Children Centre funding (attempt 2) Options

[Richard Garvie]

Despite the council claiming in a council meeting last week that funding to children centre will be protected, the budget appears to be cut by 5% looking at the budget book which is now online.

The total funding for centres in 2010 / 11 was £994,280
The total funding for centres in 2011 / 12 is £947,440

Surely if they say funding is protected in a council meeting and refuse a supplementary question on the issue, you would expect that funding would be protected. Or is this a case of the council misleading on an important issue yet again?

[Strafin]

I can't believe you've started a new thread but.....

Did the council tell you there would be no funding cuts? Only in the other thread you said that you asked whether they would confirm that, and they answered yes. They only agreed that they "would" confirm it, presumably if they were sure in the future.

[Turin Machine]

Yes but theres an election coming up ! any excuse.

[Richard Garvie]

Council have now admitted that funding IS being cut by the 5% detailed in the council budget, they claim that nobody has lost their job. What they don't say is that all centre managers have recently recieved "at risk" letters, along with other children centre staff. I've now asked how many redundancies are likely as a result of these letter, but I will have to wait twenty working days for an answer.

[NWNREADER]

When does Purdah commence, and does it apply to all candidates, or just sitting members seeking re-election?

[Andy Capp]

When does Purdah commence, and does it apply to all candidates, or just sitting members seeking re-election?

What are you talking about?

[NWNREADER]

What are you talking about?

Richard will know...... (I hope, for his sake.)

[Andy Capp]

Richard will know...... (I hope, for his sake.)

If not for anyone else's!

[Richard Garvie]

24th March I was told, which is why I was surprised that an executive meeting was held after that date. Purdah is the period between an election being called and the polling day itself, when councillors revert to being candidates and members of a party rather than a member of the council if you get my drift.

Technically, at the last executive meeting, under purdah, Graham Jones should not have been speaking as leader of the council. As I'm new to all of this, I stand to be corrected but that is how it has been explained to me.

NWNREADER: To answer you directly, we are all now candidates seeking election, and should not be speaking on behalf of anyone but our parties and ourselves.

Just to clarify, the 5% cut was confirmed by an officer of the council under FOI. So when we were misled at the executive meeting during public questions, not only did they issue a false statement but they also refused a supplementary, which now the council have acknowledged the supplementary was appropriate and answered it under the complaints procedure, shows Graham Jones really does make things up as he goes.

[Andy Capp]

And also brings politics into disrepute. The leader of the council obviously puts party before the town, but the same old people will vote for him again; even the ones that have a poor command of English.

[NWNREADER]

I question the role of the officers in not ensuring only appropriate statements are made, and that the information provided to members is accurate. I would have expected, if a wrong fact was given, the officer to have 'had a word' straight away so the councillor who made the statement could correct it.
That is the officers role, after all - to guide and advise members on technical and procedural matters.

[Richard Garvie]

I question the role of the officers in not ensuring only appropriate statements are made, and that the information provided to members is accurate. I would have expected, if a wrong fact was given, the officer to have 'had a word' straight away so the councillor who made the statement could correct it.
That is the officers role, after all - to guide and advise members on technical and procedural matters.

The issue is this: Graham Jones refused a supplementary question without even knowing what it was. That is against the constitution of the council. Regardless of whether officers fed the wrong information to the members, to refuse a supplementary without knowing what it was stinks.

[NWNREADER]

The issue is this: Graham Jones refused a supplementary question without even knowing what it was. That is against the constitution of the council. Regardless of whether officers fed the wrong information to the members, to refuse a supplementary without knowing what it was stinks.

And he should have been advised there and then that he was not able to decline the question............

[blackdog]

Despite the council claiming in a council meeting last week that funding to children centre will be protected, the budget appears to be cut by 5% looking at the budget book which is now online.

The total funding for centres in 2010 / 11 was £994,280
The total funding for centres in 2011 / 12 is £947,440

Surely if they say funding is protected in a council meeting and refuse a supplementary question on the issue, you would expect that funding would be protected. Or is this a case of the council misleading on an important issue yet again?

So what did they spend in 2010/11? Perhaps they actually underspent on the budget and don't actually need more than the 2011/12 budget figure in order to provide the same service as in 2010/11. Perhaps they have managed to reduce costs in some other way - perhaps through more efficient management (after all this is pretty much how your alternative budget was to save the necessary millions).

[user23]

24th March I was told, which is why I was surprised that an executive meeting was held after that date. Purdah is the period between an election being called and the polling day itself, when councillors revert to being candidates and members of a party rather than a member of the council if you get my drift.

Technically, at the last executive meeting, under purdah, Graham Jones should not have been speaking as leader of the council. As I'm new to all of this, I stand to be corrected but that is how it has been explained to me.

Unfortunately whoever is advising you has got this wrong again.

As I understand it current Members of the Council remain Members up to and for a short period after election day. Please feel free to check this is correct though.

Perhaps before commenting on what other people shouldn't be doing can I make a suggestion on what you should, namely reading the constitution of the body you're trying to get elected to?

[Andy Capp]

And he should have been advised there and then that he was not able to decline the question............

Apparently at the time, the Lib Dems called a point of order and I'd be very surprised if Graham Jones (Conservative) didn't know what his obligations were.

[Richard Garvie]

And he should have been advised there and then that he was not able to decline the question............

Exactly what I said to David Holling the monitoring officer, but he claimed he could only advise if requested by Jones.

[Richard Garvie]

Apparently at the time, the Lib Dems called a point of order and I'd be very surprised if Graham Jones (Conservative) didn't know what his obligations were.

Exactly my thoughts. He didn't want the cut to come out, so he refused the supplementary. He's been making the rules up as he goes since well before I started to go to meetings!!!

[NWNREADER]

Exactly my thoughts. He didn't want the cut to come out, so he refused the supplementary. He's been making the rules up as he goes since well before I started to go to meetings!!!

I rather suspect every councillor does the same. The 'offence' is not what they do, but what they get caught doing.

Quite how you know what he has been doing before you started observing is a bit of a mystery.....

[NWNREADER]

Exactly what I said to David Holling the monitoring officer, but he claimed he could only advise if requested by Jones.

I respect David's knowledge of the legal situation, but I would prefer someone to be able to step in if 'the Council' were on a path to legal challenge. Officers have the professional knowledge and are there to advise Councillors. Otherwise they serve no purpose....