

“To support them as they adapt to new technology and changing circumstances, the Government will consult on whether to introduce a business rates relief for local newspapers in England.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Budget-2015-Local-newspapers-given-tax-break-8216/story-26196892-detail/story.html

Though some newspapers are better than others at this, of course.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2015

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, East Devon Tories, Environment (local), General Election, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

EDDC Tories promise more ….. of what exactly?

East Devon Conservatives have taken a half page advertisement in the local press this week (* see link below). In this advertisement they make claims for what they have achieved during the last 4 years.

Let’s take a look at these claims.

First though let’s look at what ISN’T in the advertisement:

No Local Plan – four years and still nowhere near completion, the lack of a Local Plan has allowed a development free-for-all throughout the entire district.

No Knowle relocation – the vanity project of the Leader and three of his Executive Board councillors (see blog of Councillor Ian Thomas:

Using the construction estimate of £2,439/m2, and a building size of 2,776m2, overall construction costs at Honiton are expected to be £6.77M. However, the market value of the resulting premises is estimated to be only £3.25M. From an investment point of view, this indicates that there is an immediate deficit on the project, of £3.52M.
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/03/14/tort-cabinet-member-notes-knowle-relocation-risks/

Those claims

A RECORD OF ACTION

Local homes for local people, building and buying homes for rent

Look at their latest press release dated 15th March 2015, which begins:

“Due to high house prices, relatively low incomes and a high need for affordable homes but limited existing stock, we have a major shortfall of affordable housing in East Devon. To overcome this shortfall, new residential development will need, in most cases to include some affordable housing.

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/housing/affordable-housing-in-east-devon/what-you-need-to-know-about-affordable-housing-if-youre-building-homes-in-east-devon/introduction-to-building-affordable-housing-in-east-devon/

However, recent developments have been allowed to cut their affordable proportion to NIL (e.g. Tesco site, Seaton) as house builders have pleaded poverty and EDDC has gone along with them.  Saying you need affordable housing is not the same as getting it!

Waiting list cut from over 3 years to less than 1 year

In 2011, EDDC said that:

As at 17 January 2011 there are 2,800 people on the council’s housing register. There are currently 45 empty council owned properties in total. About a third of these are “long term voids” which are being re-developed, have serious structural problems or have suffered fire/flood damage.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/affordable_housing_3

Many councils have cut their waiting lists by simply deciding that certain people will no longer qualify for social housing – e.g. people under 25. Where have all our housing waiting list applicants gone. Certainly not into affordable homes.

Community Development Workers to help local communities

Thriving communities do not need Community Development Workers – they are usually employed either in new towns (such as Cranbrook) or towns with multiple social problems or deprivation. Indeed at one time having a Community Development Worker was seen as a bad thing!

Cranbrook – a new town with employment opportunities close by

Well, yes, but have you been there and seen it! Tiny houses, tiny “gardens, narrow streets, very little parking, currently one shop (a pharmacy). Housing for Exeter people with Exeter jobs!

Supporting leisure opportunities, encouraging a healthy lifestyle

“Supporting” – such a useful word. Not “funding” – “supporting” – that’s all you really need to know!

Good development in the right places.

Now, that’s rich: in the last year we have had so much bad development in the wrong places, perhaps they have run out of wrong places!  Just about every town, village and (currently) hamlet has its own “development horror story” and it is about to get even worse.

LOCAL ISSUES, LOCAL ACTION

Council Tax frozen for the 5th year

Sure, but many services have been stopped or charges raised, or they have been taken over by town and parish councils. It is simply the transfer of costs from EDDC to them which means an increase for us!

Supporting our local economy through regeneration projects

There are two: Exmouth and Seaton. Exmouth consists of a concrete jungle of paid-for “leisure facilities” and Seaton’s consists of a small Jurassic Coast Visitor Centre, a Tesco and over 200 high cost homes on the regeneration site (the developer having pleaded poverty and had 40% affordables reduced to 20% and then zero)

Improving recycling rates

Councils are penalised if they do not achieve certain recycling rates. EDDC still does not collect cardboard.

