Questions at Council Democracy Shutdown

[jeffh]

"I've just read through the relevant bits and I'm confused.

Are we absolutely sure the council is seeking to ban the public from asking questions at full council or is it that they want to stop repetition of questions that have already been asked at committee.

If it is the former it is a disgrace. If it's the latter it seems sensible.

Perhaps one of the independent councillors who is privy to more info than us plebs can help me out here because I'm genuinely puzzled."

Seems like this has been ignored. Any thoughts?

Below is the relevant section from the proposed agenda
(iii) Public Questions to Council
The Working Group expressed the view that the public should have the
opportunity to raise questions at the Policy Committees and that questions
relevant to Policy Committees should not be replicated as a Council question.
The Working Group noted that other Tees Valley Authorities did operate a
system of public questions but that there were variations within the
procedures within those Authorities. However, members did indicate that the
system of governance through a 'committee system' was distinct from the
other Tees Valley Authorities and lent itself to a greater opportunity for the
questions to be given before the Policy Committees which would strengthen
the role of Policy Committees in facilitating public engagement. It was the view
of the Working Group that this could remove the need for public questions to
Council.
Council – 23 May 2017 10
FURTHER PERIDODIC REVIEW OF
THE COUNCIL'S CONSTITUTION
6 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL
Monitoring Officer Advice;
There is merit to this suggestion. The underlying theme behind the resolution
from Council on the 8th, September, 2016 was to look at ways the Council
could improve its approach to public involvement and participation and the
proposal will contribute to this objective. However the removal of public
questions would need to be closely considered against the background, that
there will always be occasions where matters of such import, urgency or
indeed impact upon the Borough arise and that the same should not be
exclusively reserved to Elected Members to raise but that opportunity should
be given to ordinary members of the public. It is therefore the Monitoring
Officer's recommendation that the 'scope of questions' under Council
Procedure Rule 11.5 (which procedure rule is equally applicable to both public
and member questions) is revised with the additional inclusion of the following
requirements, whereby the Chief Executive (in consultation with the Chair of
Council) may reject a question if;
 It is not about a matter of such significance and/ or impact or urgency,
wherein a response is desirable through Council rather than through
the relevant Policy Committee or through the Audit & Governance
Committee. In those circumstances the Chief Executive (in consultation
with the Chair of Council) will consider the strategic importance of the
question in consultation with the relevant Policy Chair, or where the
question relates to the remit of the Audit and Governance Committee,
the Chair of Audit and Governance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that the scope of questions (Council Procedure
Rule 11.5) be amended as above in the light of the Working Group's
recommendations and the advice of the Monitoring Officer

The way I am reading the above is that the council is wanting to stop public questions whilst the Returning Officer wants them to stay.

[akarjl]

Cwissie must like getting violated on line..............

He really should keep off social media.....he doesn't have the brains to engage in debate and ignoring the truth just comes back and bites him.

[jawsbbc]

 gerek
probs make a play on
the Working Group that this COULD remove the need for public questions to council

this is what they do  then say we have decided not to remove the questions  then take all the praise  for it
seen it all happen before  in meetings

[jeffh]

gerek
probs make a play on
the Working Group that this COULD remove the need for public questions to council

this is what they do  then say we have decided not to remove the questions  then take all the praise  for it
seen it all happen before  in meetings

I agree, but the way the council operates is that COULD could become a reality and I agree with you it could be a ploy.  Having said that if it hadn't got the reaction / air time it did, it would / will be pushed through - then it's too late. 

The same can be said about meeting times - again from the proposed agenda -
(vii) Timing of Committee Meetings
 Concerns were expressed in relation to staffing issues associated with
'evening' meetings.
 The view was expressed that attendance at meetings by public tended to
be agenda item specific with examples of well attended meetings held on
morning, afternoon and evenings.
 It was noted that Committee Chairs had flexibility to change the time of
their Committee meetings.
 It was suggested that Council consider changing the time of Council
meetings to start 2pm during the period between October and February
and that consideration be given also to evening Council meetings starting
at 6 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION - That Council consider suggested changes to the
timing of meetings.

[steveL]

There has been a significant rise in the proportion of submitted public questions being rejected and this was one of the reasons for the proposal by Independent councillors that the log of all submitted questions, which the Monitoring Officer is obliged to keep, was made available on-line. That proposal was voted down by Labour and Tories.

