NTC suppress CrackGate questions Options

[Simon Kirby]

Charlie Farrow asked a couple of questions about the CrackGate saga at tonight's first meeting of the newly-constituted NTC. It seems to us that the failure to make the insurance claim has created most of the problems with this dispute. With the matter in the hands of their insurers NTC would have just sat back and let the professionals do their thing with a minimum of fuss and expense. Without insurance NTC have had to roll their own claims management and, up against the big boys, they've been hopelessly out-classed, and despite some vaguely persuasive evidence (which is almost certainly inadmissible against Costain) they've not got anywhere in five years.

Charlie asked at the last meeting who knew about the advice to claim on the insurance, and we were seriously unimpressed with the response that the matter was subject to some unspecified litigation because if the Council is involved in litigation we have a right to know, at least to know the nature of the claim. With so much riding on the failure to claim on the insurance, along with the fact that the failure was covered up and a good councillor was victimised for blowing the whistle on that cover-up, at the very least it's questionable that the Council should find some reason that prevents them from naming the councillors and officers who knew about the failure to make the claim, and there is an obvious possibility that the councillors involved are simply trying to avoid accountability.

So Charlie asked tonight what litigation specifically was preventing the council disclosing the names, and not only did the Mayor decline to answer citing legal advice not to do so, but she did not allow Charlie to ask the customary supplementary question - and it's that suppression of legitimate challenge that we find utterly shameful. Any supplementary question that couldn't be answered for legal reasons could just be not answered, that's not difficult. The Council may very well be right that the identity of those councillors and officers has to be kept secret, but it should be possible to give a convincing answer for why that should be, and suppressing a legitimate question is never a good sign.

[blackdog]

I trust the question will be asked again when a Tory is in the chair.

[Simon Kirby]

I trust the question will be asked again when a Tory is in the chair.

That's a good point, but not being funny, asking the self-same question again is liable to get you categorised as a Vexatious Complaint, and quite aside from the humiliation, that designation undermines your public credibility and gives an abusive council an easy opportunity to deflect a challenging question, so it's not something to be invited idly.

[Cognosco]

That's a good point, but not being funny, asking the self-same question again is liable to get you categorised as a Vexatious Complaint, and quite aside from the humiliation, that designation undermines your public credibility and gives an abusive council an easy opportunity to deflect a challenging question, so it's not something to be invited idly.

So after a costly election and thousands spent on legal costs.........on we go again! Can nothing be done to get openness and transparency in our town? Is the club that has such a tight hold on the town ever going to be culled? 😠

[On the edge]

Little wonder our local political parties say they need to increase allowances to encourage more people to stand. Actually, the real reason is before their very eyes. If the executive treat what they consider awkward questions from the public in such a contemptuous fashion, what chance do their acolytes have?

[Simon Kirby]

Little wonder our local political parties say they need to increase allowances to encourage more people to stand. Actually, the real reason is before their very eyes. If the executive treat what they consider awkward questions from the public in such a contemptuous fashion, what chance do their acolytes have?

It really was quite obscene. Newly elected council, and the very first order of business is an hour-long briefing on how to look good in their robes and hat. The vexatious question of who exactly eas to blame for the failure to claim on the legal expenses insurance and how the failure came to be covered up took a metter of minutes to sweep under the carpet.

[Turin Machine]

It really was quite obscene. Newly elected council, and the very first order of business is an hour-long briefing on how to look good in their robes and hat. The vexatious question of who exactly eas to blame for the failure to claim on the legal expenses insurance and how the failure came to be covered up took a metter of minutes to sweep under the carpet.

Then how about a letter to the national press? Perhaps one of the Tories baiting rags, surely a golden opportunity for them at this moment in time?

[blackdog]

I see JSH in the NWN today was stressing that the one issue at NTC where there will certainly be no change is the Victoria Park one - the Tories were with them 100% on that one!

Not a huge surprise after Tony Stretton's statement at the annual town meeting.

[Andy Capp]

So how do we assert our right to know this information: "So Charlie asked tonight what litigation specifically was preventing the council disclosing the names, and not only did the Mayor decline to answer citing legal advice not to do so, but she did not allow Charlie to ask the customary supplementary question - and it's that suppression of legitimate challenge that we find utterly shameful"

It is no good keep asking if they won't tell, 'we'll' have to use the available procedures. Not releasing the names for the sake of a duty of care is a reasonable argument, but not to give the information about an alleged legal case is 'smelly'.

My instinct is that is a fib.

[Simon Kirby]

So how do we assert our right to know this information: "So Charlie asked tonight what litigation specifically was preventing the council disclosing the names, and not only did the Mayor decline to answer citing legal advice not to do so, but she did not allow Charlie to ask the customary supplementary question - and it's that suppression of legitimate challenge that we find utterly shameful"

It is no good keep asking if they won't tell, 'we'll' have to use the available procedures. Not releasing the names for the sake of a duty of care is a reasonable argument, but not to give the information about an alleged legal case is 'smelly'.

My instinct is that is a fib.

Quite, on all counts.

Whether or not there is any litigation, I don't believe there is any good reason not to disclose the names of the councillors and officers who knew about the failure to claim on the insurance, and there appears to be a good possibility that those individuals are just avoiding accountability.

RUP says that there was an e-mail from the Council's solicitor to a number of councillors and officers advising that they should make a claim on the insurance policy, so we're going to ask for that e-mail under Freedom of Information and test the council's excuse.

Obviously, if the Council's reason for not disclosing the names turns out to be bogus then any named councillors who are still serving are likely to face some strong pressure not just to account for their failing, but to account for their lack of accountability with their resignation.

[Andy Capp]

Quite, on all counts.

Whether or not there is any litigation, I don't believe there is any good reason not to disclose the names of the councillors and officers who knew about the failure to claim on the insurance, and there appears to be a good possibility that those individuals are just avoiding accountability.

RUP says that there was an e-mail from the Council's solicitor to a number of councillors and officers advising that they should make a claim on the insurance policy, so we're going to ask for that e-mail under Freedom of Information and test the council's excuse.

Obviously, if the Council's reason for not disclosing the names turns out to be bogus then any named councillors who are still serving are likely to face some strong pressure not just to account for their failing, but to account for their lack of accountability with their resignation.

I do: because it would be an assumption. Someone sending an email is not on its own proof an intended recipient acknowledged that email; it would be wrong to assume otherwise. If someone had evidence that councillors were discussing it and therefore demonstrating they knew about the issue, then that might be a different matter.

Getting that email is pointless.