Tuesday, 2 June 2015

Knowle relocation project: extraordinary District Council meeting >>> Wednesday 3rd June >>> conversation on Streetlife continues...

Some 10 days ago, a conversation started on the social media site Streetlife:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: extraordinary District Council meeting >>> Wednesday 3rd June >>> conversation on Streetlife

It has continued to date:

They'll need a bigger chamber.

Pining Lass
Isn't this libel?
“We have already consulted with our staff, but we are happy to debate the relocation in further detail at the request of councillors who have been elected on this single issue, which was part of their manifesto commitment.”

What proof does he have that councillors were 'elected on this single issue.' ? Certainly the leopard is not changing his spots!
Pining Lass
So it depends on whether he made a written or spoken communication to the Herald. Whichever, I think he is out of order.
Meaningful staff consultation should be interesting. A neighbour told me the consultation consisted of one question in a named survey. If that's true it's disgraceful.
Real Sidmouthian
This is another waste of time. I can write the script now if you like....The 15 Cllrs who requested the extraordinary meeting will say how dreadful it is, what a waste of money it is, blah, blah etc, etc. and the 37 Conservatives plus a few Lib Dems from Exmouth who all love the idea will vote against them.
Pining Lass
Ah, the script!
We may well be able to anticipate the outcome but the interest is in the script/dialogue. If the conversation happens properly we must hope that interesting facts are uncovered which puts a whole new slant on things.

It may even be that some of the returned councillors find that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes previously by 'selective' use of information :-)
Liz S
I personally want to hear those scripts again so that I can be sure which "old" councillors are still on message and will not change and which are prepared to have a real debate. I also want to know the views of new Conservative councillors who have come fresh to the debate. If all Tories all vote together this early on we will know that we are back to "same old" right from the start.

I also notice that they want to debate what the judge said about the Freedom of Information case and I want to see how they wriggle out of responsibility for being "discourteous and unhelpful" and saying that they didn't have legible copies of some documents when legible documents later (much later?) turned up.

So, all in all, I am pleased they did this.
By the Byes
Here's a dialogue "opener".
New councillors call for the vote relating to the sale of the Knowle be declared null and void. As very few were in possession of the facts when it was taken, it can't in any way have been democratic, can it?
Real Sidmouthian
Democracy has nothing to do with knowing all the facts. One is representation, the other is knowledge!
By the Byes
I didn't suggest that it was RS.
However, for a vote to be taken when:
a) few people knew all the facts, or
b) were even aware that they did not have full possession of the facts, makes a mockery of the voting/democratic process.

The point is now somewhat obsolete, as hopefully the process of holding this all up for six months will be achieved at the extraordinary meeting next Wednesday.
With good fortune, this massive waste of public money can still be averted.
Peter Sullivan
By the Byes  And how much more money will this now waste, the democratic process has all ready taken place, and I voted against, but will respect the process as it was done legally. If some councillors couldn't be bothered to attend all the confidential briefings that is their problem.
Liz S
Isn't it now time we all stopped flogging this dead horse and let Peter get used to a life outside local politics?
Peter Sullivan
Liz S No I'm absolutely loving it, and why would I want a life out of politics, you do not have to be a councillor to be involved.
Real Sidmouthian
By the B. It's not going to be held up for six months! If you think so you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The 37 strong majority group along with many Lib Dems will simply vote against the few independents. It's simple arithmetic.
Barnacle Bill
RS is correct.

Isn't it time to let this project move on without putting further, money draining, obstacles in the way?

I am now beginning to think that money spent on dealing with these various objections is tending to outweigh the kudos being sought by these various 'barrack room' lawyers from SOS.
Liz S
You mean brush all EDDC's misdemeanours under the carpet - again. No, these deaings are greater than this one project but, through this, they need to learn that they can't push us around any more or hide what they want to hide.

EDDC relies on ordinary people to get fed up of dealing with them and they need to learn many lessons from how this has been handled. You can brush and look the other way, but others (thankfully) won't.

I, for one, remember the major scandals about EDDC from the 1990's involving then Councillor Roy Stuart and his mate then Councillor Graham Brown - both still around and many of the current councillors were also around then. EDDC learned nothing then and just carried on regardless. Now, with the internet, these transgressions can be brought to a wider audience, and this is what should happen..
Emma C
Peter S, you claim that councillors should have attended the confidential briefings if they wanted to be informed. However, in the run-up to the election, you stated in a different discussion "I do not know why you think that access to [the 'confidential' reports relating to the Knowle] are (sic) available to myself or any other councillor for that matter."

Sounds to me like attendance at these confidential briefings made no difference whatsoever, as all councillors had the evidence withheld from them, according to you. Being informed was restricted to a small clique (who, incidentally, then spent significantly more than £1000 trying to keep things that way).
Peter Sullivan
Emma you are talking about two different items,the internal reports and the confidential meetings.
Emma C
Peter, I am aware that they are two different things.  To be clear, I am saying that the facts and figures (i.e. the evidence on which councillors should be making decisions) were contained within reports to which you have said councillors were not given access. If you have not seen and evaluated this evidence for yourself, councillors could not make an informed decision when voting, no matter whether they had attended these meetings or not. 
You cannot blame councillors for not being fully informed, as you have tried to do, when it is the raw numbers (inappropriately withheld from you) that are key to being informed. Or do you think it is OK for the council leadership to expect its members simply to 'take our word for it' on such a major decision?
Barnacle Bill
Oh don't get me wrong Liz S - I was very pleased that the EDA Independents made so many gains at the recent elections - sadly not enough. I'm all for a change, especially when the incumbents were getting so arrogant.

I'm getting a bit fed up with it all now and, as I said, tending towards the train of thought they should get on with it and move without any more costly obstacles being laid in their path. Just my opinion - or one that is being formed at least.

Too many interesting things going on elsewhere for me to get so intense over this!
By the Byes
BB, I still fervently believe that moving will be a huge waste of money, so huge that even they admit it'll take 20 years to get back in the black. On that basis, and the likelihood that EDDC may not exist in a few years, they should just stay where they are.
So, my apologies if I/we keep on banging this particular drum, but I've no intention of putting my drumsticks away just yet!

Streetlife | They'll need a bigger chamber.

No comments: