Excellent write up and very illuminating.
"There has never been any suggestion of widespread dodgy-dealing over declared interests or in the misuse of public funds. Allegations have always been very specifically centred on a very small number of organisations, how they are funded by HBC, the involvement of some Councillors and the lack of probity and control when such funds have been provided. By far the majority of community organisations conduct their business impeccably and achieve great and often disproportionately successful outcomes for the level of funding they receive. However, the amounts of funding over time can be huge and we are in no doubt that there are regrettable instances when the availability of funding has been seen as an opportunity for self-enrichment and in some cases has become an income stream for whole family dynasties."
I would say this paragraph puts it in a nutshell.
Good to see Dumbo and Brash sticking the knife in the Cabal's back. There is no love lost there and whilst Brash may hang back for the sake of the Party Dumbo has no such inhibition. Hopefully the first stirrings of a revolt.
Quote from: perseus on December 07, 2012, 06: PM
In addition, it was very interesting to read that Councillor Wells, the leader of a party with largely totally juxtaposed views to Labour, having been presented with an 'open goal' and gilt edged opportunity to put the boot into a Labour council who have dominated council for over 50 years ....... instead opted to totally pass up the chance.
Not only that, but he was actually the most vociferous opponent of any potential inquiry.
I guess people will potentially draw their own conclusions from that.
There is no limit to how far some will stoop for the illusion of 'power'.
It would be difficult to swagger about and help your mates break planning regs without the f**ty Belchers watching your back.
Well's is bought and paid for.
Pull your pants up a Ray, you have been rumbled.
Last nights meeting has certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons, it was a perfect opportunity for councillors to make a stand against "The Mob"........... and at long last some did just that.
I can`t say i have always seen eye to eye with Brash, but i do have a genuine respect for him as an extremely able councillor, the fact that he has come out & done the decent thing is a victory for local democracy, hopefully other members of the labour group will also step forward & support this proposal.
At long last it would seem that drummond has started to act like a Mayor, his motive might very well be revenge, but his actions are understandable considering the way "The Mob" behaved over the budget issue, he has another 6 months to continue in this manner & he must have a locker full of live ammo to fire at "The Mob", lets hope he uses some of it.
As for the tories......... the quotes below sums there contributions up nicely.
Part Quote by perseus.......
"In addition, it was very interesting to read that Councillor Wells, the leader of a party with largely totally juxtaposed views to Labour, having been presented with an 'open goal' and gilt edged opportunity to put the boot into a Labour council who have dominated council for over 50 years ....... instead opted to totally pass up the chance."
"Not only that, but he was actually the most vociferous opponent of any potential inquiry."
There will definately be some twitching of sphincters around party HQ at the moment, long may it continue.........
Let's not get carried away here.
Read the amended proposal carefully:
"That this Council set up a public inquiry as soon as possible, chaired by a person with a legal background and independent of Hartlepool, to review the declaration of prejudicial/pecuniary interests by all councillors over the last five years, paying particular attention to interests in relation to the voluntary and community sector and the health sector. That this be built into the Peer review action plan following a submission by the Chief Executive to Council detailing the associated cost and terms of reference."
The proposal as it stands is all about declared interests. There's a very good chance that the terms of reference will be set so tightly that it will result in the very same response as Fred got in answer to his question at a previous council meeting - that the present arrangements meet the requirements.
There is nothing in the proposal that asks for a more comprehensive set of rules governing declared interests which go beyond the minimum legal requirement. Also, even though the debate last night wandered all over the place, there is nothing here that would result in an investigation into how the Connected Care contract was awarded to Manor Residents, the state of the Manor Resident accounts or the £5,000 grant to SAB.
It's a good first step but let's make sure we see it for what it is - not what it isn't.
The difference this time is that Angie is making such a mess at Manor that the crash is not too far away.
Yea - just like the Phoenix Centre which triggered an investigation and report which never saw the daylight outside of the Civic. It was said to be so damaging that the mandarins insisted that there would only ever be one copy with no photocopies allowed in case it leaked.