Conserving the Jurassic coastline, our nature reserves and AONB’s
One phrase: “Sidmouth’s beach management plan” – rather like the local plan – the promise of jam tomorrow, or maybe the day after, or maybe not.

Conservative East Devon offers “excellent value for money”*
*Independent auditors report
Ah, best not dwell on what this blog, others such as Sidmouth Independent News, and http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/  have said about this – just that a cosy relationship breeds contentment on both sides!

Here’s the EDDC ad. in question: Toryad17thMarch2015

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2015

Posted under

AONB, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Environment (local), Flooding, General Election, Latest news, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Can EDDC be serious, with revised Local Plan?

One example here: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/03/16/what-eddcs-revised-local-plan-specifies-for-the-sid-valley/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

Who REALLY decided on Knowle relocation?

We have all assumed that the (wholly Conservative) EDDC Cabinet was involved after all, that is what they are for. But there is an intriguing sentence in (Cabinet Member) Ian Thomas’s critique of the project on his website:

” … Recognising that the relocation project has been in the stewardship of the Executive Group of just four senior Members since 2013, I proposed to Cabinet remaining Members should be invited to inspect the underlying model, figures and assumptions, in an informal session in advance of a final decision to be made by Full Council on the 25th March, to ensure that the best possible decision is reached.”

http://www.trinitymatters.co.uk/index.php/eddc-east-devon/item/1078-a-new-future-for-the-knowle-eddc-cabinet-resolves-to-leave-sidmouth

Now, Councillor Thomas is a Cabinet member and his responsibilities are listed as:

Economy Portfolio Holder
Asset management forum
Budget working party
Capital Strategy and Allocation Group

Joint bodies:
Seaton regeneration programme board (Chairman)

Representative on outside bodies:
Exeter Science Park – board (Director)
Exeter University Innovation Centre Board

Now, if someone as senior as this says he was excluded fron discussions and decision-making on this multi-million pound spend, what does this say about the Cabinet style of managing the district? It appears that there is an “Inner Cabinet” of only four Conservative councillors which excludes not just backbench councillors but also other cabinet members, including the Economic Portfolio Holder, from its secret discussions.

This is obviously an urgent matter for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Which begs the question: how can they be a check and balance on the Cabinet when the Cabinet is so flawed?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, Transparency

Who scrutinises the scrutinisers scrutinising the scrutinisers?

The “Centre for Public Scrutiny” set up a National Overview and Scrutiny Forum:

“A National Overview and Scrutiny Forum was set up in 2007 to help develop Overview and Scrutiny in England and Wales. Each English region sends one officer representative, and one councillor representative, to the Forum. Wales sends one officer and one councillor representative as well.

The Forum is convened and facilitated by the Centre for Public Scrutiny but controls its own work programme and is driven by the needs and interests of O&S practitioners.”

So how effective has this Forum(remember, made up of councillors and officers) been in the run- up to local and general elections?

“At its meeting in April 2014, the Forum decided that it would take a break from meetings in person until after the 2015 General Election.”

Now, why would officers and councillors shut down a forum on overview and scrutiny 10 months before elections?

Wow, I would love to see the minutes of THAT meeting! So I click on the link for them:
http://www.cfps.org.uk/nosf-minutes-agenda

Whoops, nothing since 2013 but no fears there is a link from this archive page:

http://www.cfps.org.uk/?location_id=363

which takes you back to the earlier page in a loop where you start again … and again! This is SO like EDDC!

However, a note at the bottom says to call someone in the organisation. No reply.

Request for the minutes has now been made by email.

Transparency? Hmmm!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

EDDC masterclass on how not to answer questions!

Questions:

How long has the current monitoring officer been in post?
Was the monitoring officer vacancy advertised prior to the current monitoring officer taking up the post, and if so where was it advertised? What are the monitoring officer’s qualifications?

Answer:

The post is currently a shared post with South Somerset District Ccouncil and this person is a qualified local government solicitor

Question:

In the last five years (February 2010 to February 2015) how many permanent vacancies have arisen?
How many of these have been advertised?
How many have been advertised on your website?
How many of these vacancies have not been advertised at all and on whose authority (job title)?

