Hartlepool First - So rattled they've gone cuckoo!

[Straight Talking]

PART THREE
09 -2- 2012 
Voted to support Labours amendment to budget to include out sourcing Rev and Benefits and ICT, and £50K for Mad Dogs white goods scheme, all 4 torys supported the Labour Groups amendment.

CORRECTION TO ABOVE – The amendment to the budget OPPOSED the outsourcing of Revenues and Benefits as part of the ICT contract.

Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Ingham, James, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, Wells (1) and Wilcox.

Those against the recommendation: The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors Gibbon, Hill, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, H Thompson

Vote on Core Strategy all 4 torys voted for
It was moved and seconded that:-
(i) The draft core Strategy Publication Document be approved, for consultation purposes.
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Ingham, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Payne, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (2) and Wilcox.

Those against the recommendation:
Councillor Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Preece and Wright
Why anyone would vote against consultation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vote local development frame word unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Ingham, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright.

[Straight Talking]

PART FOUR
09 -2- 2012 

Vote any budget out turn to be placed in the general fund, torys voted with Labour, indys and mayor voted against.
The following Motion had been received:
"This Council resolves to amend Section 4 of the Council's Constitution and record within their annual Budget and Policy Framework that any favourable outturn must be allocated to the Council's General Fund. This will ensure that any further allocation of the said monies is subject to Full
Council approval"

Those in favour:-
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barlday, Cook,Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, |ngham, James, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece,
Ricarhdson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (3) and Wilcox.

Those against:- The Mayor, Stuart Drummond
Councillors Gibbon, Hill, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley and H Thompson

Those abstaining:
Councilllors: Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, Payne, Simmons and Wright

In previous years the positive outturn (this is money not budgeted for and was worth 4 million this year) has been used by the Mayor for things like – tarting up Church Square, the Tall Ships etc. So of course he wasn't happy when Council took away his slush fund so that if he wants to spend money on these sorts of items he will have to come and ask so Council can say NO.
The REAL QUESTION IS: Why did A Lilley, G Lilley and Gibbon want the Mayor to keep his SLUSH FUND ?


8 -12-2011   
Vote Review of polling stations unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.

Vote closure of Falcan road unanimous (It is Falcon Road)
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.

[Straight Talking]

PART FIVE
8 -12-2011   
Vote revision to local development scheme unanimous
Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness,
A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.

Vote notice of motion re nation use of ceasarians in childbirth  no votes against
The Motion was in fact:
Hartlepool Borough Council is alarmed by the recent intimation by Government that the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) rules governing the use of Caesarean Section during
Child-birth may be relaxed, so allowing for elective Caesarean being available on the NHS.

Those in favour –
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest,
Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.

Those against the recommendation:
None.

Those abstaining:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond.
Councillors A Lilley, G Lilley and Preece.

Vote on pct's and GP's being able to issue long term sick notes, 4 tory votes 4 other abstaintions.
Motion:
This Council is concerned by the conflicting decisions being made by Government.

At a time when Government is pushing ahead with the replacement of Primary Care Trusts (PCT's) as commissioners of local health care, they also believe that a G.P. should no longer be able to sign a sick note. Such diverse decision making has the potential to undermine G.P.'s and leave patients confused and distrustful of the health provision being afforded them.

Those in favour –
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas,
H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox

Those abstaining:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond.

A Lilley and G. Lilley were present at the meeting but did not vote.

[Straight Talking]

PART SIX
8 -12-2011   

Vote deferral of referendum unanimous
125. PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM
At the meeting on 27th October, 2011, Council had received a report confirming the receipt of a petition requesting amongst other matters, a "Mayoral Referendum". That petition as received on 21st October, 2011, contained approximately 3,600 signatures and the Council was required to receive and proceed to verify such petitions as to their validity within a period of one month from receipt.