I saw a 12 Plate Manor Residents people carrier along the Tees Rd yesterday, i wonder who will get that if / when they go T**s Up.
As for not getting carried away stevel... i feel the users of HTH are all to aware of the possibility of a false dawn in this latest matter.
But one thing is apparent.......... If enough people direct a question to council & attend the meetings it can make a difference.
You're right there, Fred. (mmm..sounds like a song)
It's a pity you missed Thursday night. They really don't like examination by a 3rd party and there was palpable resentment against the Peer Group. It's the old 'entitlement' to rule thing....they've been there so long they think don't think they need to comply with anyone else's rules or standards.
but lads you do a great job telling us about the mafia, BUT do you honestly
think they will be FOUND OUT?........i hope so for hartlepools sake.
I thought it may be worth copying and pasting here an extract from the Results of the Peer Review:
The members of the Peer Review panel(?) were independent of the HBC council, and they provided their opinions of governance etc and recommendations for improvements/.
The proposed independent review will presumably be carrying out a similar function but that will be more targeted towards specific areas, and exactly how to achieve more clarity and public confidence in these areas
I have highlighted some important points in the Peer Review.
quote:
"It is important to remember that any governance changes triggered by the referendum will not take effect for a period of several months, with revised arrangements coming in to being at the start of the next municipal year in May 2013. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the main tensions that have arisen as a result of the battle for supremacy between the two democratically legitimate sets of arrangements will be resolved, with all of the politicians we spoke to recognising the importance of making the subsequent arrangements work.
Following the referendum, there will either be a requirement for, or an opportunity to develop, a new Constitution for the council. It is important for the authority to capitalise on this by taking the chance to address, once and for all, the matters within the Constitution and council governance that have not been appropriately resolved to date.
However, all of this will take a significant while to be brought about and the council cannot afford to wait. It is imperative to address, with immediate effect, current issues that are having a negative impact on the council and individuals within it. Absolute clarity and transparency is required around decision-making, in terms of where they are required to be made from and ensuring that this is complied with. The respective roles of elected members and officers need to be clearly understood and fulfilled accordingly. Any deficiencies in the system for declaring interests need to be addressed immediately in order to protect councillors and the means need to be put in place to provide absolute transparency around grant-funding and commissioning. Failure to achieve this risks further de-stabilising and damaging the council."
Quote from: perseus on December 07, 2012, 07: PM
In the same way that Councillor Brash appears to have taken a small step on the long road to 'taking back' the Labour Party. Shane Moore posts on this site.
Shane, a genuine question from me. I respect you in a sense you appear to be politically active for genuine reasons. I respect your work with the youth of our town and your attempts to address their political apathy.
My question is this. How long do you intend to be content to sit back and watch your party be seen as little more than a Pulex irritans* surviving off the scraps left over by the Labour Party? Do you wait, 5? 10? 15 years for a seat of West Park? or do you stay content at the prospect of fighting for seats in wards around the town you have little or no hope of winning?
Thank you Perseus.
One of my main aims is to build the local Conservative party outside of 'Fortress Park'. It'd be very easy to become complacent in a safe seat. Plus, where is the fun in fighting it?
I disagree with what Ray said at the council meeting. Even if an enquiry did cost 10s of thousands of pounds, it'd be worth it because of the potential hundreds of thousands it may save from being wasted on pet projects and feathering nests.
I have no problem stating that, just as I had no problem supporting this motion along with members from across the parties.
Where should I send the membership for for you to stand as the Conservative candidate in the Manor then? ;)
Quote from: SRMoore on December 09, 2012, 09: AM
Quote from: perseus on December 07, 2012, 07: PM
In the same way that Councillor Brash appears to have taken a small step on the long road to 'taking back' the Labour Party. Shane Moore posts on this site.
Shane, a genuine question from me. I respect you in a sense you appear to be politically active for genuine reasons. I respect your work with the youth of our town and your attempts to address their political apathy.
