Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 28 2015, 09:55 PM

Story http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/14371/Council-to-spend--7m-replacing.html.

"The council has been awarded a £5.07m grant from the Department for Transport on the basis that it agreed to fund the remaining 30 per cent – or £2.17m."

As I understand it our government, national and local, are supposed to respect this period of purdah and not publish this kind of news. If this really is WBC putting this news out there then it really is very poor form.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2015, 11:55 PM

That's dirty Tories for you!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 29 2015, 03:29 PM

Have you still not realised that out two present local Authorities are laws unto themselves?

But, providing our local electorate remembers all the past few years gaffs etc., not for much longer!

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2015, 04:30 PM

I would guess a local paper reporting what happened at a meeting of a council’s executive is within the rules.

You've been banging on about openness and transparency for ages, as soon as you stand for political office it's a different story.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 29 2015, 04:57 PM

Are the press allowed in executive meetings?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2015, 05:29 PM

You (wilfully) misunderstand purdah. There is no restriction on what a local paper can publish, the rules apply to the council, and I stand by my comment, it is poor form for the council to put this information out there in the week before polling.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2015, 05:53 PM

Incredible and another demonstration of today's marketed politics. No ideas, just solutions to non existent problems.

Swapping out the existing street lighting units for led ones might look pretty but doesn't actually contribute over much to the energy consumption, so the costs and electricity use won't change much...but the voter will think it looks nice! Sadly, if the investment was properly focussed against a real business case, then we'd achieve some real and sustainable difference.

If you think about it, it's games like this that demonstrate the contempt that our mainstream politicians have for their electorate, who do they think we are?

Posted by: Petra Apr 29 2015, 06:16 PM

Dear Mr Capp,

Don’t be naïve, it is election time, so anything that helps the Tories get votes must be justifiable. After all, other parties would do the same if they were in the same position. There is no love in a war of the ballot boxes.

Yours,
Petra

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 29 2015, 06:36 PM

Yeah give them lies, lies and more lies.
That's just what one must expect from the true blues, must keep the plebs in their place or heavens know what will happen to our ordered way of life otherwise eh?

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2015, 07:21 PM

Not sure. I guess they'll allowed to read the agenda and minutes though.

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2015, 07:28 PM

I thought you just successfully fought to get a one council to publish a report, now you're complaining another shouldn't be publishing information about its meetings

You simply can't please some people. It's like they're just being contrary for the sake of it.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 29 2015, 07:33 PM

I disagree OTE.
Not going by what it says on the packets of domestic LED's anyway.
I can now buy an LED lamp that, for 3W consumption, gives out the same lumen as an incandescent of 60W.
Or have I got it wrong somewhere?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2015, 08:07 PM

And you're being obtuse. You know the difference in principles here.

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2015, 08:16 PM

From what I can see, he's saying that a newspaper shouldn't publish something because he thinks it might affect a decision making process.

Wasn't this the reason the Town Council gave at one time for not publishing their hydrological report?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2015, 09:31 PM

Generally the existing street lights aren't incandesant, rather discharge (like fluorescent) which also have a lowish running wattage. So it's a bit like swapping out your 'energy saving bulbs' for new LED ones. I think there is presently some move to provide both consumption wattage and light output in lumens numbers for bulbs which might help our comparisons in the future.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 29 2015, 09:41 PM

That's the Petra for you, the best thing to get both Labour & UKIP extra votes - a mad women bigging up the tories

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2015, 10:10 PM

OK, perhps you don't...

No that is not true. He is complaining about an apparent breach of protocol in the run-up to an election. A breach of protocol that might be seen as a party seeking to gain an unfair advantage in a democratic process.


It might have been, but the reason the council gave came after the complaint was made; however, Simon was complaining that the council was unreasonably withholding information and a tribunal agreed.

In both accounts, Simon was 'eager' to see due process.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2015, 10:15 PM

No, like I said, newspapers can publish what they like, it's local and national government administrations that need to respect purdah as I understand it. I believe that the restriction is to prevent politicians using the apparatus of public administration for their own political advantage and gaining a credibility advantage by speaking as the administration rather themselves.

More about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_%28pre-election_period%29.

I stand by my criticism and I don't believe it was appropriate for WBC to announce the grant funding in purdah.

