Register of Interests

[SRMoore]

I'm waiting to see the full facts and the subsequent debate before jumping to a conclusion as I have reservations about both sides of the argument.

[steveL]

Good for you, Shane but I think you'll find that your mate is fully on board.

[DRiddle]

I have reservations about both sides of the argument.

In what respect? I can't really see what the 'other side' of the argument is?

It seems like a straight forward proposal for elected members to have the final say on which companies do or do not receive funding?

What's the other side?

[Stevef]

Will a councillor who has HVDA on his register of interests form then say...... "Do you know what, i'm not entirely comfortable with council money going to HVDA, especially given my connections to that organisation. I think that could send out the wrong message to the public."

Is that what item 14 is about?

Or is it just an absolutely totally blatant attempt to control all significant contracts within this sector?

Its both.

While it does not determine what the officers recommendations will be, it does enable the Labour group to control who gets what contract.

A couple of other points to consider,

The proposal states "Private Companies and Voluntary/Community Sector Organisations, declared upon any elected members 'Register of Interests' forms" It does not relates to interests not declared on their ROI.

Also if they are so concerned about possible conflicts of interest Does that mean when a contract is considered by the full council, those connected directly or indirectly, either to the company or organisation tendering or the third sector in general, will not be allowed to vote?

Both these points are fairly obvious, but given the Labour Groups record!!

[Missy K]

I think all Councillors have a lot to learn and put in to action what MR have highlighted.

The first thing Councillors need to address is Council funding being given to Charity organizations that have PAID Councillors and Family members on the books. It simply should be in the criteria high lighting that Council funding will not be granted if a Councillor is in PAID employ, and further to investigate if Family members are involved.

I know of one Charity that has a Councillor and his partner in PAID employ and at least 2 Councillors on the board/trustees/committee that are all very good friends, I am not suggesting they break friends or anything just that Council grants should not be given until the Charity has no PAID Councillor or family member on the Charity books.

After all the fiasco about MR, surely Charity's that have PAID Councillors and family wont receive Council funding in future? or will it be a case of not learning from past mistakes.

[fred c]

I think all Councillors have a lot to learn and put in to action what MR have highlighted.

The first thing Councillors need to address is Council funding being given to Charity organizations that have PAID Councillors and Family members on the books. It simply should be in the criteria high lighting that Council funding will not be granted if a Councillor is in PAID employ, and further to investigate if Family members are involved.

I know of one Charity that has a Councillor and his partner in PAID employ and at least 2 Councillors on the board/trustees/committee that are all very good friends, I am not suggesting they break friends or anything just that Council grants should not be given until the Charity has no PAID Councillor or family member on the Charity books.

After all the fiasco about MR, surely Charity's that have PAID Councillors and family wont receive Council funding in future? or will it be a case of not learning from past mistakes.

I Can`t fault your reasoning Missy K......... i have banged the drum often enough on this issue, we should be asking "The Dear Leader" that question, i believe he works for an organisation that receives funding from HBC.

Although i beleive he is only part time at the moment, the rest of the time he is extremley busy raking in almost £24,000 a year from the ratepayers of Hartlepool.

[misinformed]

how can MRA not run like other companies... for most of us know that most companies have a strict no family members can work together.. UNLESS that of course its a FAMILY BUSINESS... but I always thought MRA was a charity which helped members of its community into work... or am I way off balance here......  always have said politics and charities cant mix for someone is bound to say "bet they got that funding because of???".. all the good work now is tarnished because of greed 

[Mr Mister]

Misinformed I know something about this..

25 years ago a lady started M.R.A. from her kitchen, she dragged her family in to help out all the time free of charge, there was no funding from H.B.C. There funding came from other sources of funding. Years later when more money was available and jobs could be created, her family members, that by then had been working at M.R.A. for years for free, then got some of them jobs, after all, they knew them jobs better than anyone.. so that's give or take how it started.

I personally think for services to M.R.A. they deserved them jobs..

It just goes pearshape when Angie takes over, sacks people, gives the jobs to her daughter who like to be a bit of a diva.. on the Manor.. lol

[The Great Dictator]

Who started it up ?

[misinformed]

Yes I remember that lady very well. Mr Mister... May she rest in peace.. only a few of her staff remain and we wonder why? ..... money and greed took over... Oh I do hope that ladies hard work that she started can survive...

edited