The Council's Chief Solicitor had given notification to the "petition organiser" and the Secretary of State on 18th November, 2011, that the petition was deemed to be invalid. In accordance with the requirement under The Local Authorities (Referendum) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations, 2000, public notice of this determination was also given in an edition of the Hartlepool Mail. Correspondence was also sent to all Borough Councillors outlining the reasons behind this determination. Through the verification of this petition, it transpired that 2,815 signatories were from individuals who appeared on the published register of electors (the petition organiser did volunteer an additional 66 signatories, 45 of them were registered electors) and in consequence the verification number, which applies for the Borough, namely 3,457 was not met. Whilst there was an expression of discontentment within this petition, the aims and objectives did not provide a clear indication as to the constitutional change required to constitute a valid petition for the purposes of
Regulation 9.

However, the more fundamental reason of why this petition should be determined as being invalid is that where a local authority is operating a Mayor and Cabinet Executive, as Hartlepool Borough Council does, there is no scope within Part II of these Regulations for local authority electors
to effect a "constitutional change" to comply with Regulation 9(2) in the form of the Executive by such a petition. The only change in the form of an Executive that was permitted under Part II of these Regulations was a change to an Executive involving an Elected Mayor and Cabinet. There was no other form of Executive that a petition under Part II of these Regulations could seek to promote. As there was no other form of Executive to which the Council could change that could satisfy the requirements of Regulation 9, such a petition was necessarily invalid.

The Department for Communities and Local Government appeared to accept this interpretation of these Regulations although the Secretary of State had power to issue a direction for the local authority to hold a referendum, this power would only be exercised in wholly exceptional circumstances

Members were reminded that any change to the Council's governance arrangements would need to be endorsed through a referendum. Further, there was a moratorium of 10 years on holding a referendum from one held previously, a position that was not altered under the Localism Act, 2011.

Should the Secretary of State ever direct the Council to hold a referendum or should the Council resolve to so hold, a referendum should generally be held within a period of six months from such direction or resolution and there would be a combination of polls, should the referendum coincide with an ordinary or other election. A local authority in proceeding towards a referendum must undertake reasonable consultation and would be required, amongst other matters, to agree upon its "fallback" proposals at least two months prior to any referendum.

At the present time, the only alternative form of Executive arrangement from that of Mayor and Cabinet, was the "Leader and Cabinet" model. It was noted, that whilst the 2000 Regulations had limited application in relation to a petition seeking a referendum as outlined, this was not the case where the Secretary of State directed a referendum to be held or where the Council so resolves. The Localism Act, 2011, which received Royal Assent on 15th November, also introduced a further model of governance namely that of a "committee system" and the power of the Secretary of State to introduce other "prescribed arrangements". Amending Regulations were scheduled to be introduced early in 2012 and until that time, the Council would be unable to meaningfully and lawfully consult on these "new" models of governance. If Members wished to resolve to move towards a referendum, the timing of the same would be crucial.

It was also open to the Council to engage in informal consultations and this could be a preparatory step before any formal resolution to move towards a referendum is taken.

The options therefore available to Council were as follows;
(i) That the Council resolve to hold a referendum, which would need to be held within a period of six months from the passing of that resolution, which currently would limit consultations to the present Executive form of governance, namely Mayor and Cabinet and that relating to the Leader and Cabinet model.

(ii) That the Council defers consideration to the holding of a referendum until the introduction of amending Regulations introduced under the Localism Act, 2011, which will provide for additional forms of governance to be considered and upon which the Council would then be able to engage in lawful consultation.

Notwithstanding the above 'options', Council may wish to proceed with informal consultations to seek a view as to how the Council should be governed and the results of such informal consultations be taken into account in any subsequent referendum process. Members debated issues raised by the report.

Following discussion, option (ii) was moved and seconded.
RESOLVED – That consideration to the holding of a referendum be deferred until the introduction of amending Regulations introduced under the Localism Act, 2011.
Those in favour –
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Morris, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox.

[Straight Talking]

PART SEVEN
27 10 2011 
Vote on Youth Justice Strategy bill unanimous

Those in favour – The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors: C Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick , Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A Lilley, G Lilley, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Shaw, Shields, Tempest, Thomas, P Thompson, Wilcox, Wright.

08 09 2011
Vote of no confidence in NT&H NHS trust unanimous vote, 
Those in favour – The Mayor Stuart Drummond,
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Brash, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shaw, Shields, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wright.

