Photography and Filming in Council Meetings, The Local Audit and Accountability Bill Options

[MontyPython]

You have no general right to privacy. The meeting is open to the public, for good reason, and so anyone can step in off the street and see you there, and can read in the minutes what you said, so I can't see what the objection can be to being caught on film.

I was thinking of someone wishing to object to their neighbours house extension, without the neighbour knowing - but I suppose as applicant they will be there anyway. I would object to them being ridiculed if they weren't used to public speaking when they were only trying to get their opinion heard.

[dannyboy]

It's happened where I work!!

Are you an actor?

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

Dear Forum Readers,

I can assure you that the Leader of Newbury Town Council, Cllr Julian Swift-Hook and myself would love to video stream all public meetings at the Council. We have a new sound system which can easily cope with this and the matter is being looked into.

Should any of you wish to come along and video a meeting then feel free. Personally I totally welcome the public seeing and hearing what is happening for I know that it will actually mean that the meetings are swifter as well.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera

Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

[motormad]

When and where?

[Jay Sands]

When and where?

The right to film council meetings has just been passed into law: "Just yesterday, the Local Audit and Accountability Act was passed into law. It gives citizens the right to blog, tweet and make recordings at local council meetings. The Government only made this move after a report by Andrew Allison (Tax Payers Alliance) exposed his local authority, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, as the most secretive in his region. Until now, residents were not allowed to record, Tweet or otherwise comment on the meeting via the internet. Not any more: from now on, all citizen journalists and bloggers have the law on their side. "

[Simon Kirby]

The right to film council meetings has just been passed into law: "Just yesterday, the Local Audit and Accountability Act was passed into law. It gives citizens the right to blog, tweet and make recordings at local council meetings. The Government only made this move after a report by Andrew Allison (Tax Payers Alliance) exposed his local authority, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, as the most secretive in his region. Until now, residents were not allowed to record, Tweet or otherwise comment on the meeting via the internet. Not any more: from now on, all citizen journalists and bloggers have the law on their side. "

I see the act received royal assent yesterday, but it's my understanding of Section 40 that it does no more than enables secondary legislation, so a separate statutory instrument is still required to create the right to film.

But again, if the council you filmed chooses to victimize you for posting your footage because of some criticism or other that you make of the council then you'd be pretty daft to exercise your rights if the council had some control over something you cared about.

[Jay Sands]

I see the act received royal assent yesterday, but it's my understanding of Section 40 that it does no more than enables secondary legislation, so a separate statutory instrument is still required to create the right to film.

But again, if the council you filmed chooses to victimize you for posting your footage because of some criticism or other that you make of the council then you'd be pretty daft to exercise your rights if the council had some control over something you cared about.

In my opinion all council meetings should be filmed and recorded as a matter of course and there should be no secret meetings of any kind, everything should be transparent.

I also don't think members of one council should also be on another, e.g. Newbury TC and West Berks Council, it seems to me there could be a conflict of interests there that might prejudice any vote/opinion. There should also be a limit on the number of times a councillor can stand for re-election.

[Biker1]

Are you an actor?

Sometimes!!

[blackdog]

I also don't think members of one council should also be on another, e.g. Newbury TC and West Berks Council, it seems to me there could be a conflict of interests there that might prejudice any vote/opinion. There should also be a limit on the number of times a councillor can stand for re-election.

I'm not so concerned about membership of both parish and district councils - it seems logical enough to represent constituents at both levels. What worries me more is membership of two or more councils at the same level. For instance the Leader of NTC is also a member of Greenham Parish Council. There are obvious conflicts of interest - notably in planning.

[On the edge]

I'm not so concerned about membership of both parish and district councils - it seems logical enough to represent constituents and both levels. What worries me more is membership of two or more councils at the same level. For instance the Leader of NTC is also a member of Greenham Parish Council. There are obvious conflicts of interest - notably in planning.

Spot on!

[Simon Kirby]

In my opinion all council meetings should be filmed and recorded as a matter of course and there should be no secret meetings of any kind, everything should be transparent.

I also don't think members of one council should also be on another, e.g. Newbury TC and West Berks Council, it seems to me there could be a conflict of interests there that might prejudice any vote/opinion. There should also be a limit on the number of times a councillor can stand for re-election.

I'm not convinced about the ideas for limiting councillors to sitting on just one council or the number of times elected as I think that's really a question for people to decide for themselves at the ballot box. I think the issue here is that almost no one takes any interest in what their councillors are doing in their name once the election has gone.

