My first attendance at a full Council meeting last night. It also lead me to do a little research. Both, fascinating and revealing. Our councillors do operate in mysterious ways, I have to say, and that goes for all parties. Laurence Mann, I know what you look like now (as I'm sure you know me, through your close scrutiny) and there's obvoiusly the touch of the eccentric about you, with that large and garish bow tie. However, you are not alone in eccentricity.
Here are some of the main points to make.
1. Pathetic attendance in the public gallery - only three of us plus two on 'work experience' I heard.
2. No public speaker and neither at the last meeting. That's two (and probably much more) 30 minute slots wasted.
3. No member of public question on any of the agenda items.
4. Of the three newspaper reporters there, only Eve McGowan from the Informer stayed until the end, to record the most important debates near the end revolving around the Unitary Development Plan - the other two had had enough before then and departed.
5. The minutes are verbatim from council meetings but only a brief outline summary for all other meetings (so the School Organisation vacuity was not an exception). They do not report anything said by objectors or the responses. As the objectors always lose the vote, what a pointless exercise that seems to be. Superficial democracy epitomised.
6. The opposition let the majority party off the hook far too easily.
7. At the last meeting in October on the subject of consultants and how much they cost (£1.5m) and being told that it was a good thing and value for money that ex councillors return as consultants, a question was put by Cllr Kreling, asking if the same aplies to those that don't come back but are given generous pay offs. Cllr Lourie's response to that point was that he thought it a 'disgraceful question' so he wouldn't bother to answer it! Now that's interesting - don't like the question? Then don't answer it! Is that the kind of freedom we talk about defending?
8. The auditors report has recorded weaknesses or serious weaknesses in their financial controls (or lack of them).
9. On the UDP, note this paragraph: 'The existing UDP policies relating to disposal of public service buildings were based on protection of existing uses and the protection of all designated open space, and have a very significant impact on the disposal potential. It was recommended that consideration could be given to modifications to provide more flexible policies and designations for the sale of Council land and properties, the proceeds of which would be used for investment in public services that would also achieve a land use planning benefit, such as the provision of affordable housing.' Beware!
10. Disposal Strategy for Langholme Lodge - this was voted through 'to include conversion for housing'. The only debate was around what proportion should be 'affordable'. Apparently (I don't know personally) there are view implications from Richmond Hill on this.
11.Teddington Hydrotherapy Pool - an additional budget of £300,000 was approved to achieve completion. Few would disagree but the points are: a)Where did they find this money and can it only be found to cover up for cock ups (many issues around the builders that went bankrupt - the same company that affected Westfields School). b) Gina McKinney apologised and promised that this would never ever happen again. Do we believe her? What is so different now for that to be a guarantee?
Wake up Richmond! There's a lot going on that isn't good for us and is just passing us by with little attention paid. You can hardly complain about higher taxes and inferior services if you carry on in blissful ignorance.
|