Another questionable press-release is http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/20150422_Press%20Release%20re%20Tribunal%20Over-Rules%20ICO.pdf in which JSH defends the Council's actions. Council publication should in any case be neutral and even-handed and this missive fails to represent the contempt which which the tribunal demolished the council's argument, calling it "bizarre and self-contradictory" at one point.

JSH says: "The Council had sought to keep the documents confidential to avoid jeopardising its hardfought legal case, but we are of course doing what is now required of us, and we are doing it without delay."

If it is true, as JSH says, that the Council sought to keep the documents confidential to avoid jeopardising its legal case (which it has conspicuously failed to start) then I suggest the Council rather profoundly lied all the time it was telling us that the "confidentiality agreement" was the reason it couldn't disclose the reports, and JSH might usefully have summarised the Tribunal's judgment where it ruled that, not only did the Council utterly fail to support their unfounded assertion that disclosure would jeopardise their case, but that the public interest was in any case so strong in favour of disclosure that, even were the reports subject to legal privilege, the Council should still have published them. It is utterly depressing that JSH's Liberal Democrat administration has so completely failed to grasp how wrong-minded they were ever to try and keep this vital piece of information from the tax-paying parishioners.

And in point of fact JSH's statement is not true. What was required of the council was that they publish both the hydrogeological reports, and their closed submission made to the Tribunal. The council has indeed disclosed the reports, but not only has it failed so far to disclose the closed submissions which it clearly expects to be embarrassed by, it has submitted further argument to question the sense of the Tribunal's order and clarification on the need to publish - JSH says nothing about that, and that in no way is "doing what is now required of us, and ... doing it without delay".

NTC 24 April: "We would seek to query whether this is correct and the Tribunal DOES require the council to disclose the Closed Annexe. We would be surprised if our client is required to disclose the Closed Annexe as well as the reports as this would appear to defeat the whole purpose of the Annexe being closed."

Tribunal 27 April: "It remains closed unless and until the Tribunal rules otherwise. It is normally closed because it contains material that is only disclosable if the disputed information is to be disclosed. Once the Tribunal rules that that information must be disclosed, there is normally no justification for withholding the contents of the closed annex. The appellant and the public generally are entitled to see what arguments NTC advanced under the cloak of confidentiality. Litigation is conducted openly unless there is a powerful justification for secrecy. For That is the position here. Indeed the case for disclosure is still clearer in this case since this annex contained material that should never have been submitted in a closed annex anyway.

If the content of such an annex remained confidential regardless of the result of the appeal, a public authority could include within it any argument, however unfounded, in the safe knowledge that the requester would never see it, whatever the outcome."

JSH is entitled to defend his and his administration's management of CrackGate, but I don't agree that he should be doing it in this pre-election period in an NTC press-release.

Of course I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding of the purdah convention.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2015, 10:32 PM

Indeed. It's really this that the Council didn't like. They call it "trouble making", and I think of it as asserting rights - rights to information, rights to notice of rent increase - I don't believe it's healthy that the state should capriciously deny you your rights - that never ends well.

If there simply wasn't a convention of purdah it might not occur to me to complain about the political co-option of public administration - it wouldn't be right and fair, but if it was traditional for the incumbent to take advantage of their position to subvert the public administration for their own political ends I might find it hard to get any traction with a complaint of unfairness. But while we have the convention of purdah I think it's a good one.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 06:55 AM

Sorry Simon, I can't be bothered to read all that political waffle.

My advice would be, if a member of the public has exposed a uturn on your policy, come clean about it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2015, 07:42 AM

Exposing political chicanery is not a u-turn; you're argument is false if not stupid.

Can I legitimately assume that as a professed 'member of the public', you maintain that your posts are free from political bias or that you have no stakeholding on the matter?

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 30 2015, 09:30 AM

Our councils web-master obviously has realised he has lost the argument and wishes to deflect as usual.

Lets hope the independents don't get in and get them to start serving the public rather than their own little club!

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 04:38 PM

If you think highlighting a political u-turn is stupid then we best end this conversation.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 30 2015, 04:44 PM

Yes lets not bother with the crux of the argument.