I couldn't agree more about making decisions in public, but I can't see any practical way of enforcing open government if councillors don't choose openness. What our local government needs is for people to demand engagement, but I don't see that happening. To my knowledge I'm the only person in Newbury to press the council on their costs, and I got a public excoriation and a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review. It seems utterly inane to me that the council do not publish the costs of the services they provide, because it's very difficult to engage with the budget-setting process if you don't have the figure in front of you, but if people aren't holding their council to account it won't change.

It's a tragedy, but by and large people engaging with the council always want something from it, and anyone who knows how the council works will understand that you have to pander to the council's insecurity and submit to them completely if you ever what to get what it is you want. We get the democracy we deserve.

[Cognosco]

I'm not convinced about the ideas for limiting councillors to sitting on just one council or the number of times elected as I think that's really a question for people to decide for themselves at the ballot box. I think the issue here is that almost no one takes any interest in what their councillors are doing in their name once the election has gone.

I couldn't agree more about making decisions in public, but I can't see any practical way of enforcing open government if councillors don't choose openness. What our local government needs is for people to demand engagement, but I don't see that happening. To my knowledge I'm the only person in Newbury to press the council on their costs, and I got a public excoriation and a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review. It seems utterly inane to me that the council do not publish the costs of the services they provide, because it's very difficult to engage with the budget-setting process if you don't have the figure in front of you, but if people aren't holding their council to account it won't change.

It's a tragedy, but by and large people engaging with the council always want something from it, and anyone who knows how the council works will understand that you have to pander to the council's insecurity and submit to them completely if you ever what to get what it is you want. We get the democracy we deserve.

Or as in Newbury Democracy in name only- it's Democracy Jim but not as we know it!

[Simon Kirby]

Or as in Newbury Democracy in name only- it's Democracy Jim but not as we know it!

But there isn't a line of disgruntled citizens queuing out the door of the town hall to hold their town council to account.

[Strafin]

I've only just see your signature Simon, lol!

[Cognosco]

But there isn't a line of disgruntled citizens queuing out the door of the town hall to hold their town council to account.

Well of course it doesn't help when they see how you have been treated?
Ask a question more than once, even if the answer they first supplied was nonsensical and the answer not relevant to the question, and you are declared vexatious!
I assume it is the mentality of people that as long as the council leave them alone then all is well.

I must admit until I had reason to question the council I had no idea what others were complaining about?
It would seem as if they have a language all of their own and any replies just do not make sense or relate to the question asked.

I too fail to understand why there is not more calling to account of the councils by ratepayers especially in these hard economic times? If the councils knew they were being audited by ordinary ratepayers they would not be so eager to increase precepts and ensure that hard earned monies were not being wasted!

[Simon Kirby]

I've only just see your signature Simon, lol!

[On the edge]

I'm not convinced about the ideas for limiting councillors to sitting on just one council or the number of times elected as I think that's really a question for people to decide for themselves at the ballot box. I think the issue here is that almost no one takes any interest in what their councillors are doing in their name once the election has gone.

I couldn't agree more about making decisions in public, but I can't see any practical way of enforcing open government if councillors don't choose openness. What our local government needs is for people to demand engagement, but I don't see that happening. To my knowledge I'm the only person in Newbury to press the council on their costs, and I got a public excoriation and a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review. It seems utterly inane to me that the council do not publish the costs of the services they provide, because it's very difficult to engage with the budget-setting process if you don't have the figure in front of you, but if people aren't holding their council to account it won't change.

It's a tragedy, but by and large people engaging with the council always want something from it, and anyone who knows how the council works will understand that you have to pander to the council's insecurity and submit to them completely if you ever what to get what it is you want. We get the democracy we deserve.

If it gives you any comfort, no you aren't the only one. I challenged an increase in the Police precept some years ago - because it was well above inflation. Also asked why the Museum had closed because it 'suddenly' didn't meet fire regulations. Both simply because the stupid excuses angered me as a charge payer. A few of us also challenged various things as local residents and got roundly chastised and criticised in the Town Hall for dating to do so.

Then, of course, we had the famous forums! After a time hardly anyone else from the public turned up; even our local press. The Deputy Head of the Council would attend saying and doing absolutely nothing. Yes, now and again a localised issue would encourage a few to come and make hot comments about things going badly wrong in their neighbourhood. Lists were made, heads nodded sagely, nothing done. The lists didn't even get updated properly. In the end, most of the time was taken up by wannabe Lord and Lady Bountifuls coming along and giving a chat about their pet projects. Whole thing a travesty.

