Constitution

[admin]

Press Release


LOCAL people are being given a chance to air their views on a key document that shapes the running of Hartlepool Council.
All councils are required by law to prepare and keep up to date a document, known as the 'Constitution' which contains information, including the rights of local people and how they can participate in the running of the Council.
Two seminars – which councillors have also been invited to - will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre as part of a review of the Constitution.

They will be held on Monday 27 June at 3pm and Thursday 30 June at 6pm.

Under the Council's present Constitution, all decisions are taken either by Full Council, committees or by an officer under delegated powers. The Constitution outlines who has responsibility for decisions as well as how local people can become involved.

Under current arrangements for meetings, members of the public can ask questions at the Council's five main policy committees and policy chairs also attend neighbourhood forum meetings to face questions from the public.
Members of the public are also able to ask two questions at Full Council meetings although they have to give advance notice for these meetings.

The two seminars will be led by Peter Devlin, the Council's Chief Solicitor & Monitoring Officer and there will be an opportunity for those attending to ask questions.

The Constitution can be viewed by visiting www.hartlepool.gov.uk/constitution
Hartlepool residents are invited to contribute to the review by making comments in writing to Mr Devlin, Hartlepool Council, Civic Centre, Hartlepool TS24 8AY or via e-mail at democratic.services@hartlepool.gov.uk. Comments need to be submitted by the end of July

Press release PR16241 - 23 June 2016.
Issued by Alastair Rae, Public Relations Manager, on 01429 523510

[fred c]

I called into the kremlin for a couple of hours to catch the 1st Constitutional Presentation, it was followed by a run through of the current procedures.

There were 5 councillors in attendance, me & 3 other chaps, 3 councillors gave their opinions on the various constitutional procedures ie. length of full council meetings, questions to council, motions put before council etc etc.

I was allowed to offer my opinion of the varies points made by the councillors, however the more I see what goes on with members of the ruling group the more I despair about the democratic process in Hartlepool, I offer several examples as to why I have come to that conclusion.

On the subject of the 7pm to 9.30pm full council meetings, MD offered the opinion that they should be reduced from 7pm to 9.00pm, she based that opinion on the fact that 'she' suffers from diabetes, I offered the opinion that most meetings finish before the 9.30pm watershed.

Cwissy & MD once again stood firmly against verbal public questions, despite me pointing out to councillors & the BS that, although members of the public are 'still allowed supplementary question, 'but with no means of putting them to the meeting' there is a fundemental problem with the ability for members of the public to make their point to the senior democratic body in Hartlepool.

Cwissy & MD were also of the opinion that the 10 minutes allowed to put forward a motion was far to long & advocated 2 to 3 minutes, MD also offered the opinion that people just kept talking after making the motion...... I did mention that, that was in fact 'Debate', Barclay spoke about the length of time some councillors addressed the floor,I reminded the BS that I & many others had been in attendance, whilst some members had stood at the lectern & addressed the full meeting for 20 minutes, without a single word being understood by anyone in the chamber.........

There is another presentation on Thursday Evening, hopefully more people will be able to attend to express their opinions on the constitutional process.
Once again I brought up the poor quality of the public address system, it was agreed that it is a priority to sort it out.

[Hartlepudlion]

From fredc's report it seems that the Labour Party are once again trying to stifle residents participation. Every time they find any form of resistance that they don't like - in one word CRITICISM- they change the rules by tinkering with the Constitution to further close the door to residents' concerns. It is barely ajar at the moment.

Come on you people, you moan enough about the Labour group on here so GET INVOLVED. Go to tonight's meeting and show them that you don't like what they are doing. The opposition in the Chamber need your support.

To the Labour Cllrs a message. Stop the few who are destroying your party in Hartlepool. I hear so many people saying that Labour is no longer the party they once supported. Be warned, the people spoke in the referendum. Help the people to have more participation not less.

To the Conservatives the message is the same. Don't vote for less but for greater access for the public.