Just keeping plugging to deflect eh? Typical Council doctrine to the fore?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2015, 05:23 PM

This isn't about the sense of the grant, it's about the timing of the announcement. Purdah exists to prevent the incumbent party taking advantage of the apparatus of government to gain a political advantage. But you know that.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 06:28 PM

Do you think this shouldn't have been minuted at the meeting and the council should have avoided questions from the press?

"No change there then" some joker will say, but you can't be serious if you think this should have been covered up, especially after fighting to get another council to release a report.

I'm really not sure what you're getting upset about, this looks like it was http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/13993/Multi-million-pound-upgrade-for-the.html.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2015, 06:55 PM

Rather then me quote it, why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_%28pre-election_period%29 to understand more about how purdah operates.

No, I don't expect anything to be covered up, but I do expect our local councils to respect purdah, and in the present case they could simply have delayed the agenda item until after the election.

A useful extract from the good practice code here:


Contrast that with NTC's press release and I think you'll see how JSH's partisan and stilted defence of his party's administration in the guise of a council press release is problematic:

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 06:59 PM

As I said, http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/13993/Multi-million-pound-upgrade-for-the.html so I don't know why you're getting so upset about it.

If the NWN want to report it again it at a later date, then that's up to them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2015, 07:17 PM

Interesting that. I wonder why the NWN would publish again a story that they have already covered.

On the JSH CrackGate press release https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91%2BUnpacking%2BPurdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d&sa=U&ei=v39CVav8B4ensAGhpoHIDQ&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFBFGOnR5s6S5xAyf9ctr99Lgha8g would appear to be very clear.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 07:28 PM

They do this from time to time, presumably when they're a bit short of news.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2015, 07:47 PM

Fair enough.

What about the NTC missive - banged to rights?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 30 2015, 08:17 PM

Frankly, I'd follow the example of some other Countries and have rather stricter rules about information. Arguably, all business should stop until after an election. The usual accounting statistics excepted. There should be no difficulty about this - particularly as this time the date was known five years ago. It's nothing new either, those of us with civil service knowledge know nothing moves until 'the vote' is approved.

In this case, as U23 points out, it isn't even news, simply confirming a project us in track - so yes, it's reasonable to ask why now? I also have to say I'm personally very uncomfortable that a new CEO at NTC has just been appointed. Similarly, that should have waited too. Arguably some new NTC candidates might even feel there is no real justification in replacing this role.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 08:26 PM

Are you saying all ongoing projects at a council should be suspended during a local election?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 30 2015, 09:02 PM

Arguably they should be planned to be at a project break point so they can be stopped. Thus us nowhere near as difficult as might be imagined and is (or certainly was) usual practice in national government. It also happens in business, for instance in cases of mergers and acquisitions, in those cases, quite major projects will be stopped its little notice. At least in the public sector, the democratic timetable is known.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 30 2015, 09:02 PM

Looking at the story identified in the OP I think it is totally within the rules of Purdah. No party political identification, no member quotes. The Councils do not cease to operate; things continue to happen and be dealt with. The securing of extra funding to reduce (significantly) a worthwhile project seems like something worth reporting. In fact, without all the party political waffle and posing the story is much more concise and informative.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2015, 09:11 PM

Shutting down projects at some councils for one month most years doesn't seem very efficient.

What would staff working on those project do for that month?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2015, 09:41 PM

Yes, I believe that is correct.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 30 2015, 09:50 PM

Perhaps they should replace the staff at every election too! Then we might get some real improvement!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2015, 09:51 PM

I said: "Exposing political chicanery is not a u-turn; your argument is false if not stupid."

I therefore said it was your argument that was false, so I think no such thing.

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2015, 06:04 AM

Identifying break points, funding periods and managing risks in projects is actually standard practice in organisations with competent project managers. Of course as is widely acknowledged, public sector project delivery isn't good. Rather than explain in detail, how you do this, I'll simply direct you to the Council's excellent public library which has a good selection of books on project management.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 07:33 AM

Rather than being so patronising perhaps you'd answer question of what you'd expect staff to do for a whole month most years at some councils when all projects are suspended?

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2015, 08:06 AM

I would expect the professional management (both project and executive) of the Council to have factored this in at project inception. Frankly, it's not me bring patronising, more you doubting the professional skills and capabilities of the Council staff.

