Internationalist approach at H.B.C.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Yeah...but it's the Telegraph bit. A pity their reporter did not pick up on the story of the council launching it's foreign policy initiative.

What I don't understand is that an Observer reporter was sat there, Tweeting the proceedings, and missed the significance of what they were doing.

Whoosh.

If I'd have been fit, and had been at this meeting as planned, after being invited, perhaps me taking my shoes off to throw at them, and shouting abuse, might have alerted him to the fact there was quite a newsworthy, and important story here.

Originally Posted by garinda

Can't find the minutes online...just yet.

Just the Observer's Twitter feed.

StuartPike78:
Motion from #HBC Coun Allah Dad on atrocities in Kashmir. [via Twitter]
9:01
StuartPike78:
#HBC Cllr Britcliffe says proud to support integrity of Kashmir. [via Twitter]

9:02
StuartPike78:
#HBC Coun Nick Collingridge says motion not balanced and need someone from Indian community to speak for them. [via Twitter]

9:04
StuartPike78:
#HBC Cllr M Dad proposes amendment supporting self determination and the people of Kashmir in Hyndburn. [via Twitter]

9:05
StuartPike78:
#HBC Everyone getting very hot under the collar about motions and amendments. [via Twitter]

9:10
StuartPike78:
#HBC amendment passed. [via Twitter]

Replay: Hyndburn council meeting | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

[cashman]

Well wi the weight Britcliffe carries among his minions,can understand the tories voting fer it, as hes proud to support it. cannot understand labour supporting this n then not having the strength of conviction to comment on this matter, i find that very spineless.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

Well wi the weight Britcliffe carries among his minions,can understand the tories voting fer it, as hes proud to support it. cannot understand labour supporting this n then not having the strength of conviction to comment on this matter, i find that very spineless.

I'm just itching to get my hands on the minutes of the meeting, so we can see who voted for this very one sided resolution.

[accyman]

Originally Posted by cashman

Well wi the weight Britcliffe carries among his minions,can understand the tories voting fer it, as hes proud to support it. cannot understand labour supporting this n then not having the strength of conviction to comment on this matter, i find that very spineless.

seems a common trait in local and national politics

[gynn]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'm just itching to get my hands on the minutes of the meeting, so we can see who voted for this very one sided resolution.

I'm afraid the minutes won't show how each named councillor voted, unless it was a "recorded" vote which is only taken in exceptional circumstances, or if individual councillors requested that their vote be minuted against the motion.

The twitter reports make no reference to either of the above happening at the meeting, so it is likely the minutes will just blandly report the resolution.

It is for individual councillors to come on here and tell us how and why they and/or their colleagues voted. Otherwise they will have the cloak of anonymity around them.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by gynn

I'm afraid the minutes won't show how each named councillor voted, unless it was a "recorded" vote which is only taken in exceptional circumstances, or if individual councillors requested that their vote be minuted against the motion.

The twitter reports make no reference to either of the above happening at the meeting, so it is likely the minutes will just blandly report the resolution.

It is for individual councillors to come on here and tell us how and why they and/or their colleagues voted. Otherwise they will have the cloak of anonymity around them.

Ah thanks.

Would who voted for this resolution have been recorded though?

So the information could be aquired under a F.O.I. request?

[gynn]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ah thanks.

Would who voted for this resolution have been recorded though?

So the information could be aquired under a F.O.I. request?

Unfortunately not. If he/she sees more hands go up for the motion than against, the mayor declares the motion carried and moves on to the next item.

Which in this case was dog fouling. Appropriate? You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Yeah...but it's the Telegraph bit. A pity their reporter did not pick up on the story of the council launching it's foreign policy initiative.

Do ya think that HBC didn't want us plebs to know about them giving support, on our behalf, for the Kashmiri question, think they should have had a referendum on the issue, but on second thoughts better not to go there

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

What I don't understand is that an Observer reporter was sat there, Tweeting the proceedings, and missed the significance of what they were doing.

Whoosh.

