What A Knockout!

[steveL]

The six-month period since the Labour group and Dave Stubbs restricted public questioning at full council meetings is now up and that decision is now up for review. Recently, HBC (quietly) asked for submissions from the public on whether it should continue and any other points related to the council's constitution.

There have, we understand, been several submissions all calling for greater transparency (as called for by both the LGO's Peer Group and Tom Mitchell) and the return of supplementary questions to their previous state.

The council is due to discuss the matter next Thursday with Labour suggesting setting up a 'working group' to examine the matter.

You may recall that no 'working group' appeared to be necessary to do away with supplementary questions in the first place but....even more ironic....the Labour Group is now suggesting that any new working group should operate behind closed doors and consist of a majority of Labour councillors and their Tory bedfellows.
Only HBC could contemplate looking into increasing transparency by setting up a working party that is to operate behind closed doors and therefore isn't open to the public.

[DRiddle]

Without wishing to appear to have a 'God complex' (as I've been accused of by some), most people who follow these things would probably accept that it was my supplementary questions which led (in part at least) to the ban.

However, remember what I asked in terms of supplementary Qs.

I only really had time to ask 3 or 4 before the ban kicked in.

One asked Councillor James whether she/council would support a full independent inquiry into connections between serving councillors and the voluntary sector. (Which later became the Tom Mitchell inquiry via the motion by councillor Lilley). I asked that one on the back of the peer review which seemed to infer that that would be a good idea.

Another asked whether it was appropriate that a serving Labour Councillor(s) was/were able to be (largely) on the receiving end of a contract worth more than half a million quid essentially awarded by other serving Labour councillors.

Another asked whether the councillors noble refusal to accept a pay rise of a few hundred quid, would make any real significant impact on a council trying to find savings of getting on for £20 million.

Personally, I believe all 3 to be reasonable in terms of questions put to current (or ex) councillors.

However, do I envisage the working party deciding to bring back supplementary questions?....... no.

Funny that.

[fred c]

I can picture it now......

Half a dozen "LabCon" Councillors crammed into a single "Trap of the Gentlemans Lavatory" in the Civic discussing "Openess & Transparency"