Posted by: MontyPython May 1 2015, 08:18 AM

Come on OTE WBC can't do even simple maths well let alone what they would call complicated staff.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 09:37 AM

But you're talking about all projects, so factored in or not you haven't answered what you'd expect these staff to be doing for one month most years, given all work has been suspended.

Essentally you're proposing gardening leave for a month, for a large number of staff, which seems like a huge waste of money.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2015, 11:38 AM

I'm not sure that's what OTE meant. I thought he meant that no voting should take place and no preparation work for new proposals should take place until after an imminent election.

All approved work should continue in my view and I'm sure there would be a lot of back-filling work to do, so I doubt they need to sit around twiddling their thumbs.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 11:53 AM

Then, given many projects projects have an externally set deadline, you'd lose a month at the start of each project and have to employ extra resource to make up for the lost time, most years.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2015, 02:21 PM

Maybe, but only those that are set-up around election time, so legislation/projects could be planned to avoid such occurrences, outside of emergencies of course.

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2015, 02:34 PM

Quite so.

That also should include what are often seen as sub projects moving from their funded and agreed stages.

I have been intimately involved with at least two major projects for the civil service which, in planning terms at least, spanned changes in Government. We completed and delivered a development, which we fully expected to move to implementation. This latter phase was cancelled by the different incoming administration.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 03:43 PM

Election time is three out of four years at some councils.

Only having staff working on projects for 11 out of 12 months and then having to catch up in these years would be a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

It's OK though, he's basing his entire case on the sum total of two projects he's worked on, for a different tier of government, so by his own admission he doesn't really understand what he's suggesting.

Posted by: Exhausted May 1 2015, 04:19 PM

I'm sure that none of us would want the council staff sitting on their hands just because an election is imminent. I do believe though that announcements good and bad which link to a council, councillor or political party should be avoided and the rules do quite clearly state that. So User, I see where you are coming from but perhaps you should accept that Simon is fighting as an independent and council press releases do tend to give an advantage especially published comments from the leader of the Town council. An uninformed voter might accept what was printed and believe that the current incumbents had done a good job.

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2015, 04:42 PM

Still don't get it do you. Before trashing everyone and everything, how about sharing your own credentials?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2015, 04:53 PM

As you are avoiding parts of the argument put forward, lets flip it on the head and ask: is it healthy to have people making last minute judgements that may get overturned a month later; is that not a waste too, if not unethical?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 1 2015, 05:10 PM

Indeedy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 1 2015, 05:21 PM

As I understand the rules the http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/20150422_Press%20Release%20re%20Tribunal%20Over-Rules%20ICO.pdf is very clearly in breach of the purdah rules and the general standards for council communications too, in that JSH is extensively named and quoted, and that the information is partisan and factually incorrect.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/Newbury%20United%20Reformed%20Church%20War%20Memorial%20is%20re-erected%20in%20Newbury%20Town%20Hall%2028-4-15.pdf about a war memorial is similarly in breach of the purdah rules in that it names councillors standing for election.

As you say, as independents we are always at a disadvantage to the established parties and when those parties and their candidates are featured in council material it unfairly lends them the credibility of the public authority when to my understanding the purdah rules expressly prohibit such publication.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 05:35 PM

That's not generally how it works. One doesn't talk down to voters and ask them for their credentials, in order to secure their vote.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 05:37 PM

Does this happen at councils or do they generally stick with the budget agreed for the year, and the new administration prepares the next?

Even if a council started on the consultation process on 8th May, it'd probably be getting on for half way through he financial year before the new plan could be put into practice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 1 2015, 05:41 PM

Be fair User, all hell will freeze over before our councils genuinely inform their policy with public consultation.

Posted by: user23 May 1 2015, 05:54 PM

That's your view and a different argument.

The point is, unlike central government who just cancel things on a whim, in local government the process of public consultation then drawing up and agreeing budget based on the consultation takes time and resource.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 1 2015, 06:35 PM

Yes, and getting back to the subject I don't see that there's any need whatsoever for the business of local government to come to end in purdah, but I think it would be reasonable not to make any significant decisions in purdah, and it is certainly required of local authorities that they don't publish press-releases extensively quoting members who are up for election - and yet that is just what NTC have done.

