The post you are reporting:
I too was only commenting based on the question that Reg was bringing over at the meeting, as presented on the thread, and from a neutrtal point of view.
My point of view is that the complex elements that Reg is bringing over require quite some time to be understood, and would have to be presented on paper so that the Council members could read through them carefully and several times. Obviously 3 minutes are not enough, which justifies Mrs. Nicholas' decision.
Reg has brought up the subject of a unitary various times, including a letter in a local newspaper, and rightly deserves an answer to his proposals from the competent authorities.
I'd suggest Reg presents his proposals in script to the Council.
Another alternative would be to formulate the question as follows: "would it be better to have an East Kent unitary council service?", without necessarily attempting to explain in 3 minutes what a unitary is, as the destinataries of the question most probably already know.
At this point, however, if the answer is no, then it is no. It's pointless trying to make a publicity case out of it.
Reg's proposals imply the axing of many Council administrative posts, probably at Distirict and County level, which brings the whole topic into a constitutional dimension, and quite clearly Reg needs to be patient and realise that his views cannot be fully grasped in three minutes.
The reference to the BBC, health trusts, the Police and businesses in Reg's question further complicates the matter, and in my view bears no correlation to how Councils are run, and again justifies the chairman's decision, as the question, with all possible preambles, backgrounds and supplementaries, goes beyond the meeting's legal capacity.
I reckon Reg should call it a day with his complaint, and possibly write an e-book on the topic of an East Kent unitary.