Full Council Meeting - 14th September

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

He would have had a hell of a say in it though and given the expected nature of tonight's meeting and the likely outcomes it all rings true. Peter Britcliffe really does need replacing as Leader of the Council, how can behaviour like this be either democratic or good for the borough?

Vote any way but blue, every Conservative vote is de facto a vote to retain him as Leader.

But the Council's Constitution is there to protect against one party or one individual acting against due process.

It seems perfectly reasonable to postpone a meeting out of respect for the death of a colleague, but it is unreasonable to postpone it for more than one or two weeks.

The questions to which the Managing Director should be asked to provide a written reply are:

1. Why, specifically, have you cancelled Tuesday night's meeting of the Council?

1. Was custom and practice followed, according to paragraph 4.3.2 of the Council's Constitution, in that the Mayor, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition were consulted on the cancellation of Tuesday's meeting.

2. If not, what were the special circumstances that prevented custom and practice being followed?

3. Why has the meeting been cancelled, rather than postponed to a date one or two weeks hence?

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by gynn

But the Council's Constitution is there to protect against one party or one individual acting against due process.

It seems perfectly reasonable to postpone a meeting out of respect for the death of a colleague, but it is unreasonable to postpone it for more than one or two weeks.

The questions to which the Managing Director should be asked to provide a written reply are:

1. Why, specifically, have you cancelled Tuesday night's meeting of the Council?

1. Was custom and practice followed, according to paragraph 4.3.2 of the Council's Constitution, in that the Mayor, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition were consulted on the cancellation of Tuesday's meeting.

2. If not, what were the special circumstances that prevented custom and practice being followed?

3. Why has the meeting been cancelled, rather than postponed to a date one or two weeks hence?

Bless you, my child.

You're talking as if the current Leader of the Council pays any heed to the document. The Constitution is merely an irritating itch that happens to double as an outsize doorstop. Any uncomfortable points within are rewritten to suit his personal needs.

I understand that we're due a monster council meeting on 7th December which is likely to go on for about 8 hours, by which time everyone will be far too knackered to argue points properly and it will be even more of a panto than usual. Peter probably also hopes he will have won a by-election by then, evening out the numbers a bit.

In theory, your questions are right and proper but they will be wriggled out of. An almost guaranteed comeback will be along the lines of Labour having no respect for the deceased, something which is certainly not true in Cllr Griffiths' case as no one has ever had a seriously bad word to say about him from either side of the fence.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

An almost guaranteed comeback will be along the lines of Labour having no respect for the deceased, something which is certainly not true in Cllr Griffiths' case as no one has ever had a seriously bad word to say about him from either side of the fence.

If you got that as a written reply from the Managing Director, you would be straight on to the External Auditors!

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Bless you, my child.

And if I may say it, that's a very patronising response from a relatively new Councillor to someone who worked in local government for over 30 years, many of them in senior management!

[accysimon]

Originally Posted by cashman

oh seems ya want a mindreader? either that or yer stirring again?

How am I stirring it? Almost everyone else on here has said that he may well have lost any vote in a Full Council, so the cabinet could use emergency powers to force issues through.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by gynn

And if I may say it, that's a very patronising response from a relatively new Councillor to someone who worked in local government for over 30 years, many of them in senior management!

My apologies if you've taken offence, but it's only taken me about three months to discover that if Peter Britcliffe wants something then it happens, regardless of the Constitution. It rankles me that our council is run this way, particularly as there were several items due to be debated on the agenda tonight which would have been to the benefit of the whole borough.

Your questions have already been raised, I'm merely pre-empting the responses that I know we're going to get. In a true democracy they wouldn't need to be asked at all.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Your questions have already been raised, I'm merely pre-empting the responses that I know we're going to get. In a true democracy they wouldn't need to be asked at all.

No offence taken, but I am as irritated as you about the way the Council is run, whilst proclaiming itself to be excellent.

I am merely pointing out that there are protections built in to local government to deal with one individual assuming too much power.

Put the Managing Director on the spot. And if you are still not satisfied, contact the External Auditors. Believe me, it will have an effect!

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by gynn

Yes, but Peter Britcliffe isn't the Managing Director. He is merely a consultee, and has no more right to single handedly cancel the meeting than the Mayor or Leader of the Opposition.

I agree with you entirely that Peter Britcliffe is merely a consultee, but what Peter wants Peter gets. The problem is that council officers due everything that Peter wants, even when it goes contrary to democracy in the borough.

This is the 2nd time this year that a Full council meeting has been cancelled at short notice. The Leader of the Labour Group was consulted in advance about the previous meeting (which was the AGM) and even put forward a perfectly reasonable solution to the Mayor (Paul Barton) being unable to attend (which meant the Tories would only have been one member down) by Graham Jones pairing with the Mayor and not attending. However this offer was not accepted as the Tories also had 1 member on holiday and would have only had 15 members present to Labours 13 and the Independents 3 (+Malcolm Pritchard).

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by gynn

No offence taken, but I am as irritated as you about the way the Council is run, whilst proclaiming itself to be excellent.

I am merely pointing out that there are protections built in to local government to deal with one individual assuming too much power.

Put the Managing Director on the spot. And if you are still not satisfied, contact the External Auditors. Believe me, it will have an effect!

You're right, and it may well come to that.I sincerely hope it doesn't,and that common sense prevails.But you would simply not believe whats going on.

[Tealeaf]

I'm suprised the LT and Observer have not yet picked up on this story. It would appear from the available evidence that this is a case of at best, political manouvering in order to avoid embarrassing critisism and possible defeat and at worse, manipulation and abuse of town hall power.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by gynn

No offence taken, but I am as irritated as you about the way the Council is run, whilst proclaiming itself to be excellent.

I am merely pointing out that there are protections built in to local government to deal with one individual assuming too much power.

Put the Managing Director on the spot. And if you are still not satisfied, contact the External Auditors. Believe me, it will have an effect!

I've just had my reply and the procedures have been followed to the letter by the council officials and the Mayor.

An attempt to reschedule the council meeting for next week failed to reach a mutual agreement so the decision was taken by senior officials to hold everything over until December.

Miles Parkinson wanted it next week, so make your own mind up as to who didn't.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I've just had my reply and the procedures have been followed to the letter by the council officials and the Mayor.

An attempt to reschedule the council meeting for next week failed to reach a mutual agreement so the decision was taken by senior officials to hold everything over until December.

Miles Parkinson wanted it next week, so make your own mind up as to who didn't.

But why december? sure thats a relevant question?

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by cashman

But why december? sure thats a relevant question?

My dear Cashy, it's both relevant and important to the borough, would be an extremely popular move for whoever got it sorted out and reflect very badly on Peter Britcliffe for buggering it up in the first place.

Why admit defeat so publicly when he can just press ahead with his tyrannical plans to completely ruin Hyndburn?

The brass plaque will still be there in 12 months even if the traders aren't, so who cares?

[garinda]

There were tons of cars parked on the pavement, outside the Town Hall this afternoon.

I pondered if they were a protest, left by the market traders.

I was a little unsure, so didn't mount their barricades, in an act of solidarity...just yet.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I've just had my reply and the procedures have been followed to the letter by the council officials and the Mayor.

An attempt to reschedule the council meeting for next week failed to reach a mutual agreement so the decision was taken by senior officials to hold everything over until December.

Miles Parkinson wanted it next week, so make your own mind up as to who didn't.

So it's not just Peter you are up against!

Because next week is not possible, the meeting is held over for 3 months. What about the week after next or the week after that?

The Mayor must be a very busy man!