The Police did try to set up Neighbourhood Action Groups which they hoped would morph into Residents Associations. Some hope, once the politicos got hold of that; death by feint praise.

The main political parties do NOT want any local interference thanks very much. The local party are just there to keep the punters quiet, no more, no less. Like if or not, the UK is still a Monarchy so we have aristocratic rule.

Once a serf always a serf.

[Jay Sands]

I'm not convinced about the ideas for limiting councillors to sitting on just one council or the number of times elected as I think that's really a question for people to decide for themselves at the ballot box. I think the issue here is that almost no one takes any interest in what their councillors are doing in their name once the election has gone.

I couldn't agree more about making decisions in public, but I can't see any practical way of enforcing open government if councillors don't choose openness. What our local government needs is for people to demand engagement, but I don't see that happening. To my knowledge I'm the only person in Newbury to press the council on their costs, and I got a public excoriation and a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review. It seems utterly inane to me that the council do not publish the costs of the services they provide, because it's very difficult to engage with the budget-setting process if you don't have the figure in front of you, but if people aren't holding their council to account it won't change.

It's a tragedy, but by and large people engaging with the council always want something from it, and anyone who knows how the council works will understand that you have to pander to the council's insecurity and submit to them completely if you ever what to get what it is you want. We get the democracy we deserve.

Some years ago a friend's son was elected to his local council. He was hoping to make a difference in his community, unfortunately, he quit after a year because he discovered he was only there to nod things through on party lines from other councillors who had been there since Noah built his ark and not to have an opinion of his own. My point about limiting the number of times councillors should be allowed to stand for re-election, and in my opinion this applies to MPs too, is that it might stop longstanding politicos using the council/parliament as a sort of sinecure. I would not allow same family members to stand at the same time for election either or be voted in one after the other thereby using the council as some kind of family business.

"...a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review", this is simply an abuse of power. We should all be allowed to question everything the council does who are spending our money.

[Cognosco]

Some years ago a friend's son was elected to his local council. He was hoping to make a difference in his community, unfortunately, he quit after a year because he discovered he was only there to nod things through on party lines from other councillors who had been there since Noah built his ark and not to have an opinion of his own. My point about limiting the number of times councillors should be allowed to stand for re-election, and in my opinion this applies to MPs too, is that it might stop longstanding politicos using the council/parliament as a sort of sinecure. I would not allow same family members to stand at the same time for election either or be voted in one after the other thereby using the council as some kind of family business.

"...a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review", this is simply an abuse of power. We should all be allowed to question everything the council does who are spending our money.

On both these subjects I was wondering how Ruwan is faring so far?
I guess we will only know when we have a result on the Allotmentgate and Parkgate and Simon is declared non vexatious - or of course Ruwan makes public that he is unable to make any influence at all on the council and is proposing to resign?

[MontyPython]

Well of course it doesn't help when they see how you have been treated?
Ask a question more than once, even if the answer they first supplied was nonsensical and the answer not relevant to the question, and you are declared vexatious!
I assume it is the mentality of people that as long as the council leave them alone then all is well.

I must admit until I had reason to question the council I had no idea what others were complaining about?
It would seem as if they have a language all of their own and any replies just do not make sense or relate to the question asked.

It certainly seems that they treat customer complaints as a job creation scheme. Make it as convoluted as possible with everything to be done by letter (giving the complainant as much work as possible) and all for very little result!

As for the language they do seem to have one of their own and little understanding of the English language as they don't know what the complaint is about!

If it gives you any comfort, no you aren't the only one. I challenged an increase in the Police precept some years ago - because it was well above inflation. Also asked why the Museum had closed because it 'suddenly' didn't meet fire regulations. Both simply because the stupid excuses angered me as a charge payer. A few of us also challenged various things as local residents and got roundly chastised and criticised in the Town Hall for dating to do so.

Then, of course, we had the famous forums! After a time hardly anyone else from the public turned up; even our local press. The Deputy Head of the Council would attend saying and doing absolutely nothing. Yes, now and again a localised issue would encourage a few to come and make hot comments about things going badly wrong in their neighbourhood. Lists were made, heads nodded sagely, nothing done. The lists didn't even get updated properly. In the end, most of the time was taken up by wannabe Lord and Lady Bountifuls coming along and giving a chat about their pet projects. Whole thing a travesty.

Exactly many of the public are disenfranchised with the whole saga - and they don't complain, not because they are satisfied, but that it is easier to build a brick wall in your back garden if you wish to bang your head against it!