Cllr Gibbon was absent from the above meeting

Vote on appointment to standards Committee unanimous vote.
There was no vote, Council were asked to approve the appointment of: Reverend John Lund

As there was no dissent, it was taken as the unanimous agreement of all present which included: 
A Lilley, G Lilley and Gibbon

WHY WOULD ANYBODY VOTE AGAINST A VICAR?

25 08 2011
Loynes, Morris and Wells vote with all others except J Marshal, extraordinary meeting re Bailey to be acting CE.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
The Mayor, Stuart Drummond,
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fenwick, Fleet, Gibbon, Hall, Hill, Jackson, Lawton, Loynes, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Morris, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright

Those abstaining: Councillor J Marshall

A Lilley & G Lilley were both absent from the above meeting

RAY WELLS WAS PART OF THE APPOINTMENTS PANEL that interviewed Nicola Bailey and offered her the job – so of course he would vote for the decision to be endorsed by Full Council

[Straight Talking]

PART 8
04 -8 2011
Vote to support Health Scrutiny forum in review and support of retaining Hospital services, Wells  (4 torys) unanimous.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright

Vote on the 'hear n Hartlepool' petition (kicked into touch) all 4 tory's voted with the Labour group.
Most Councillors were already aware of the issues around options available and the moratorium on a referendum being held as they were discussing it in other meetings, like Constitution Committee, General Purposes Committee and the Working Group of Council – All meetings that Geoff and Alison don't attend.

The famous petition – Most people spouting about it have never read it, so here it is!
'Many residents are suffering, distressed and alarmed by the state of affairs within the council evidenced by good and bad publicity, leaks from within the council, media coverage and generally, the word on the street. Enough is Enough!

We: "Hear 'n' Hartlepool" are asking Full Council to support a public inquiry into HBC Executive and Management so that informed choices can be made into action and accountability as previous research is known to have flaws and so may be invalid.

Please embrace this opportunity to empower local people in making a local impact!'

WHAT IT ASKS FOR IS NOT A REFERENDUM BUT A PUBLIC INQUIRY
Here is an example of the costs of a Public Inquiry:
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry.
Inquiry expenditure between April 2011 and February 2012: £11,751,750

So of course the Council weren't going to support it!!
Those in favour of the recommendation to take no action:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (4) and Wilcox

Those against the recommendation:
Aiken, Fleming, Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, J Marshall, Preece and Wright

04 -8 2011
Vote to support Health Scrutiny forum in review and support of retaining Hospital services, Wells  (4 torys) unanimous.
Those in favour of the recommendation:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, Wilcox and Wright

Vote on the minerals strategy  unanimous
Those in favour:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells and Wilcox

Vote giving HBC permission to proceed with Jackson's landing 4 tory votes for indys against
Those in favour:
Councillors Aiken, C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Barclay, Brash, Cook, Fenwick, Fleet, Fleming, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, Jackson, James, Lauderdale, Lawton, Loynes, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Richardson, Robinson, Rogan, Shields, Simmons, Sirs, Tempest, Thomas, H Thompson, P Thompson, Turner, Wells (5) and Wilcox

Those against the recommendation:
Councillors Gibbon, A E Lilley, G Lilley, J Marshall and Wright.


10 02 2011
Voted with all other Councillors, vote to accept the Mid Term budget
Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Atkinson, Barclay, Barker, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fleet, Fleming, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Hargreaves, Hill, James, Laffey, Lauderdale, Lawton, G Lilley, London, Maness, A Marshall, McKenna, Dr. Morris, Payne, Preece, Shaw, Simmons, Thomas, H. Thompson,
P. Thompson, Turner, Wells, Worthy and Wright.

A Lilley was absent from the above meeting

24 02 2011
Voted that 'This Council therefore urges our own MP Iain Wright and his fellow MPs for Middlesbrough, Stockton on Tees, Darlington, Redcar and Easington
not to support an increase in the EU budget.  Wells votes with the rest of HB Council

Those in favour:
Councillors C Akers-Belcher, S Akers-Belcher, Atkinson, Barclay, Barker, Brash, Cook, Cranney, Fleet, Gibbon, Griffin, Hall, Ingham, Jackson, James, Laffey, Lauderdale, Lawton, A E Lilley, G Lilley, London, Maness, A Marshall, J W Marshall, Dr. Morris, Payne, Plant, Preece, Richardson, Rogan, Shaw, Simmons, Sutheran, Thomas, P Thompson, Turner, Wells, and Wright.

