Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Hundreds of people out of jobs...
Reduced of local control....
People more overstretched than they already are...
Extremely mixed priorites - successful city, struggling coastal towns, conflicting cross channel route, rival airports...
People in Thanet making decisions about what happens on the Kent border....
All good stuff eh ?
Shared services have yet to prove themselves properly as some are starting to fall apart and others failing to get off the ground
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
..or what Peter says and just an example of another person thinking they know better than everyone else and think they are a voice for the district....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Reg, what you propose is an inverse trend to decentralisation, namely to centralise administrative offices so they cover larger areas.
Less officers would mean less overview on what goes on, and this could lead to errors of judgment in decision making.
Officers have to ensure that correct procedures remain in place when councillors make decisions within their own area.
To give an example,what interest would Thanet have in DTIZ development, or Dover District in Thanet's internal requirements?
The ancient Greek Polis was structured in such away that the civic administraion covered a town and the surrounding countryside. Each to their own. We must move on, we can't become fossilised in unitarian disputes.
Occasionally one has to turn the record over.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
"Reg, if I want to ask questions of councillors I do it face to face or send them emails. Unless it's something specifically relating to an agenda item I wouldn't waste everyone's time by speaking at a council meeting, unless I was just grandstanding of course....."
I thought the above from Peter summed everything up very nicely and it is what I would do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
The difference was that Reg wanted to address the whole Council - all the Councillors who were in attendance that is.
My view is that less is more: more notice would have been taken if the question was clear and to the point, rather than the preamble.
I share Scotchie's view at the moment, nothing has convinced me of the complete benefits of a Unitary for East Kent - shared services by all means, but some of those don't work as successfully as they might, because each local authority has their own agenda - which is natural that they would have.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think some are either missing the point completely(maybe deliberatly) ? or don't wish to face the issue at hand.
Getting back to democracy, if any other member of the public was treated in the way that Reg was treated there would be uproar.
The are dangers here that need heeding;
1; the council is one of many tools that can be used to call people to account
2; The question in this instance was put and officers(not of any legal background)
decided it would not be heard (surely cllrs should decided that?)
3; If this case is put on the shelf never to see the light of day, how many other
ordinary members of the public just give up and not bother
4; I'm all for encouraging the public to participate, this latest move by the
officer led council is a backward step.
I agree with chris p on this one, it would have been quicker to hear the question
than all this fall out,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Here is a good one, with Keith and I in complete agreement.
What people are forgetting here is that personal opinions on the question to be asked, or the principal on which it is based, do not matter. The important fact here is the right of an individual to be heard by his elected representatives.
It is all very well going to an individual councillor with your views and I hope that all of us, at whatever level of local government, are prepared to listen to peoples views and take them to council where appropriate. There is however a very important 'but' here, no individual councillor at any level, including MP, can speak for the whole council unless the matter has been first put before the whole council. That some councillors and even some council employees (officers) choose to do so is neither here nor there, they do not have the democratic right to do so. All they can really do is to offer suggestions, relay agreed council policy or promise to take the matter up with the council. Personally I hope most go for the latter.
No council should ever consider it a waste of time to hear the views of a member of the electorate and if they do they are failing in their duty and should be replaced. In a perfect world every councillor will have read his agenda fully, as well as all supporting documents, before a meeting but in the real world this does not happen. All too often you will see councillors looking at them for the first time as the meetings start. This is the reason the electorate have three minutes to speak and that is why they should be heard.
An officers job is to carry out the decisions of the council, advise on legality, offer advice WHEN ASKED and put the decisions into practice. It is the elected councils duty to make policy and make decisions. From the sound of it here those distinctions have become very blurred.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I agree with the principle of what you are saying Chris and I did say in my last posting that Reg wanted to address the whole Council.
My point is that no one was stopping democracy, no one was stopping a question being asked, but the point of a supplementary question, is that it is a follow-on question, not a follow-on preamble/statement and then a question at the end of it.
If Reg has asked his supplementary without the preamble, there would have been no problem.
I've seen it often enough; Councillors themselves know the procedure, but some of them still give a preamble/statement and wonder why the Chairman is asking where the question is.
Roger
Again, I need to point out that so many local reps become process driven and lose sight of their purpose, which is local representation of people. Of all people I appreciate the need for process, but it is there for a reason, and to support systems, not drive them. If one remembers the purpose of the council and the purpose of interface with the public it becomes clear that process is there simply to support that and not lead it.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
The question could be, "are you going to put a concrete block on the piece of land?"
The report could be, the piece of land has been derelict for thirty years with no dwelling or agricultural usage.
The preamble could be, families have used this land as a pathway for the last twenty years to avoid taking their children alongside a busy road used by heavy vehicles.
Straight away there are two very different meanings to the question. I still maintain that if you are not prepared to listen to the preamble you are not really paying attention to the question.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
CHRIS P;
I'm becoming increasingly concerned lol that i agree with all that you say lol
with regard to full council i think we should take reg out of the discussion and look at it from the point of view of a member of the public who has no idea of procedures but gone to the trouble of raising his concerns to what he/she believes will be a council that will listen.
That member of public may well have a very bad view of governments and local councils, but made an effort to put his case in the belief that the cllrs he elected are running the council.
if this member of the public is treated the way reg was this will be just another person swiched off from local/national politics
and thats sad
its hard enough to get people involved as it is
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
It is known that members of the public are indeed treated like this and I know people who have been treated so. And they were not in the business of making political points, but were raising pertinent and important questions about, among other things, the policing and the protection of Dover and its citizens. They were seeking clarity and answers, not point scoring.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Bern;
i'm not sure who is raising political issues,
There are some concerns within all of this and from posters this is not the first time we see members of the public treated this way.
In a council that promotes open ness in its policies, it appears they are falling short.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Nothing should stand in the way of democracy.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
It sounds as if process has become more important than the people who are supposed to be represented by the council. Over time organizations can build up a level of complexity that means those outside the organization are removed from access to those who are supposed to be accountable to them , and the process of being heard can devolve into a series of jumps and hoops that have to be negotiated . The tail truely begins to wag the dog .
And I think that is exactly what has happened locally, if I am honest.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Sounds very much the case,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
Er, what was the question again?
I presume the eminently sane and sensible Cause Is Altered-supporting Chris Precious was alluding to The Crypt, re 'piece of land has been derelict for thirty years with no dwelling or agricultural usage'?
Although, arguably, The Crypt has been agricultural since its sad demise as recently as 1976.
Bit of a bugbear of mine, The Crypt, to say the very least...
Berni Inns and compulsory purchase orders all round,
Andy
tweet @causeisaltered
Follow at #causeisaltered
Facebook group: 'The Cause Is Altered'.
SALVE DUBRIS!
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
I'm sure Scochie will be able to confirm, but I believe the Crypt has a medieval well protected with a Preservation Order that has prevented any redevelopment on the site. You'd think there would be some method of building around it and still protect it though - such careful building work has protected other similar features in Canterbury and elsewhere.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
The Crypt is indeed of incredible, ancient, historical interest, and one of Britain's earliest sites of Christian worship, so I believe.
I remember it well in its restaurant days, Shakespeare Bars, et al. The downstairs was incredibly beautiful and atmospheric. How about letting the plebs see it again? The slum landowners, whoever they are, must be called to account.
It's scandalous and sacrilegious to have it left to rot for 35 years and counting. Pathetic.