SOS HARTLEPOOL

[steveL]

Wasting your time there, mate. The Labour Group in Hartlepool is corrupt - simple as that, really, as is the Tory Group. You're right in your analysis that all motivation is aimed at closing down any remaining form of scrutiny.

It's worth pointing out that the only reason a certain person is facing fraud charges is because of public scrutiny and that when given the chance to clean up their act and police themselves, both the Labour Group and the administration did all that they could to prevent the outing of the truth - including trying to blame the Charity Commission for false accounts. A properly functioning council would be as concerned, perhaps even more concerned, than the public when such corruption is exposed. You must have noticed that the clamp down on public questions immediately followed the expose of Manor Residents - tells everyone all that they need to know really.

It really doesn't matter how many people turn up at tonight's meeting, the people making the decisions are immoral to the core and riddled with collusion which crosses any artificial party lines in the name of self-enrichment.

There are three possible endings to the current situation: individually, they may detach themselves from the cesspit in disgust, as Brash and Jackson have done, they will be voted out by the electorate or they will end up being locked up.

Waiting for them to walk into the light just isn't going to happen.

[Foggy]

What meeting is it tonight?

[steveL]

See the last paragraph of Fred's post


http://www.high-tax-hartlepool.co.uk/index.php/topic,3305.msg33837.html#msg33837

[fred c]

I entered 2 questions for mext weeks council meeting..... both rejected by the BS.....steveL is correct, self scrutiny within HBC is non existent, i have no idea how deep the wormhole is, but i am sure there is something seriously amiss with our council.

[Foggy]

Did they give reasons for rejecting your questions?

I'm guessing this business about asking the public to contribute to the 'Constitution' is just a box ticking exercise to say they have done it.  They have no intention of listening to anything anyone says as usual.  The unqualified and unemployed* know best and those who are qualified and employed allow themselves to be dictated to by them.

Thanks for answering my last question Steve, even though I was being particularly thick asking it in the first place.  I thought you were referring to a full council meeting which I understand was changed to next week.


*I realise that not all Councillors are not unemployed and unqualified but I think you know which ones I am referring to.

[fred c]

The gist of the 1st question was, considering that 70% of voters in Hartlepool ignored the advice of both the MP & labour councillors to 'Remain'

Woulld the ruling group now offer Hartlepool voters the courtesy of a Referendun on joining TVU.

The gist of the reply was.

Apparently there is go i ng to be a'Consultation'on the overall governance of a Mayoral Combined Authority of which the council has resolved to see the details, before it proceeds further, there will be a council debate after the consultation process.

2nd question was based on, Is it prudent to have as a council committee chairperson someone who was dismissed from a previous employment for G.I.M.

The answer was basically....the repetition of such a question could be viewed in a political/personal context & which is probably not condusive to the business that should come before the council, namely matters for which the local authority has responsibility for or affects the Borough.

The answers were a little more detailed tbh.... but the above is a general idea

[steveL]

I would have thought that  a basic requirement of any councillor, particularly one who Chairs a committee, was that he understands the concept that perpetually lying through your teeth is wrong.

[fred c]

I was under that impression..... but in some Artlepool labour politicians.... being a congenital liar is considered a virtue.

[DRiddle]

Interesting little meeting last night. 5 councillors present, 2 from the Labour group, 2 PHF and an independent. One member of the public.

Reading between the lines of the proposals you can see that there are indeed moves being made to stifle debate and turn council meetings into a 5 minute 'rubber stamping session', in which the Lab/Cons quickly vote through as much as possible as quickly as possible (and then head to the pub).

I asked Peter Devlin last night if having a six monthly review of the constitution was 'normal' in a local authority. In a round about way he implied 'no', pointing out that Redcar and Cleveland haven't changed their constitution in 8 years.

I also pointed out the entire constitution of the United States of America has only been changed 27 times since 1789.

Judging by the suggestions discussed last night, Labour will make more than 27 changes to Hartlepool's this year alone.