Answer:
This information is not tracked.

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/transparency_5#incoming-626302

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, General Election, Transparency

Even Pope Francis wants election transparency!

Speaking in Argentina, he said that:

“Because many interests come into play in financing of an election campaign and then they ask you to pay back, so, the election campaign should be independent of anyone who may finance it.”

He went on to say:

“Many interests get into the mix, and then they send you the bill.  Perhaps public financing would allow for me, the citizen, to know that I’m financing each candidate with a given amount of money”.

Everything, according to the Pope, “needs to be transparent and clean.”

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

Not what EDDC does, only what EDDC says …

If, as (current) Leader Diviani believes (as he has recently said, that the consultants reports of 2013 on relocation were “not relevant” to current meetings (and their rescheduling to end hours before the Information Commission’s decision on said disclosure) –

Why has EDZdC spent £10,000 plus on legal advisers to attempt keep them secret?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

The “new” and “improved” EDDC website – new but DEFINITELY not impproved!

From a correspondent. Imagine if you are a new “silver surfer” when EDDC says most of its services will be offered online only!

“I started to look for where the minutes for the last Overview and Scrutiny meeting and agenda for the next one could now be found.

Answer – Nowhere!!!! Or at least not at first sight.

On the home page as it is displayed you can go to:
Planning
Recycling & rubbish
Licensing
Environmental maintenance
Council Tax
Benefits and support
Under this list is a full width slider with colour photographs advertising:

View a planning application (on your mobile)
Countryside education
Countryside volunteering
Local and Community Nature Reserves
Home safeguard
Open for business (a self-advert for this new website)
and below that some links to News and Events items.

Could I find ANYTHING about Committees? Heck no.

But eventually I found a “Show A-Z of more Services” line which when I clicked gave me some more headings:

Building control
Business and investment
Cemeteries
Community safety
Consultation and surveys
Council and democracy
Countryside
Customer services
Dogs
Elections and registering to vote
Emergency planning
Environment
Feedback and complaints
Food hygiene and safety
Freedom of Information and Data Protection
Grants and funding
Health and safety
Homelessness
Housing
Jobs and careers
Noise
Parking
Parks, gardens and recreation
Pest control
Property services
Public toilets
Regeneration projects
Seaside
Sidmouth folk week
Visit

Did you spot it? No sign of the word Committee – but with some intelligent guessing I clicked on “Council and democracy” (“Find out who your councillor is, how the council operates and agendas for meetings”) and then “Committees and Meetings” and then “Overview and scrutiny committee” and then “Minutes” and then the date and hey presto, like magic (a very slow, and unimpressive type of magic though) there they were.

What exactly does this say about the importance of councillors and the meetings they attend which make the decisions when they are buried like this. And I am pretty Internet savvy and yet I had difficulty finding the link – so how will people who are not experienced with navigating websites hope to find it???

Of course I could have put “overview scrutiny” in the search box and found the O&S Committee quickly by that route. And some people will use search immediately. But some doddery old fools (like me) will try to navigate to the page and have significant difficulties in finding it when it is hidden and so many levels down.

The “old” web site may have looked tired, but the alphabetic index at the top was intuitive and enabled you to find what you wanted fairly quickly. By comparison, this “new” website may be built on new technology, but is ease of use is very poor indeed.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2015

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Information? What’s that? EDDC’s “new” website

From a computer-savvy correspondent:

This morning is when EDDC are making another attempt to switch over to their new and improved (??) web site.

We should expect several things:

1. Links to documents on the old site will now be broken;

2. Links to documents on the new site before the switch over may now be broken;

3. A whole lot of information will no longer be available online – even relatively recent items (like minutes from over 12 months ago) and no longer available online – you will have to go cap in hand to (un-)democratic services to get hold of them.

Which is just what democracy needs in the run up to an election – an absence of the information needed to hold the current administration to account.

There was a warning on the old web site for a few days that it would be down from 10am, but they appear to have ignored that and started early.


Note: how (in)convenient that this should take place just before major meetings and local elections?