Audit Com; Chair: C Akers-Belcher Chair, Vice-Chair: M Turner (Ind (nobody else wanted it))
Civic Honours Com; Chair: S Akers-Belcher, Vice-Chair R. Wells (Tory)
Constitution Com; Chair: S Akers-Belcher, Vice-Chair M. James
General Purposes Comm; Chair: R. Cook, Vice-Chair: M. James
Licencing Com; Chair G. Morris (Tory), Vice-Chair K. Sirs
Planning Com; Chair: R. Cook, Vice-Chair G. Morris (Tory)
Standards Com; Ch Barry Gray (outside chair) Vice-Chair Ted Jackson (not a Councillor)
Scrutiny Coord; Chair: M. James, Vice-Chair: C Akers-Belcher
Children Services Scrutiiny; Chair: C Akers-Belcher, Vice-Chair A. Wilcox
Regen and Planning Scrutiny; Chair G. Hall, Vice-Chair R.Wells (Tory)
Adult and Community Services Scrutiny; Chair: C. Richardson, Vice-Chair: L. Shields
Neighbourhood Services Scrutiny; Chair: S. Tempest, Vice-Chair R. Cook
Health Scrutiny; Chair: S Akers-Belcher, Vice-Chair: G.Hall
North and Country Neighbourhood Forum; Chair: Fleet, Vice-Chair R. Cook
South and Country Neighbourhood Forum; Chair: K. Cranney, Vice-Chair A. Wilcox.
The Akers-Belchers rack up £16,148 in allowances for Christopher and £13,842 for Stephen - £29,990 between them.
Christopher works for Links which monitors the quality of health commissioning services and the last I heard, Stephen was also employed in the health area.
Interestingly, LINKS recently produced a report on the OneLife Centre which concluded everything was hunky dory.
Quote from: steveL on May 23, 2012, 11: AM
The Akers-Belchers rack up £16,148 in allowances for Christopher and £13,842 for Stephen - £29,990 between them.
They're sitting in that many seats their bums will be sore.
Bit like the Oscar nominations...same old names cropping up over and over again...will each of the lucky recipients also give a tearful, gushing speech of acceptance, thanking everyone from their make-up artist to the dog? ::)
There will be 3 Labour Councillors and 1 Tory on the Fire Authority too - more allowances in the pot. Actually, shouldn't that read 4 Labour Councillors?
Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose).
For £30,000 a year i'd have a sore ar*e..
"Interestingly, LINKS recently produced a report on the OneLife Centre which concluded everything was hunky dory."
ROFPMSL
Can I speak to the nurse please ...yes Miss Diagnosis will be with you soon.
Quote from: Stig of the Seaton Dump on May 23, 2012, 03: PM
"Interestingly, LINKS recently produced a report on the OneLife Centre which concluded everything was hunky dory."
ROFPMSL
Can I speak to the nurse please ...yes Miss Diagnosis will be with you soon.
Hunky dory for who .....?
Quote from: Riddler5 on May 23, 2012, 04: PM
Quote from: Stig of the Seaton Dump on May 23, 2012, 03: PM
"Interestingly, LINKS recently produced a report on the OneLife Centre which concluded everything was hunky dory."
ROFPMSL
Can I speak to the nurse please ...yes Miss Diagnosis will be with you soon.
Hunky dory for who .....?
It's working fine for me as I've never used the place.
I get the feeling that those who need to may not share my view.
A report from an organisation which includes one A-B which supports the positioin of another A-B. How convenient. It would be interesting to know what involvement CAB had in its production.
Interesting too that CAB is leading the campaign to increase councillor allowances at a time when council employee increases are virtually on hold.
What a grubby place the council chamber has become.
I hear the reason PHF were not offered any chairs is because the Labour group thought they would start throwing them during meetings-Carl warned them off!
Cllr Geoff Lilley offered vice chair of the Audit Committe WOW. HEART STOPPING OR WHAT!
As I said previously, there's nothing going on here that wasn't expected. It's just the latest example of the unholy coalition between the Tories and Labour Groups with the joint aim of freezing out anyone who might disturb the cosy cartel which has operated for years.
