“Last week the District Council cabinet decided on a new rule for Area Committees:
“The Chairman, in consultation with the lead officer, can reject a question that has been submitted by a member of the public to an Area Committee meeting if it is substantially the same as a question that has been put to a Committee meeting in the past six months”
We’re not happy with this proposal and have used our powers as councillors to ‘call it in’ to Full Council tonight.
UPDATE: 9 PM Tuesday: Despite our arguments that this a) conflicted with the council constitution and b) was wrong, it was pushed through by the Conservatives, it even threw the council into a bit of a tizzy when we insisted on (gasp!) having a vote.
Hopefully this power to reject questions will only be used as a last resort.
Absolutely right, folks. We must always preserve the potential for ‘pester-power’ as a tool of democracy. Lots of people asking the same awkweard question, over and over again, is at the heart of what it means to hold the Executive to account and to push for change.
I’ve been stopped from asking (new) questions at the last 2 CAC meetings for no clear reason, other than perhaps political advantage. These meetings must remain fully ‘open’ if they are to have any purpose at all.
What were your questions Brian?
If the questions were answered to the satisfaction of the public there would be no reason to repeat them. Responses from the committee are often vague and discussion is suppressed due to time restrictions imposed by the Chairman. Minutes are published on-line but these rarely portray the full picture, unless it is for RDC to give themselves a pat on the back when they get something right.
I agree fully with Paul on this.
Admin: the first question was blocked before it could be asked but I was trying to ask the ECC Highways Manager about the increased volumes on the B1013 arising from the Core Strategy and what could be done about it under ‘localism’. This was stopped midway with the explanation that “we are not discussing THAT tonight”. I assume that was to stop any discussion about the impact the Core Strategy.
The 2nd occasion was really quite bizzare. The Chief Exec of Southend Hospital, John Gilham, had made a presentation during which he specifically invited me to ask a question on the adverse impact of the Urgent Care Centre on the hospital (an issue he and I had previously discussed). This was stopped by the chair as “being too complicated and too late”. To his credit John insisted on replying in about 2 minutes. By way of background there were just 6 people in the audience, of whom I was the only person to ask a question, and the meeting finished around 9:00pm.
So much for open debate!
This is exactly what worries Rayleigh Town Council and Rawreth Parish Council when we asked the District to look into the relevance of the West Area commitee to the council tax payers .We are both concerned that the meeting is losing its way ,that issues are not always publically aired .Both myself and the chairman of the town council recieved written replies to questions asked at the end of the last meeting so denying any public scrutiny of the answers.I have said before there is far too little debate and interest shown by some Councillors , maybe a surfeit of meetings for some is meaning that this meeting is one they could do without. It needs more public participation not less – nthe subjects discussed take too big a proportion of the allotted time so reducing the real issues to an appendix .
To put the record very straight, something the Liberal-Disingenuees running this site apparently find extremely difficult it seems, the referral to RDC Full Council last night was answered very fully.
I will reply to some misinformed comments on this site because the original suggestion regarding the amendment of procedures for questions at Area Meetings came from me, as current East Area Committee Chairman.
This followed the placing of very similar questions by a particular individual and (at his instigation) by a other irregular cohorts in his organisation attending the East Area Committee meeting at the vast majority of those meetings held in the last thirty or so months since they were introduced. The prime purpose of those questions appeared to have been the generation of publicity for that individual and his organisation’s fundamental cause (which incidentally I believe is basically otherwise a worthy one). However, those repeated questions have wasted a great deal of Officer time and cost, actual and/or opportunity, often in even extracting a question from a lengthy and rambling monologue.
In these circumstances, I believe it reasonable to allow the Area Chairman, in consultation with the lead Officer attending and having identified that it is similar from the record of the previous six months questions brought by that Officer, to refuse another such question.
I stress that the operative word is ‘CAN’ refuse not ‘WILL’; and also that throughout the life of the East Area Committee to date, whether in its first and current third year under my Chairmanship or its second year under Cllr Trevor Goodwin, has never in my recollection failed to allow members of the public attending to question or comment informally on ALL other items on the meeing agenda once the protocol has first been observed of Committee Members discussing that matter in formal session.
I and other East Area Committee Members (which include RDC Leader Terry Cutmore) have always considered this a good means of extracting full value from interaction with the Public at Area meetings.
During the Council meeting last night our Officer, John Honey, Corporate Director, confirmed that the change was Constitutional and that it is a valid procedural change to the Public Forum, which is an informal public session. RDC Leader Terry Cutmore had earlier indentified it as a possible change suggested within a Review Committee Report (Chaired by Lib-Dem Cllr June Lumley (who’s husband Chris was one of the Councillors that referred it to Full Council last night!!)
All the above was very clearly and fully explained to Cllr Black (the only mover of the three referring Lib-Dems in attendance last night) and Cllr Oatham, both during and again after the meeting last night, so it is extremely disappointing to see the distinctly mealy mouthed update which appeared here.
I trust that the above will inform readers of the true reason and purpose of the minimal change to informal Public Forum procedure at Area Committee meetings, and dispel any negative views on the democratic intent and integrity of RDC Members and Officers in general and my own in particular.
It is a provision which I sincerely hope that I and future Area Chairmen will extremely rarely be given sufficiently repetitious cause to invoke, even in these ever more straightened financial times, but it is a sad fact that the abuse by the few of facilities provided for the benefit of the many all too frequently results in the necessity to provide for such POTENTIAL restrictions.
regards
Cllr Colin Seagers, Chairman RDC East Area Committee
I hope that Terry Cutmore sees this reaction and replies without the heavy political sarcasm that we endured last night. Fancy someone actually daring to criticise the EXECUTIVE!!
The tories of course voted en masse as ordered
Colin, thanks for your comments, you are always welcome here, even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree.
