freds question.

[perseus]

This is in the Mail...

Calls for "openess and accounability"

Published on Monday 22 October 2012 13:29

CIVIC chiefs say councillors are meeting their requirements when it comes to registering interests after calls for more "openness and accountability".

Town resident Fred Corbett called on Hartlepool Borough Council to publish a "comprehensive record" of all councillors and their relatives who receive money from any organisation that receives funding from the local authority.

It comes after the recent Peer Review raised concerns over transparency of the council's commissioning and grant-funding arrangements given the "strong links" between some elected members and the voluntary and community sector.

But senior councillor Paul Thompson, portfolio holder for finance and corporate services, said it is up to individual members to make clear their own interests, all of which is published on the council's website.

Peter Devlin, the council's chief solicitor, said the online register of members' interests meets the requirements.

Speaking during public questions at a recent full council meeting, Mr Corbett referred to the Peer Review in his question: "Anxieties have been expressed regarding the effectiveness and transparency of the council's commissioning and grant-funding arrangements for the voluntary and community sector, which generates a specific risk given the strong links between some elected members and this sector.

"Additionally, there is a perceived lack of rigour around the declaration of interests that has established a widely held view that some elected members are focused on the pursuit of self-interest."

Mr Corbett asked: "The two points above have been expressed by the Peer Review Group in their report to Hartlepool Borough Council, my question to you is who are the councillors that are considered by the Peer Review Group to be the focus of the above?"

Coun Thompson said the review team had met with people from inside and outside the council and said any comments made were not attributed.

He added: "It would therefore be pure speculation as to who they are referring to."

So is the jist of this, 'Fred asked "Who's on the make?" (in light of the peer review suggesting someone is) and the council repsonded by saying "We pretty much don't have to say, or are not obliged to elaborate on who might be or how they might be doing it, other than by following the minimum legal requirement to make whatever might be going on technically above board"?

Which if you break that down further, is Fred asking "Who are the peer review suggesting is on the make?" and the council replying "We don't have to tell you that".

What's most worrying is that at no point did anyone from HBC say "No one is", they responded by saying "it's speculation".

Brilliant.

An utter disgrace.
 

[mk1]

[The Great Dictator]

yuk

[steveL]

Quote: CIVIC chiefs say councillors are meeting their requirements when it comes to registering interests after calls for more "openness and accountability".

There's a developing pattern here.

Peer Group "there is a perceived lack of rigour around the declaration of interests that has established a widely held view that some elected members are focused on the 'pursuit of self-interest' "
Council Response: "CIVIC chiefs say councillors are meeting their requirements when it comes to registering interests after calls for more "openness and accountability."

Peer Group: "As a first step we would encourage the council to share our findings as quickly and widely as possible – ahead of the formal report being agreed"
Council Response: A sanitised Press Release to the Mail, meetings to try and get around the Freedom of Information Act and final resignation that the findings of the review would have to be published following that Freedom of Information request (followed by a ddos attack on the website publishing them)

Peer Group: "As a second step we strongly urge the council to run an external competitive recruitment process for the position of permanent Chief Executive"
Council Response: Although the Peer Group's recommendations were presented the week before the interview for the Chief Executive vacancy took place (there was only one candidate), the recommendation to include external candidates was ignored completely.

In summary, HBC have every intention of ignoring the findings of the Peer Group. There was talk in another thread of 'arrogance' - I think we've found a far better example.

[not4me]

wasn't this a bit inevitable Steve?