Catch the Rabbit

[craig finton]

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.

[mk1]

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.

[mk1]

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.

[fred c]

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.........

[steveL]

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.

[mk1]

The difference this time is that  Angie is making such a mess at Manor that the crash is not too  far away.

[steveL]

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.

[fred c]

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.

[steveL]

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.

[stokoe]

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.

[rabbit]

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."

[SRMoore]

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.

[SRMoore]

Where should I send the membership for for you to stand as the Conservative candidate in the Manor then?

[fred c]

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 ?

[rabbit]

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.