My question is this. How long do you intend to be content to sit back and watch your party be seen as little more than a Pulex irritans* surviving off the scraps left over by the Labour Party? Do you wait, 5? 10? 15 years for a seat of West Park? or do you stay content at the prospect of fighting for seats in wards around the town you have little or no hope of winning?
Thank you Perseus.
One of my main aims is to build the local Conservative party outside of 'Fortress Park'. It'd be very easy to become complacent in a safe seat. Plus, where is the fun in fighting it?
I disagree with what Ray said at the council meeting. Even if an enquiry did cost 10s of thousands of pounds, it'd be worth it because of the potential hundreds of thousands it may save from being wasted on pet projects and feathering nests.
I have no problem stating that, just as I had no problem supporting this motion along with members from across the parties.
Good to read your comments on the Inquiry Proposal Shane, & its a positive that you support the Proposal despite the stance taken by your Leader on the issue during the debate on Thursday evening, his opposition to an Independent Inquiry is puzzling to say the least, a lot of people including myself are wondering why he adopted that particular position ????
As we all know "The Mob" have a track record of manipulating the wording of an amendment to suit their own ends, it will be interesting to see if the Tory councillors support the "Spirit of the Original Proposal" when the time comes.
Shane, a Question from me.... would you support a more rigorous & transparent Register of Interests, that lists any & all earnings received by councillors from any organisation that is connected to, or receives funding from HBC ????
I think that the proposed inquiry may be viewed as consisting of two main parts.
The quickest and cheapest part will be to look at the better (or best) practices used in other councils, and for the inquiry team to recommend to HBC that these practices are adopted as soon as possible. This was one of the key points put by the independent Peer Review.
The proposed inquiry will also undertake "to review the declaration of prejudicial/pecuniary interests by all councillors over the last five years, paying particular attention to interests in relation to the voluntary and community sector and the health sector."
I reckon that this will take the longest, and will be the more expensive of the two parts of the inquiry.
At the end of the day, independent inquiries (eg Leveson, BBC on Savile etc etc) only make recommendations. They don`t instigate legal proceedings.
Over to you Stuart. If you want to leave a meaningful legacy... you know what do do.
Well, if there are any bodies, he`ll have a good idea where they are buried.
Maybe we should give Stuart posting rights under an assumed name?
He can supply the ammo for others to load and fire........
Quote from: mk1 on December 09, 2012, 12: PM
Maybe we should give Stuart posting rights under an assumed name?
He can supply the ammo for others to load and fire........
I can understand where your coming from with this comment mk1....... but if he does have an box of ammo in his locker...... i would have preferred that he had fired it long before now.
Memory recalls two instances involving possible council representative appointments to the board of the Credit Union. Because the Credit Union is a defacto bank of sorts, both appointments had to be given the nod by the Financial Services Authority. In one case, the FSA had a problem with one particular councillor nominee sitting on the board in any capacity. In the other, once it became known that the FSA would have to look into the financial background of the councillor nominee, he quickly back-tracked and announced that he was no longer interested.
We'll never get to know what the problems were, of course, but it makes you wonder.
Quote from: fred c on December 09, 2012, 10: AM
Shane, a Question from me.... would you support a more rigorous & transparent Register of Interests, that lists any & all earnings received by councillors from any organisation that is connected to, or receives funding from HBC ????
Unless they have something to hide I don't know why anybody would not support this.
Quote from: SRMoore on December 11, 2012, 08: AM
Quote from: fred c on December 09, 2012, 10: AM
Shane, a Question from me.... would you support a more rigorous & transparent Register of Interests, that lists any & all earnings received by councillors from any organisation that is connected to, or receives funding from HBC ????
Unless they have something to hide I don't know why anybody would not support this.
That answer makes complete sense to me Shane, However............
I asked a question in connection with that point at the November Council meeting & was given short shrift, the Borough Solicitor made the point that the existing Register of Interest was all that was required.
