howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#2
Very interesting reading .Some of those finance costs were high.?.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#3
probably put the union jack upside down, that's an act of treason. punishment is a kangaroo court and a death sentence. hanging or shot at dawn witch ever is the cheapest.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#4
The most recently publicly available version of the DTC Code of Conduct is here :
https://dovertowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DTC-Code-of-Conduct-for-DTC-Adopted-4-Jul-2012-Minute86a.pdf
Interestingly this is the version adopted on 4/7/12 rather than the version referred to in the minutes above (the version adopted on 29/6/16) - so much for transparency and openness - and only has 14 sections...so what is Section 17?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
The first thing I looked for on their comprehensive A - Z list was for the code of conduct which true to form wasn't there. I know it was amended a few years back due to a former councillor being taken drunk prior to arriving at a meeting then giving his views on the rest of those in attendance. What most concerns me is that His Holiness the Mayor can sanction a councillor( which must mean taking away voting power) even though said councillor has been elected by the public.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#6
Hi Howard
I hope I can throw some light on this.
The web site doesn't appear to be up to date
As the copy i have shows it was amended on Sept 2016
17; Sanctions
(a)In the event of, and at the agreement of the Mayor on the basis of evidence provided by the proper officer, that any Councillor is refusing or appears to be refusing to take part in the proceedings described in clause 6 of this code, then the following sanctions will be applied and there application will be notified to the next Full Town council.
(b)Suspension from committee's the councillor is a member of for 6 months
(c)Suspension from all external representative roles for which the councillor has been appointed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,261
#7
He was quite ill at the end of last year, maybe he's decided his health is more important than banging his head against the wall.
Arte et Marte
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,109
#8
Thank you Mr KS1; so clause 6 is registration of interests and the sanction does not include suspension from the full council?
(Not my real name.)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#9
No mr/mrs Button
code of conduct 6;
He/she shall properly and fully to the best of his/her ability engage in the councils adopted policy and practice in relation to complaints or grievances brought against him/her
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#10
Thanks Keith for the clarification
So it appears Wee Willie is refusing to participate in dealing with a complaint or grievance against him, for which he has been suspended from committee and representative roles - I am assuming unlike our right Charlie he is aware of the complaint.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
Well having attended the meeting I listened carefully to a decision just to note one of the most serious decisions I feel ever made in my time in local politics.
I raised the issue of concern that 1 person can have the right to suspend someone without evidence.
And that the other 17 cllrs just note it.
It goes against the localism act 2011 but worse it's not showing DTC as an open/transparent/and fair council.
No one person should never have such powers
imagine this just before an election one party needs 2 votes for a majority. mayor suspends 3 cllrs they get control council.
after the election its to costly to challenge the decision
democracy loses.
Somehow the council last sept allowed such a crazy standing order to be in place, before I joined and I have asked for a review of the standing orders.
just taking the 2 people out of the discussion
to allow 1 person powers to suspend without justification goes against democracy
and isn't showing DTC t be open/transparent and fair.
Guest 1535 likes this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
Reading between the lines it seems that his holiness the mayor has total autonomy at town level, doubtless he went out for a celebratory sherbert afterwards.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
Howard;
Just to attempt to show this other ways, taking away the present Mayor and Wanstall
Any Mayor or any Councillor should not ALONE have the power to suspend a Cllr.
It's goes against the Localism Act 2011 for anyone aware this came into being because the old Standards boards got so clogged up with political parties reporting each other, often for political gain, that the Govt scrapped it, replacing it, but leaving it to local councils to sort out there own issues.
In itself great idea, but last night showed, this again can be abused.
The localism act does say decisions have to be open/Transparent/Fair
This suspension reaches none of these 3
nor does the fact that there is no appeal process.
I have always been a believer in local decision making, but against things that are democratically arrived at.
The only time I feel any one Cllr should have such power (like any employer) would be if a Cllr had committed a serious criminal offence being dealt with by the police.
This isn't what is happening in this case.
I'm thankful to Cllr Cowan who did speak up, but more concerned that the majority didn't and a Cllr is suspended without evidence.
This goes against all natural justice.
The ballot box should be the place cllrs are removed.
Last night was a sad day for local politics and DTC
Jan Higgins, TheThinWhiteDuke, Button and
5 more like this
Jan Higgins, TheThinWhiteDuke, Button, howard mcsweeney1, Guest 1535, Reginald Barrington, Captain Haddock and Guest 2478 like this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,261
#14
Keith did the fat controller give any specifics as to Grahams crimes and which proper officer provided the evidence or just as per section 17 clause 6?
Guest 1535 likes this
Arte et Marte
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
Reginald
My only aim last night was to highlight to all 3 parties taking away the 2 people involved, the dangers of allowing this decision to remain.
No evidence produced on why he was suspended, which in itself is not fair or justified.
In 40 years I have NEVER known a Cllr suspended for a day let alone 6 months
Sadly even usually quite public cllrs remained quiet thus allowing 1 Cllr to have more power than all of the other 17 together.
it was a sad night for local politics
Guest 2478, Button and Reginald Barrington like this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#16
I thought the Mayor was ceremonial not God .Pity the town Councillors follow like sheep .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
Technically the Mayor is the leader of the Town council but I have never known one to throw their weight around. As Sue says it has always been a ceremonial thing but sadly the majority of councillors are letting him get away with it.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#18
All wrapped up in their own little bits of power.No one should cow down to an injustice.Cllr Wanstall can be a little odd but he was voted in by the people.Time to be men not mice .
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
#19
I don't know the ins and outs of this so please don't take umbrage if I've got anything wrong. I have met the chap in question a couple of times and I do understand that he could possibly be described as what the locals like to call "hard work". But that's obviously no reason to try to give him the gooner.
There seems to be a suggestion of something vindictive or vexatious here. If that's the case then the matter should be made more public so that the tax payers can make up their own minds. When all's said and done, it's undeniably a matter of public interest when an elected councillor is involved.
As for DTC, I've held the view for a long time that it is a needless waste of money. The LoveDover fiasco confirmed that for me. And before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy - yes, my other half does have an allotment.
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,109
#20
How interesting. For the want of something better to do I googled the string "agreement of the mayor on the basis of evidence" and got just the one hit - DTC:
http://dovertowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Full-Agenda-Ext-Full-Town-Council-03.08.16.pdf
So the sanction provision seems to have originated with the Finance and General Purposes Committee of 15 June 2016. I think I can understand that to vote on whether or not a councillor is refusing to take part in what-have-you is a misuse of democracy (shades of Lord of the Flies), but a binding 6 month suspension (committee membership) and indefinite suspension (external representation) imposed by one person and without appeal for an
apparent refusal does strike me as odd/unique.
Ironically, Councillor Wanstall was present on 29th June 2016. I wonder what he said yesterday.
Guest 1997 likes this
(Not my real name.)