If I'd have been fit, and had been at this meeting as planned, after being invited, perhaps me taking my shoes off to throw at them, and shouting abuse, might have alerted him to the fact there was quite a newsworthy, and important story here.

Sounds like hes at twit to me

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by gynn

I'm afraid the minutes won't show how each named councillor voted, unless it was a "recorded" vote which is only taken in exceptional circumstances, or if individual councillors requested that their vote be minuted against the motion.

The twitter reports make no reference to either of the above happening at the meeting, so it is likely the minutes will just blandly report the resolution.

It is for individual councillors to come on here and tell us how and why they and/or their colleagues voted. Otherwise they will have the cloak of anonymity around them.

Ya if I remember rightly gynn the vote is only recorded if a number of councillors, is it three?? stand in support of the proposer, other wise it just say was pasted by either a unanimous or majority decision, in the case of a majority I don't think it even states the vote for and against although I could be wrong on that point

[gynn]

Originally Posted by jaysay

in the case of a majority I don't think it even states the vote for and against although I could be wrong on that point

Spot on, jaysay. The minutes will just say the motion was agreed.

[Tealeaf]

According to the agenda for the council meeting held on November 10th, the Kashmir motion was one of four submitted under council procedure rule A9. The details of procedure A9 can be found here:

http://www.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/downloa...e_Rules_2_.pdf

For those of you who do not wish to read through it all, A9.2 reads as follows:

Scope:

Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect
Hyndburn.

That is it. There is nothing further.

My question is how this motion passed can in any way whatsoever relate to council responsibility or affecting Hyndburn. The simple answer is it does not on either count. It seems to me therefore, that the council in passing this resolution have not only exceeded their remit, made the borough a laughing stock, wasted council tax payers money and resources but have in fact acted unconstitutionally in doing so. Arguably, the motion cannot stand; any attempt to reiterate its legality can now only be met by referral to a higher authority, such as the local government ombudsman.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

According to the agenda for the council meeting held on November 10th, the Kashmir motion was one of four submitted under council procedure rule A9. The details of procedure A9 can be found here:

http://www.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/downloa...e_Rules_2_.pdf

For those of you who do not wish to read through it all, A9.2 reads as follows:

Scope:

Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect
Hyndburn.

That is it. There is nothing further.

My question is how this motion passed can in any way whatsoever relate to council responsibility or affecting Hyndburn. The simple answer is it does not on either count. It seems to me therefore, that the council in passing this resolution have not only exceeded their remit, made the borough a laughing stock, wasted council tax payers money and resources but have in fact acted unconstitutionally in doing so. Arguably, the motion cannot stand; any attempt to reiterate its legality can now only be met by referral to a higher authority, such as the local government ombudsman.

Wonder if it would be worth it to refer it to the ombudsman to see what happens and whether it is illegal

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Scope:

Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect
Hyndburn.

That is it. There is nothing further.

My question is how this motion passed can in any way whatsoever relate to council responsibility or affecting Hyndburn. The simple answer is it does not on either count. It seems to me therefore, that the council in passing this resolution have not only exceeded their remit, made the borough a laughing stock, wasted council tax payers money and resources but have in fact acted unconstitutionally in doing so. Arguably, the motion cannot stand; any attempt to reiterate its legality can now only be met by referral to a higher authority, such as the local government ombudsman.

The Local Government Ombudsman considers complaints against the Council "that have caused injustice to the complainant" and only becomes involves as a last resort when the Council's own procedures have been exhausted.

The Council has a procedure in place that should be used to review the resolution on Kashmir - the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This seems a perfect case for O and S to review if it is felt the Council passed a resolution without being in full possession of the facts, or acted outside its terms of reference.

We are lucky to have the Chairman of one of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees as a regular contributor to this forum.

What is your view, Ken?

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by gynn

What is your view, Ken?

I don't think we'll hear 'owt from Ken, Gynn. He's done a runner from this forum, as have all the elected politico's who previously posted on here. Now they're in office, they simply can't stand the heat.