Perhaps the current register of interests IS all that is required. However when the integrity of Hartlepool Borough Council and its elected members are being questioned I would have thought they'd be happy to show the public and their peers that they are open, transparent and willing to squash the rumours, rather than closing rank and looking suspicious.
At one time, the register of interests included a question on sources of 'taxable income', so even a councillors 'normal' employment would have to be declared. It didn't asked for income amounts or other details but at some stage recently this question disappeared from the form altogether.
It attracted our attention because Wells had entered N/A against the question.
I see no reason why all income shouldn't be declared; it's not just those interests deriving from public funding. I'm thinking particularly of developments that go through the planing process where 'interests' can be once or twice removed from the actual applicant. . . and then there's the question of donations made to organisations in which councillors have 'an interest'......Niramax, for example.
Why do I get the feeling that this is already being hijacked? Maybe I'm just too suspicious, but it's already been handed to the Chief of Exec to come up with costs and terms of reference. Does it have to be this eleaborate? Surely there are several options such as taking a look at what other councils are doing and opting for 'best practice'. Alternatively, why not just agree that all should declare it whenever they gain from the allocation of public funds or are involved in those organisations which do? Why not agree to declare all sources of income? They could do that now without it costing a penny.
At some stage, we will be told it's all going to cost too much money to bother.
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544 (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544)
It's taking some time for us all to be told what allowances are going to be paid to the new Leader of the Council and others when the new system comes in. Can we take it that CAB will be giving up his full-time job at LINKS to earn his full-time salary at the Kremlin? Can't see it myself. I see someone forever missing from his LINKS role 'on council business' but still picking up a second full-time salary from it.
Quote from: marky on December 12, 2012, 12: PM
I see no reason why all income shouldn't be declared; it's not just those interests deriving from public funding. I'm thinking particularly of developments that go through the planing process where 'interests' can be once or twice removed from the actual applicant. . . and then there's the question of donations made to organisations in which councillors have 'an interest'......Niramax, for example.
Why do I get the feeling that this is already being hijacked? Maybe I'm just too suspicious, but it's already been handed to the Chief of Exec to come up with costs and terms of reference. Does it have to be this eleaborate? Surely there are several options such as taking a look at what other councils are doing and opting for 'best practice'. Alternatively, why not just agree that all should declare it whenever they gain from the allocation of public funds or are involved in those organisations which do? Why not agree to declare all sources of income? They could do that now without it costing a penny.
At some stage, we will be told it's all going to cost too much money to bother.
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544 (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544)
I don`t think you need to be Einstein to realise why they don`t want an indepth enquiry into this whole business....
And as you mention marky............. why not just adopt a Register of Interest that lists all earnings both from organisations funded by HBC, & 3rd party organisations that a councillor may have a connection with in some way, however tenuous.
Looks as though thats another question for the next Full Council Meeting.
With Wells and the f**ty Belchers both stating the purpose of any enquiry was to show all the rumours were wrong and everything is hunky dory at the Kremlin I think we know which way the wind is blowing.
Why the Tories allow Wells to drag them down like this is beyond me.
Another 35 yarder from the former CEO would be useful......
I guess this is what they mean by 'perception'
(http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/images/iyv.JPG)
If you look at the Present Register of Interest...... it would appear some councillors have no visible means of support.
A list on HTH of councillors who earn a salary / expenses etc etc etc, from any of the following occupations would be useful.
Health Service
Local Authority
Unions
Voluntary Sector
Care in the Community
Supply of Services to HBC or Voluntary / Charitable Organisations.
What I can`t fathom out is, "Why" any councillor wouldn`t be in favour of a Comprehensive Register of Interest, that is Open, Transparent & Accountable to the rate payers of Hartlepool.
Can anyone tell me as an outsider looking in, just what will be the outcome of all this?
The same people if they held responsible will be re-elected.
They can beat their partner / wife / husband , lie, steal, and kick the dog yet when election day comes along they get voted back in.
The whole mess will leave a taste in people's mouths that will not go away, those that are blameless will get tarred with the same brush as those that are not.