Posted by: gel May 1 2015, 08:03 PM

Simon, are you reporting NTC to Electoral Comm'n??

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/complaints

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 1 2015, 08:04 PM

I hadn't been able to find where to take any complaint - I'll check your link, thank you very much gel.

Posted by: Mr Brown May 1 2015, 08:57 PM

The project issue is interesting, my GF who works as a contractor in London's IT world wasn't 'renewed' a couple of weeks back because a project she's on has been put on hold waiting for the results of the election. If the coalition doesn't continue, the project might not be needed. She happy with the break and starts a new assignment Monday, ironically same Govt. Dept. just a different bit.

Posted by: Strafin May 2 2015, 02:15 PM

Council staff get holiday entitlement presumably? So they could take their holiday, full time workers get 22 days minimum I believe? That covers a month.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2015, 03:17 PM

28 days now, thanks to the Working Time Directive - another piece of European legislation that big-business wants us to unravel.

Posted by: MontyPython May 4 2015, 11:55 AM

Does this article infringe Purdah?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/14437/-It-s-been-a-difficult.html

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2015, 12:12 PM

Can councillors issue their own press releases or talk to the media?
Councillors are free to talk to the media and issue press releases, but must not use council resources to do so.

Can councillors write letters ‘for publication’ to their local newspaper?
Yes, as long as they don’t use council resources (such as staff) to help them do it.

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

Posted by: MontyPython May 4 2015, 12:56 PM

Thanks Andy.

However I can't agree with his statement about him setting up good financial control!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2015, 01:00 PM

I quite agree, his reputation is tarnished from PoV.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2015, 05:00 PM

It would depend on where the copy came from and when, but in any event NWN is entitled to print what it likes, purdah only binds councils.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2015, 06:31 PM

You know, this really is a large part of the problem. The leader of a parish council has no standing, he is a councillor like any other councillor. The job of parish councillors is to identify problems and opportunities in their parish and to work together to find a consensus, they don't need "leading" in that endeavour and the faux-honorific of "Leader" is nothing but a distraction.

The report quotes Conservative group leader Tony Stretton (Con, Clay Hill) saying “It is time for some fresh input and that can only be achieved by a change of administration. That change is Conservative.”

Nonsense, that's just out of the frying pan into the fire. Any one of the Tories, Stretton included, could have stood up and challenged the ineptitude of the Council over the last decade, but other than some ineffectual pre-election handbagging from Edwards a few weeks ago they've pretty much slept through the last ten years.

What the Council really needs is for the elected councillors each to take it upon themselves to represent their community, challenge their administration, and work together to find a consensus irrespective of party affiliation.

This "Leader" thing significantly hampers that, and I think the designation should be dropped. A parish council is a collective and its councillors have equal standing.

Posted by: user23 May 4 2015, 06:51 PM

Having a http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP845 is a bad thing, you say?

Posted by: On the edge May 4 2015, 07:17 PM

Well spotted User; you win tonight's Mars Bar! Nonetheless, the Commissions rigid pro-forma seems unable to cope with different organisation styles. Clearly a drop down list needed which includes titles such as convenor or chair or information node etc.

On a serious point, it's good you are clearly have sufficient interest to investigate, frankly whatever your politics, we need far more people to do just that.

Posted by: Exhausted May 4 2015, 07:18 PM

Well spotted but in terms of a parish council, the format is usually chair person and deputy. This ensures that decisions are based around those made by a committee and not a single person.

Posted by: user23 May 4 2015, 07:20 PM

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PerPar2368, though this might just be Leader under a different name, I've no idea how the Scottish Socialist Party is structured.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2015, 07:38 PM

It's a different argument, but I'm game:

The Apolitical Democrats is a political party registered with the electoral commission. We're a registered party because, amongst other things, we want to be able to call ourselves "Apolitical" on the ballot paper and campaign under the "Apolitical" umbrella to define our particular brand of political independence, and you can only do that as a registered party. It is a requirement of registration that the party has a "leader".

However, we're not dogmatic and as a party we have no policy as such, other than our guiding principles of free-thinking independence and a commitment to consult and listen objectively to all points of view.