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.
Ray Wells voted with the Lilley's on most occasions and with the rest of council against them 5 times.
BUT WHY LET THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD LEAFLET?

[steveL]

We'll see but I think you're missing the point. Whatever happens on Thursday HF isn't going away. Within a matter of weeks of its first meeting in January HF had the Tories producing a bright, glossy and expensive leaflet aimed solely at attacking it without mentioning Labour once.

Why would that be?

Can it be that they think the members of HF are such a threat or is it that they are worried that the cosy cartel with Labour and the Lib-Dems is about to fall apart because the people have had enough of it?

It's not HF they are worried about - it's the people finding their voice.

[The Shadow]

Within a matter of weeks of your first meeting? Ohh do behave. I've heard the Independent trap leaflet was an afterthought, designed and printed after the main election leaflets had been done.

Steve, HF is nothing new. The only difference between this incarnation and the rest is that it has Hartlepool in the name to hopefully pull a few extra votes.

[notinshadow]

We'll see but I think you're missing the point. Whatever happens on Thursday HF isn't going away.

I have not missed the point at all and agree to a point with you fully. but down the line the buttom will be pushed, when you all start falling out. Labour seem to do well as they are united. even if we don't like it..they even have spares with the Indy's just incase..what you got, a dream this time round. next time you get a good run at it and things will move on from there if you all stay together as one, but I don't think that is possible..so as for missing the point I think not my friend..

Within a matter of weeks of its first meeting in January HF had the Tories producing a bright, glossy and expensive leaflet aimed solely at attacking it without mentioning Labour once.

And..ain't going to get you votes so why worry about it now..do all that later.
Why would that be?

Search me, maybe they fancied doing it I suppose..

Can it be that they think the members of HF are such a threat or is it that they are worried that the cosy cartel with Labour and the Lib-Dems is about to fall apart because the people have had enough of it?

But you ain't..sorry mate..but you ain't..

It's not HF they are worried about - it's the people finding their voice.

Yes..lets hope so.

Good Luck Thursday to you and Fred, nothing would make me smile more Thursday night than you two getting in.

I mean I don't agree with alot of what you say these days since you gone all Lily on us but after May 3rd I hope your a councillor Steve..lol..how that will p**s Labour off..

[notinshadow]

@llta

........ cuckoo councillors in that you've got another one in your ward

Maybe it would help if I actually understood what the cuckoo bit meant.!!

Help me out here Steve

[steveL]

Cockoos lay their eggs in the nest of another bird which then incubates and rears it as one of their own.

oh and Labour aren't united; far from it. You do as you're told or you're out - like the Cabinet members who were threatened with deselection from standing in the election. Peter Jackson was deselected from running in his own ward to let the rest of the Labour cabinet members know that they would be too if they didn't walk away from their own budget plans and Jane Shaw was also deselected and is now standing as an Indie.

You doff your cap to the mighty Marj these days - or you're out.

[for fawkes sake]

That's interesting.
Eight lengthy posts which seemed to have involved a lot of copy/pasting which must have taken hours of a person's time. The question is: who else but Mr Wells himself would bother?

[rabbit]

More to the point-who would bother to read it all?

It`s bad enough reading through the crap leaflets posted through my front door.

As a rabbit, my attention span is too short.

[Straight Talking]

Maybe its not your turn to borrow the braincell, Rabbit.

At least one person has read the full content, Admin, as my posts are being monitored as you know.

So despite the length of the post, which could not be avoided if the true picture is to be seen by others.
The insistence that Ray Wells is a Labour stooge is inaccurate as the evidence shows.

Read it or not, the facts will come out, if you need to tell lies in order to be elected, you will sooner or later be shot out by those who believed you.

[notinshadow]

Read it or not, the facts will come out, if you need to tell lies in order to be elected, you will sooner or later be shot out by those who believed you.

I don't know about that Labour have got away with it for a lifetime..


Where's my B.L.T.?