Tuesday's proposal introduces an additional barrier to the acceptance of any public question in that any question would have to be considered urgent in order to be accepted - 'urgent' meaning only if a question was so urgent that it couldn't wait to be submitted to the relevant committee would it be allowed. Committee meetings are all held during office hours.

It's possible to argue that this does not amount to a total banning of questions but it is yet another restriction on submitted questions to full council which would be limiting enough that questions accepted for full council would become a rarity.

[Steely Dan]

So,  Steve,

There'll  be no ban on public questions?

Council meeting will continue to be held in the evenings?

Questions from the public will go to the relevant committe and not duplicated in council?

All seems sensible to me.

I think people have been had over by Messrs Riddle and Thompson.

I think they'll have a lot of egg on their faces come Tuesday evening.

[Steely Dan]

This is the OP from another thread posted by Councillor Thompson.

"Just reading the reports for Full Council on 23 May 2017.

Looks like the heat has become too much as Public Questions and Councillor Questions without notice are on their way out !!

The report will appear here very shortly - https://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3553/council

It would be great to see a fairly full meeting to see "democracy in progress - Hartlepool style"."

As a Labour Party member I was very concerned about this. I needn't have been. It's completely untrue.

Nothing more than a crack-handed attempt to derail Labour's GE campaign.

Once again people who read this forum have been conned by Thompson and Riddle's political posturing and attention-seeking behaviour.

[steveL]

So,  Steve,

There'll  be no ban on public questions?

Council meeting will continue to be held in the evenings?

Questions from the public will go to the relevant committe and not duplicated in council?

All seems sensible to me.

I think people have been had over by Messrs Riddle and Thompson.

I think they'll have a lot of egg on their faces come Tuesday evening.

"Questions from the public will go to the relevant committe and not duplicated in council?"

So whereas I can currently submit a question to Full Council and turn up on an evening to hear the answer, in future that question will be redirected to a committee meeting held during office hours when I can't attend to hear the answer.

I'll add that to:

* The loss of my opportunity to ask two supplementary questions
* The loss of the opportunity to ask my own question
* The reduced time allowed for public questions
* Moving public questions to the end of the meeting rather than one of the first items on the agenda
* The reduction in the time for opposition councillors to submit and second their own proposals
* The reduced time allowed for full council meetings.
* Banning opposition councillors from asking questions without notice
* The propensity of council chairs to tell members of the public to direct their questions to council officers

That petition is approaching 1,000 signatures now - less than 3 weeks before the election. Am I surprised that the Carpetbaggers are back-sliding so quick as to suggest the SCABS have just received a new delivery of lube?

Not really

[Lord Elpus]

I Labour lose Hartlepool it won't be the fault of Thompson and Riddle, we all know who's stuffed Hartlepool's Labour vote its the SCAB's, Mad Dog, Cranney et al.

[Inspector Knacker]

This is the OP from another thread posted by Councillor Thompson.

"Just reading the reports for Full Council on 23 May 2017.

Looks like the heat has become too much as Public Questions and Councillor Questions without notice are on their way out !!

The report will appear here very shortly - https://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3553/council

It would be great to see a fairly full meeting to see "democracy in progress - Hartlepool style"."

As a Labour Party member I was very concerned about this. I needn't haven't been. It's completely untrue.

Nothing more than a crack-handed attempt to derail Labour's GE campaign.

Once again people who read this forum have been conned by Thompson and Riddle's political posturing and attention-seeking behaviour.

Which seat will you be contesting next time round ?

[Riqueti]

Reply from Christopher Akers-Belcher re: recent malicious allegations

Christopher Akers-Belcher accepted your request.

Hi Garaint. I put a statement out last week which is in the Mail. We are not changing the times of meetings and not stopping public questions. Each and every year the Chief Solicitor produces a report to review the Council constitution. This year because we have so many avenues to engage with the public he said we 'could' not that we would or should. The opposition in particular Councillors Riddle and Thompson are just trying to undermine our General Election campaign in the same way as they did in 2015 when they encouraged everyone to vote tactically to oust Iain so vote UKIP. I assure you there are no moves to change the times of Council meetings etc. Happy to discuss any time

Seen this reply posted online this morning

[not4me]

Looks like CAB and Wells have both had their knuckles rapped over this.

[not4me]

just signed this petition.now standing at 1,053 signatures

[testing times]

Well if they've back-tracked; I'd call that a result but it doesn't mean they won't have another go after the election.

[Steely Dan]

They haven't back tracked. IT was never goung to happen. It never will happen. You've been conned by Thompson and Riddle. You need to open your eyes.

An election stunt that you've all been suckered into.