It's an ill wind that does nobody any good.. But this is a foul stench.
This is something which the public expect to be in place already just like it is for MPs. It will be the resistance to putting it in place which will catch the public's attention and make them wonder why such resistance exists.
This is a council which is forever boasting of how transparent and open it is and when the Peer Group found that the council's approach to the declaration of interests 'lacked rigour', is it not reasonable for people to expect the council to 'take it on the chin' and put it right?
Instead they seem to be engaged in rubbishing the Peer Group. Put it this way, if the Peer Group had come up with nothing but praise for the council, they would now be quoting it left, right and centre as a way of telling us how wonderful they all were.
I'm sure that they will put this one off as long as possible and look for 'a good day to bury bad news'.
The planned increases in basic councillor allowances are sitting on a desk somewhere but I would suggest that it's been decided to tag this on to the increases for committee chairman and the council leader so as not to have two 'bad news' days. It's a poor show really. On the one hand, we're looking at a step change upwards in allowances with lots of labour councillors set to be considerably better off what with the increase in basic allowances AND 'special responsibility' allowances; on the other hand, the same people resisting any move to tighten up the declared interest procedures. Doesn't tell a good story, does it?
It may be useful to reflect that it only took 4 days for the Peer Group to come to the conclusions they did about HBC.
You would have thought that The Chairman of the Council would have been keen to clear up some of the misconceptions the Peer Group may have come to.
And he could have done that quite simply by proposing that HBC adopt a fully accountable & concise "Register of Interest" at the last Council Meeting, & that it should come into effect immediately.
It would have been as simple as that.
What exactly does the LINk do ????? am i correct in thinking it only started in 2009 ????
http://www.hartlepoollink.co.uk/
Interesting page this. There's this bit at the bottom:
HVDA is currently the host for Hartlepool Local Involvement Network (LINk). This section of the website is currently under reconstruction and will be available shortly.
If you require any information regarding the work of Hartlepool LINk please contact:
Christopher Akers Belcher at c.akersbelcher@hvda.co.uk
Stephen Thomas at s.thomas@hvda.co.uk
Alternatively you can telephone 01429 262641.
Apart from CAB, I think Stephen Thomas is also a labour member who stood for election in Dyke House. At the very bottom, you see that the site is Powered By: Xivvi which is a private business run by Cllr Paul Thompson and Cllr Pamela Hargreaves and which gets much of its business from the local public sector.
I doubt if there's anything dodgy here but it's a good example of how incestuous things can appear to be and why there is such a need for 'declared interests' to be more rigourous and open. Both Thompson and Hargreaves are past and present Cabinet members and would have been involved in grant funding. Further down the live, Xivvi gets the job of the HVDA website.
They could have done it for free; in which case good for them. However, if there was/is a payment involved then it begs the question 'was the chance of the work available to other web writing organisations' and if not why not? There have been other examples of Xivvi performing work for organisations dependant on grant funding.
Open and Transparent? I think we're a long way from that.
A while back I googled Pam's businesses and I was surprised how many she had a finger in.
Quote from: mk1 on December 13, 2012, 05: PM
A while back I googled Pam's businesses and I was surprised how many she had a finger in.
Do Tell........... lol
But if HBC had a fully accountable Register of Interests, there would be no need to Google that sort of information, it would be available on the HBC website ?????
I would say that the present system is so slack and has been for so long that its reached the point when councillors can no longer see what others can see all too clearly. You can't be involved in the decision process of awarding grants or funding to organisations and then, further down the line, be seen to be receiving payments or benefiting in some other way from those organisations unless you're totally up front about the connection.
By that I mean that it's not enough to simply put Xivvi down on your declared interests but specifically to make it clear that Xivvi focuses on providing services to organisations in the 3rd sector, a number of which receive funding from HBC and it also provides services directly commissioned by HBC. It's this level of detail that is missing from the present system.