But to re-state my point, my objection is to the artificial designation of a single parish councillor as "leader" of the council, because there is no statutory basis for that designation and indeed it runs counter to the defining principle that parish councillors are equally and collectively responsible for council decisions, and it encourages individual councillors to subordinate their opinions to the "leader" and abrogate their responsibility, and this is a problem that has blighted our town council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2015, 07:43 PM

I recall the Greens similarly rejected "leadership" for quite a while but in the end gave in because the media model can't cope with a decentralised organisational structure which doesn't encourage individual power and control.

Posted by: MontyPython May 4 2015, 07:47 PM

Why do you always have to be so obtuse?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2015, 07:59 PM

And indeed our town council has a chair and deputy chair, those being statutory appointments with common law responsibility, and for a "town" council those appointments are styled town mayor and deputy town mayor. Distracting pomp and anachronistic nonsense as far as I'm concerned, and I would very much like to see the appointments lapse and for our council to style itself simply as Newbury Parish Council.

However, the "Leader" is quite a different thing. The appointment is synonymous with chairmanship of the Policy and Resources Committee, and no problem with that - someone needs to chair it.

The appointment also qualifies the appointee as a member of ever other committee. That's a little more problematic, though the party allocation of committee seats is the real issue.

The major problem is how the "Leader" gets a scheduled audience with the town clerk, because that encourages a presidential style of administration and very much confuses the roles of both councillor and clerk.

Posted by: On the edge May 4 2015, 08:13 PM

Of course, elaborate structures might well have some justification in big multi functional organisations...but for what is little more than a Parish Council with few real responsibilities is it really necessary?

Posted by: Exhausted May 5 2015, 03:53 PM

The other anomaly with the Town Council is that they appoint a Chief Executive whereas the Parish councils employ a Clerk to the Council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2015, 04:53 PM

No, it's just a title, and parish councils could, if they chose, call their senior administrator a "Chief Executive", a "parish clerk", or indeed anything else they wanted, it's just that parish councils tend to be a bit more modest and "parish clerk" is the traditional title for a perfectly respectable role. There are plenty of town councils who still call the senior administrator the "Town Clerk" - Thame Town Council for example have just appointed the former NTC Chief Executive as their "Town Clerk".

I don't know where the fashion for calling the senior administrator a "Chief Executive" came from, but it's a singularly inappropriate title as the primary role of the town clerk is to implement decisions of the council, and it is the council collectively (that is, the elected councillors together) which makes the decisions. The town clerk, or any other officer for that matter, can receive delegated authority to make decisions within a prescribed limit (and the statutory name for that officer is then "proper officer" for that specific delegated authority), but the town clerk is not an executive role.

I've never liked the title "Chief Executive" because it confuses the roles.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2015, 05:26 PM

A CEO is appointed by a board to 'execute' the wishes of the board. I see the councillors as the board; however, a CEO normally has decision making power. Perhaps this might explain some of the apparent faux pas in recent past?

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2015, 08:47 PM

Yes, the old saying 'a cabin boy trying on the admirals uniform' comes true.

Again, what real responsibility and power does NTC have for such grandeous concepts? I'd even argue that WBC is the real successor to the Borough of Newbury, Mayor and all - not what is little more than an expensive residents association.

Posted by: Exhausted May 6 2015, 03:50 PM

Newbury Borough was amalgamated into Berkshire County Council and then devolved to WBC when BCC was split up so no argument there.

Posted by: blackdog May 6 2015, 05:35 PM

The Borough council was amalgamated with Newbury District Council in 1974. This was renamed WBC when it became a Unitary.

WBC has the powers and the assets formerly vested in Newbury Borough Council - which is how WBC get to give away so much of Newbury to developers.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2015, 06:08 PM

Sadly that's not wholly true: Newbury's allotment sites were formerly managed very well by NBC in far happier times when allotmenteers were left to their own devices without the overweening rule-mongering and contempt that NTC's arrival brought. I believe the allotment service would have thrived under WBC's benign neglect, and the allotmenteers would inevitably have been allowed to self-manage and preserve the quirky independence that is unique to a content allotment community. NTC saw the allotment service as a pretext to build their grounds-maintenance empire and their management style, more suited to a prison camp than an allotment service, has made allotmenteering in Newbury a miserable cliquey mean-spirited affair.