• The post you are reporting:
   
  Sue
  What I can tell you is that I supported moves to modernise the present standing orders etc
  As there is little in the way of making cllrs accountable or Deal with cllrs in a disciplinary area if required
  It has now thankfully changed and thus area dealt with by the monitoring officer at DDC
  It's never good to be judge and jury and having been through it a few times I can see the system wasn't working and as senior members of DTC quoted at the time these are not fit for purpose
  Si that side I'm pleased things are moving forward
  On the issue of what you call someone at a meeting having been called many things over the 40 years spending to much time on this when there are far bigger issues to deal with I raised when I attended 1 working group having spent over 20 minutes discussing what to call a chairman/woman I told the working group we need to move on to more important issues
  The issue you raise Howard is ongoing both in my cllr regular reports
  And taken up with DTC
  I hope we will see new blood in May
  But suspect the old guard will remain
  My biggest concern is that on giving the power to one person(the mayor) to be able to suspend someone for 6 months
  Firstly 6 months is long for a minor case
  But the procedures don't allow for a lesser suspension
  But suspensions should be an all cllrs agreement or at least the majority
  So I voted against the new paper being introduced
  Bear in mind the previous mayor had suspended a cllr for 6 months!
  And not bothered about democracy even said at the meeting its worked in the past
  Well if you don't believe in democracy yes it has

Report Post

Your Name

Reason