While we're on the subject, if any of you have the time, take a look at the accounts of Families First on the Charity Commission's web site and compare them with the fag-packet accounts of Manor Residents. It'll give you an idea of where the problem really lies.
Quote from: tankerville on December 13, 2012, 12: PM
Can anyone tell me as an outsider looking in, just what will be the outcome of all this?
The same people if they held responsible will be re-elected.
They can beat their partner / wife / husband , lie, steal, and kick the dog yet when election day comes along they get voted back in.
The whole mess will leave a taste in people's mouths that will not go away, those that are blameless will get tarred with the same brush as those that are not.
It's an ill wind that does nobody any good.. But this is a foul stench.
There's no one untainted by this because even those with nothing to hide (and those are by far the majority) have sat and allowed such complacency to take root which in turn has allowed the few bad apples to spoil the whole barrel. Councillors are the first people we rely on to keep their house in order; it's only because they have collectively ducked the issue that we are where we are.
At the end of the day, The Voters need to be in possesion of all the facts before being able to make an informed decision on "Who" to vote for in any election, & a Register of the financial details of any possible candiate would be a major consideration for the voter.
Members have shown in the last day or so how easy it is to gather information about various people, but the point is, we, the public should not need to go to these lengths, a Register of Interests that lists all of the various details that have been mentioned in these forums would not be a significant problem to HBC.
The problem lies with both Councillors & Officers, surely they can see why urgent action needs to be taken to remedy the problems brought into the public domain by the Peer Group Review.
As mentioned on numerous occcasions, members of HTHC have passed comment on the fact that the
majority of Councillors are doing a good job in difficult times for their wards & the town, but unfortunately any delay in resolving the issue of a Register of Interest, is adding fuel to the fires of conspiracy.
CABs efforts in The Mail suggest the Labour crowd are intent on strangling this one at birth.
"To be quite honest, I was disappointed that the motion came about because I find it to be a slur on the work of our officers in the council. All of the accounts and contracts are managed both internally and also by an external auditor.
The resolution was done off the cuff without any regard on the impact of the cost, terms of reference or timescale, just that it had to be indepenent and by somebody with a leagal background.
That is why the Labour Group Leader put forward an amendment for a further report to come back to full council outling the cost and terms of reference.
Councillor Akers-Belcher fears an inquiry could cost up to £100,000 and said it would be based on people's perceptions and no hard evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any wrong doing. I would rather see that money spent on services or helping to safeguard services under threat. We need to make sure that we are doing right by the finances of the Council."
I would have thought a good start would be for CAB to explain why he tried to blame the Charity Commission for the fiddled accounts of Manor Residents, something which I gather he has so far failed to do.
Quote from: steveL on December 12, 2012, 11: PM
I guess this is what they mean by 'perception'
(http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/images/iyv.JPG)
Ar**`s are twitching down at the Kremlin, The Mail is their biggest supporter, but with the recent poll result (see above) even The Mail would be hard pressed to be supportive of any action they take that goes against such strong public opinion.
The £100,000 is a frightener, they have no idea of how much its going to cost, but whatever it costs it will be money well spent if it gets to the bottom of this whole unsavoury business.
The motion did not offer any slurs against council officers, however the action by the ruling group places a slur upon every sitting councillor.
"The Mob" both those on the floor of the council chamber & those in the public seats have tried the "Bully Boy" tactics on numerous occasions & on numerous members of the public, they have at times been vitriolic in their treatment of members of the public.
This behaviour is in part because The Standards Board, like the Register of Interests is a completely toothless entity, that situation enables some councillors to say things to people in council meetings that would not be tolerated outside of the civic.
Any councillor who does not support wholeheartedly & unequivically an Inquiry into the goings on within HBC should seriously question their reasons for standing for public office............ More importantly the ratepayers of Hartlepool should question the motives of any councillor that doesn`t hold those views.
...and there, in a nutshell, is the absurdity of the present situation. We have a cultural problem here with some councillors seeing no need whatsoever to be open and transparent about their connections. To use that well used phrase 'they just don't get it.'