Regarding the Review Committee report, what was passed last night seems to go a bit further.
And even so, if something is proposed by the Review Committee, and the Executive each councillor should still be entitled to their own opinion and vote and speak accordingly. Don’t you agree?
Looking at the issue itself, you have conscientiously laid out why you think you need this power to refuse questions. But is it really going to help you in practise – won’t a ‘difficult customer’ normally find their way around this, and if they really are asking the same question surely isn’t it easy to answer it?
According to the minutes three out of the last four East Area Committees finished before 9 pm, so although it may be frustrating to get similar questions, is it really delaying things so much?
Hopefully, other chairman will not abuse this new power (although you can see the comments above from someone about fresh questions being refused at Centtral Area),
We note that the Leader of the Council could allow ordinary councillors to speak at meetings of the Executive – though that virtually never happens. If it did happen then issues like this might have been handled more amicably!
“To put the record very straight, something the Liberal-Disingenuees running this site apparently find extremely difficult it seems,”
In response to the above comments as a local resident and someone without any strong political view at all I really value the “liberal-Disingenuees” that run this site! They seem from my perspective to care deeply about local people and local views. I don’t fully understand issues about local/central/east and west area committees or the finer details of constitutions. However what most local people are interested in is finding out about what is going on in their community and how to make a positive and practical difference in that community. Issues such as medical care, traffic, planning, licensing, antisocial beahaviour etc etc. All these issues are covered in an informative way on this website and allow local people to know how to have a voice! Worrying I couldn’t ask a question in case it had been asked before will stifle the public voice.
Thank you to the very genuine people who run this very informative site
Colin, thank you for putting your side of the story, which I read with interest. I would also like to comment but firstly would assure you that I have no Liberal connections, although I do agree with the above comments testifying to the way this site is run so well.
You state that you and Terry Cutmore “have always considered this a good means of extracting full value from interaction with the Public at Area meetings”. With respect, have you asked your ‘customers’ if they agree?
I am a regular at the CAC and probably regarded as a pain in the backside for asking questions, so I can understand why efforts are being made to silence me. However, it is not just me. At the last CAC, one gentleman, an obvious newcomer with no ties I am aware of, tried to ask his question (on a new and valid issue)but was repeatedly interrupted by the chair. It took an intervention by Keith Hudson, to his credit, to even get the question heard.
The number of people Area Committees is steadily declining and about 6 seems the average number for CAC (except when there is a big issue). I have attended just one EAC, when my questions were dealt with courteously, but there was just one person from the East area in the audience and no repeat questions!
The HOCKLEY Area Action Plan was presented at the meeting in HULLBRIDGE, so no wonder the ongoing complaints no one knew about it. It is also obvious that questions are being avoided using the written answers as previously mentioned above.
Democracy needs to be seen to be working and I fear that silencing repeat questions is the first step in increasing sensorship – how long before regular questioners are prohibited? I would suggest, Colin, that the Area Committees are not working and RDC should conduct a full review.
I would appreciate your views – I’m sure OnlineFOCUS will publish them.
Thanks to Deanne and Brian for the above comments.
Brian, your comments are exceedingly timely as tonight the “Charter Implementaion Group” on RDC will discussing how to improve public attendance at area committees, and Chris is one of the councillors attending. Your comments may well be read out in full….
Thanks Chris, I wasn’t aware of tonight’s meeting but glad if I can help. A few other points:
One procedural matter you may care to raise is the fact that the previous minutes are not published, except to the committee. The audience has to sit in bemused silence whilst they are agreed. This creates an ‘us and them’ situation, means there is no continuity for the audience and hinders ongoing matters being resolved.
I do accept Colin’s point about lengthy questions – I may even be guilty! – so perhaps a reasonable time limit on questions (including those from the top table) would be a better way of focussing on the real issues?
Finally, most of the CAC’s audience regularly seem to come from Hockley but Hockley (and Rayleigh – the biggest centre) get the fewest meetings. More CAC meetings are held in Rochford than Hockley (due to a boundary quirk!). A better balance is required. I did raise this as an issue at a CAC some months ago but it was buried in a written answer and not discussed. I am sure Keith Hudson will not mind me saying that he expressed similar views at the last CAC.
Good luck.
I believe that Rochford District Council have lost all credibility. The ruling Council want no resident interaction or participation and only allow the area meetings so that they can demonstrate a form of democracy, even though they will not allow a question to be repeated. I could not believe what I was reading on this website, delivered by a well known Councillor delivering sarcastic comments. Well done to the editors of Onlinefocus for allowing those comments to be recorded. The Councillor in question should be ashamed of himself and give the editors and the contributors of this site an apology but I wont hold my breath!
Pure pedantry: The OED defines ‘ingénue’ as ‘An artless, innocent girl or young woman’. So presumably a ‘disingénue’ would be a not so artless, innocent girl or young woman. And the plural would be a group of such people (disregarding for a moment the spare ‘e’).
So to my question (it has not been asked before, I’m fairly sure): Who are these not-so-artless or innocent girls or young women who are running this web site? I think we should be told!!
Sid, the council do not have any respect for the residents of this district. They are disdainful and treat us with a total disrespect of the sort I have not come across previously and I have lived in some London boroughs where you would not be surprised to have this sort of conduct produced by local Councillors. However their day will come, when we will be governed by a large authority and those playing their games will be out of a postion of influence. As I said previously I rue the day that we are governed by people who really do not know us, but there is only one party to blame. I despair at their attitude, it is not an easy life, being a Councillor I would think, but the one thing that must stick in your brain is ‘local people’s needs’ and I really and truthfully do not think that RDC have this thought in anything they do? ‘What could have been will never probably be’. So much for their big pay rises!