Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Motions to Council

Agenda Item 9) Notice of Motion - Web casting of meetings

“Openness and transparency should be at the heart of any authority. It is vital that democratically elected Councillors openly show complete transparency of the business conducted by this authority
on behalf of those who elect us.

Probably the most innovative project this and other Councils have brought forward in recent years is that of the live webcasts of full Council and committees. This superb innovation gives our electorate
the chance to see our Council at work and to observe how we come to our decisions on their behalf. This is particularly important when meetings are held in places where some residents of the Borough
cannot attend in person due to the distance and poor public transport links.

It is however vital that this medium is used in an open and transparent way and that webcasts should be viewed unhindered as any interference could bring the whole Council into disrepute.

This Council resolves that no live webcast can be ended or subsequently edited without being proposed by a member and seconded by a member at full Council or and then put to a two thirds majority vote.  This is the only democratic way to assure the residents of Cheshire West and Chester that the webcasts are open and transparent and not subject to the influence of any political party.”

Agenda item 10) Notice of Motion - Appointment of Council Leader

"This Council notes the decision taken by Council on 19th May 2011 to appoint the Leader for a four year term of office.

This Council also notes that as a result of Cllr Jones’ position as Leader of this Council his business activities have generated press coverage which has included a number of letters, front page articles in local newspapers as well as coverage in national media such as Private Eye.

This Council believes the appointment of the Leader should be decided annually as a matter of good practice to enable members to appraise the performance of the Leader and to assess the value added to the work of the Council by the post holder. In this way, Council can protect itself from the risk of reputational damage, and establish year by year that the best person holds this essential and highly visible post.

This Council also accepts that to address the many concerns expressed and to restore public confidence it is essential to hold an open and independent enquiry into the allegations made against the current Leader of the Council. It further believes  the Leader of the Council should vacate his position while this enquiry takes place."

My comment: These motions are intended for the forthcoming council meeting to be held at 6.30pm on the 26th April 2012 at Wyvern House, Winsford. 

Agenda item number 9 is a motion about the council stopping or later editing their webcast when anything they don't like crops up. It would appear They can't handle the truth and if they can't stop a speaker they will either stop their webcast or edit them later. Example from one council executive meeting here and at a later meeting those at meeting say about 20 seconds were cut including the statement "I wouldn't trust you to run a bath let alone a council." 

Agenda item 10 is a motion about the council leaders business and the council's payments to that business. More information here, here and here. Up to now the council have suggested this is a personal matter but that just doesn't ring true. If it was why did their CEO write to Private Eye about their article regarding the leader? 

Furthermore, the council has paid the leader's company under at least three different supplier codes in a number of different ways. When questioned about this at the last meeting both the CEO and leader of the council refused to answer a valid question about the issue.  

1 comment:

  1. This is also a council which sought to ban an ex-employee from exercising their statutory rights to access data and personal information under Freedom of Information and Data Protection. The ban lasted for 20 months until they finally capitulated in the face of pressure from very senior counsel.

    Which amateurish behaviour flies directly in the face of not just their written policies, but their empty proclamations to democratic process and hollow claims to openness and transparency


Please note all comments are moderated and will not be published unless they are relevant to the post in question and do not contain statements or links to material which could be considered defamatory.