The entries by the two ABs display a dismissive attitude to the whole process and as for Angie - she surely is taking the p**s.
Quote from: steveL on December 16, 2012, 11: PM
as for Angie - she surely is taking the p**s.
...and everything else not nailed down.
The Wilcox brood, a plague of locusts.
Good to see the f**ty Belchers back posturing in the Mail over the weekend.
Someone donates to charity and the 2 chubbies are there to claim all the credit.
If they really cared about 'charidee' why not just give one of their (many) allowances away?
Or better still a small donation from the wedge one got because someone was nasty to him work.
Unless the staffing list of Manor Residents is out of date, there are 3 other Harrimans that appear to be working there.
It makes a mockery out of the present Register of Interests system, it doesn`t actually mean anything to anyone & obviously has no legal standing.
An Independent Inquiry is an absolute necessity, but it must be an Inquiry based on the original proposal, & not the smoke & mirrors amendement made by "The Mob"
The Localism Bill 2011 is worth a look over, regarding Council`s Code of Standards
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/localism act.pdf (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/files/localism%20act.pdf)
". . . it will become a criminal offence for councillors to deliberately withhold or misrepresent a financial interest.This means that councils will not have to spend time and money investigating trivial complaints, while councillors involved in corruption and misconduct will face appropriately serious sanctions"
In our own case, and not for the first time, Labour appear to have come up with 'the Third Way' in that any suggestions that councillors have deliberately withheld or misrepresented a financial interest are regarded as trivial.
Well I suppose it's a sort of compromise ..... ;D
Looks like there will be some councillor vacancies soon on this basis. ;)
I'm not sure if the 'deliberate' ploy would work because the declared interests are signed off. So even if the councillor can claim ignorance, whoever monitors and signs off the forms cannot. It would be an interesting situation if a councillor tries to dump responsibility onto the officer - though it wouldn't be the first time. Remember those lost letters to the Hospital Trust?
Register of Interests or TAT.............. reading through the post once i put it on, i think it would be more relevant on this thread..... Apologies for that.
Indeed, the localism act of 2011 states specifically "It is a criminal offence for Councillors to deliberately withhold or misrepresent a financial interest". It also states that "Councillors involved in corruption and misconduct will face appropriately serious sanctions". It may well be the case this was not deliberate and was in fact a genuine mistake made by Councillor ****. However, it appears a very serious oversight whichever way one looks at it.
On the face of it, it woud appear that the powers that be within HBC aren`t aware of the legal responsibility required by the Localism Bill with regard to the Register of Interests.
It also appears that some councillors are a tad reticent about having a full in-depth Inquiry into the Peer Groups report, an Inquiry that could lift the shadow that hangs over all councillors & will continue to do so, until a suitable Inquiry reports on the concerns of the Peer Group
In the meantime....Maybe someone should call the Police & let them decide what is deliberate & what isn`t
Wasn't that your last year's resolution as well? :o
Whichever way you look at it, the most obvious thing is that the current procedure for handling declared interests, as well as the monitoring process, are both a complete shambles. To stand up and oppose any sort of review of the whole process inevitably creates even more suspicion. This is one area of council operation that you would expect to be laid down in blood.
I find myself questioning the level of pro-activeness of council officers over this matter. We seem to have gotten ourselves into a situation where councillors themselves have historically decided what should be declared and what should not and if there's anyone out there who doesn't see the problem in that then you probably also still believe in Santa Claus.
It looks to me like councillors don't see the completion of this form as being of any real importance and that when they do, they have a fair degree of flexibility in how they complete it. No one seems to be monitoring what they put.
I would expect to see a question whereby councillors are asked to list all connections to organisations which have received funding from HBC during the last five years and whether they or their families/spouse have benefited either financially or materially through having a connection to any such organisations. All Directorships/ Management positions or employment should be declared and detailed as either paid or unpaid.
In a lot of cases, I think it would highlight that there are plenty of councillors doing such work for no gain whatsoever and in a way it's only fair that this should be properly recognised.