Just to remind everyone, PHF gained 9,273 votes in th recent elections compored to the Tories 6,032; they all won 4 seats as opposed to the Tories 3 thereby becoming the council's 2nd largest party. On an 'average vote per candidate' basis, PHF won 70% of the Labour vote which was around twice as many as the Tories - and all this just 4 months after PHF's first meeting.
In spite of this, Tories were granted 1 Chair and 3 Vice-Chairs with the help of Labour as well as a place on the Fire Authority while PHF were offered 1 Vice-Chair. If someone wants to make a case that this is proportional then go right ahead.
The rest of us will take it as an indication of just how s**t scared Labour are over that 70% candidate for candidate vote and simply look forward to 2014.
Quote from: steveL on May 24, 2012, 02: PM
As I said previously, there's nothing going on here that wasn't expected. It's just the latest example of the unholy coalition between the Tories and Labour Groups with the joint aim of freezing out anyone who might disturb the cosy cartel which has operated for years.
Just to remind everyone, PHF gained 9,273 votes in th recent elections compored to the Tories 6,032; they all won 4 seats as opposed to the Tories 3 thereby becoming the council's 2nd largest party. On an 'average vote per candidate' basis, PHF won 70% of the Labour vote which was around twice as many as the Tories - and all this just 4 months after PHF's first meeting.
In spite of this, Tories were granted 1 Chair and 3 Vice-Chairs with the help of Labour as well as a place on the Fire Authority while PHF were offered 1 Vice-Chair. If someone wants to make a case that this is proportional then go right ahead.
The rest of us will take it as an indication of just how s**t scared Labour are over that 70% candidate for candidate vote and simply look forward to 2014.
Well talk about clutching at straws, you'll be screaming for proportional representation next. There are lies, damn lies and statistics, but the only one that matters is Labour 21,785 votes (19 seats held - 2 gained) PHF 9,273 votes (3 seats held - 1 seat gained) The truth about Chairs/Vice Chairs is that PHF chose to go for those positions which the Tories have had for the last 4/5 years. They didn't demand anything else, other than the Fire Authority.
4 Places - Proportions based on number of councillors elected. Labour 2.47 - PHF 0.47 - Cons 0.35 - Independents lumped together making 6 including the Mayor 0.70.
Debate to be had - suggested by PHF that Labour's 0.47 is rounded down to zero - PHF's 0.47 is rounded up to 1 and Independents collective 0.70 rounded up to 1.
seen another way - 21 Councillors get 2 out of 4 seats available and 10 Councillors (4 PHF + 6 independents) get 2 seats out of 4 available.
Someone is trying to tell porkies - the numbers speak for themselves.
There were 3 Independent vacancies on committees filled at the Council meeting on Wednesday - How many did the Independents go for - 0 How many did PHF offer to fill - 0 How many did the Conservatives offer to fill - 0 Who stepped up to the mark and made sure those committees can function properly and deal with the business on behalf of Hartlepool - Labour - filled all 3.
So come back when PUTTING HARTLEPOOL FIRST - means something more than words. The Truth is that Geoff is trying to make up the £3,461 he is giving away to PHF - that's all.
With that kind of logic, ST, I can see why submitting a fraudulent set of accounts presents no problem to you.
And with that kind of "Change the subject" and lets put up another smoke screen,
you have obviously lost the argument.
Just for the record - submitting accounts correct, fraudulent or somewhere in between, has nothing to do with me.
Quote from: Straight Talking on May 25, 2012, 12: AM
Just for the record - submitting accounts correct, fraudulent or somewhere in between, has nothing to do with me.
'the wheels on the bus go round and round'..........................
LLTA - You amaze me with your persistence that I am CAB, when you know that I am not.
But if it floats your boat, hey ho :o
There isn't an argument here. PHF's stated intention to pay any money gained from allowances into their campaign funds guaranteed that the Labour/Tory coalition would do everything to stop that happening. Any notion of proportionality goes out of the window when faced with such grubby self-interest.
Still, it just goes to show how insecure they feel.