Commercial Confidentiality - CCTV, West Berkshire Council wimps. Options

[Iommi]

I think it is about time something is done about this cop-out excuse. How can knowing how people voted be Commercially Confidential? On the face of it, it just makes West Berkshire Council look gutless and conniving. I have no confidence in this council what so ever.

[Bloggo]

I think it is about time something is done about this cop-out excuse. How can knowing how people voted be Commercially Confidential? On the face of it, it just makes West Berkshire Council look gutless and conniving. I have no confidence in this council what so ever.

Spot on, I have given my view on the previous CCTV Post.
I have also written to Mr Benyon asking why this has happened and are they legally allowed to withhold this information.
It's a pitiful situation.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I think it is about time something is done about this cop-out excuse. How can knowing how people voted be Commercially Confidential? On the face of it, it just makes West Berkshire Council look gutless and conniving. I have no confidence in this council what so ever.

But some posters on here think the Council are probably the best Council in the World..

[Biker1]

But some posters on here think the Council are probably the best Council in the World..

Who on earth can that be then?

[Strafin]

Some posters? Or just one:)

[Exhausted]

Why did this CCTV move need to be held in secret unless someone has something to hide. My suspicion is that the costs and savings are not what was suggested and the final costs are being hidden and will either never come to light or will be hidden in the books.
If Newbury councillors voted by a majority that the move should go ahead then we, the ratepayers, should be told why they voted in this way. If this is a Conservative v Libs vote then that, as far as I am concerned, is another nail in the coffin of local party politics.

[Biker1]

Some posters? Or just one:)

Who can he possibly mean??

[David Allen]

...
If Newbury councillors voted by a majority that the move should go ahead then we, the ratepayers, should be told why they voted in this way. If this is a Conservative v Libs vote then that, as far as I am concerned, is another nail in the coffin of local party politics.

Would like to make it clear that this was a decision by Conservative dominated West Berkshire Councillors, not Newbury Town Councillors. Confusion sometimes sets in as WBC offices are based in Newbury.

Regards

David Allen
Newbury Town Councillor

[Roost]

I did hear a rumour (yes, that wonderful rumour mill again!) that a counter-proposal was bandied around from within the Council which would have allowed the CCTV to remain in Newbury and still made similar monetary savings!

Of course, we the tax-paying public won't have been told about this due to 'Commercial confidentiality'!

Backhander, anyone???

[Exhausted]

Would like to make it clear that this was a decision by Conservative dominated West Berkshire Councillors, not Newbury Town Councillors. Confusion sometimes sets in as WBC offices are based in Newbury.

Regards

David Allen
Newbury Town Councillor

Yes of course, that post should have read West Berks Councillors. Thank you.

[gel]

Perhaps a Freedom of Information Request should be made on WBC by a taxpayer, if WBC intend to keep under wraps.
They seem to have lost the plot that
1/they are the servants of the people (Hmmm )

2/ it is our tax they are spending

[Iommi]

There are times when Commercial Confidentiality is likely to be a valid reason, but West Berkshire Council seem to use it as a 'get out of difficult situations' card. I think nothing other than they are concealing potentially embarrassing information. I cannot see how voting patterns can be legitimately considered commercially sensitive. At a time where trust in government is poor, it is 'thanks' to behaviour like this.

[wolfie]

I know people in the CCTV department, and it is no secret that the Council have managed (mismanaged) the operation so badly it should really be subject to an investiagtion. They have spent over £25,000 on consultancy fees for the new project which still isnt finished as they got rid of the manager.
They always cite commercial confidentiality to cover their tracks but in most cases it is not a defendable position, they just hope that people are put off from digging further and finding the massive waste. The operation was moved internally 3 times and ended up in a department part of the role of which is to spread disinformation ( the "communications" part of policy and communications department).

Its no secret either that alternative proposals about moving it to Maidenhead or whereever were not properly put to the executive members prior to their decision. The end result is that instead of an upgrade linking all the council buildings and town centre together only a 1/3 of the available cameras will be transferred. Thats value for money. The team were told categorically in Dec 2009 ( the month after signing new contracts) that they would be redundant and the new system of remote monitoring in by 1 Apr (very apt) 2010. The management didnt even realise they would have to go to tender to do this and didn't do it until mid april so that explains a lot. Sheer incompetance.

You can expect any request to be met with "commercial confidentiality" or subject to some other thing like "security of personal" or "the location" (when it is no secret where it is anyway). These may all be legitimate under Guidance about Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 BUT only where there is not an overriding public interest. And wasting thousands through incomptetance and trying to cover it up is not in the public interest.

The latest lot to have responsibilty for the fiasco are non-technical and have been unable to even keep the place fully manned. This is because they destroyed the goodwill that is always required to keep any shift operation going.

CCTV and the store detectives or security is one of the best tools the police have for catching up with offenders, as they are usually too busy with paperwork or in cars patrolling to have much of a presence in the town centre.

[wolfie]

I agree - see my comments about Guidance about Schedule 12ALocal Government Act 1972. This I believe contains the allowed exemptions to full public disclosure of committees etc. As I said below, its not there to cover up waste, rather to protect business negotiations etc. And it must pass the public interest test.

The loyal team that served Newbury for years, often doing ovetime not because they needed the money but because they felt obliged and duty bound to protect the citizens of West Berks who and in many cases are their friends in the security environment, as well as the police officers responding.

W

[Iommi]

It is regrettable that this went quiet. I have no doubt that there is something very suspicious about how this came about. It stinks.

[On the edge]

This demonstrates yet again that the problem with local government in West Berkshire is down to the management. The front line staffs are proably as motivated as any other employees in a fairly small organisation. The executive management seem unable to deliver a consistent level of service across the piece Until someone gets to grips with that - nothing will change. As a Unitary authority, Newbury is too small an entity to attract the right skills and our leaders too careful and unenterprising to try some of the more radical alternatives.