Full Council Meeting - 14th September

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by cashman

My thoughts exactly.

I have no problem with cancelling the full council meeting in respect to John. But there are two things that concern me. Firstly the Council meeting you would have thought could been arranged for say in two or three weeks time. But that's not what's happening. The leader of the Council has said that there will not be another Full Council until December.

Secondly the Cabinet meeting scheduled for this Thursday still goes ahead. For those that don't know the full Council is when all Councillors are present, and can speak and vote. The Cabinet meeting is made up Conservative Councillors only.

Given that tomorrow's full Council could have been quite stormy because of amongst other things the market hall debate, it does make you wonder.

[accysimon]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

I have no problem with cancelling the full council meeting in respect to John. But there are two things that concern me. Firstly the Council meeting you would have thought could been arranged for say in two or three weeks time. But that's not what's happening. The leader of the Council has said that there will not be another Full Council until December.

Secondly the Cabinet meeting scheduled for this Thursday still goes ahead. For those that don't know the full Council is when all Councillors are present, and can speak and vote. The Cabinet meeting is made up Conservative Councillors only.

Given that tomorrow's full Council could have been quite stormy because of amongst other things the market hall debate, it does make you wonder.

Does that mean he will try and force through policy decisions he may well have lost in a Full Council?

[cashman]

then surely an answer is needed as to why its december?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by accysimon

Does that mean he will try and force through policy decisions he may well have lost in a Full Council?

oh seems ya want a mindreader? either that or yer stirring again?

[Tealeaf]

I would have assumed the full council meeting would have gone ahead, if only for all those present - of whatever political persuasion - to hold a few moments silence and pay tribute to their departed colleague.

No, there has to be another reason why Britcliffe has pulled the plug on this meeting and it would not surprise me if it has something to do with the market hall fiasco and responsibility for that falling on him.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by cashman

then surely an answer is needed as to why its december?

There's any number of weeks when the Council meeting could have been held. But apparently Hi's adamant the next Council meeting will be in December.

The Planning Committee incidentally that John chaired which was due to be held this week,will now be held next week.

[cashman]

then i might assume he could not have won any vote tomorrow, if i were a cynical get. also december would give time to wheel a new person in?

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by cashman

then i might assume he could not have won any vote tomorrow, if i were a cynical get. also december would give time to wheel a new person in?

You are bring very cynical, there would have been 2 Tory councillors who could not have been at the meeting on 14 September (which would have meant he would have had 15 councillors present) the Labour Party would have been 1 councillor down (meaning there would have been 13 Labour members plus 3 Independents making 16). So the very sad death of John Griffiths meant he would have been down to 14 councillors present at the meeting.

He would have lost all the motions put forward by the opposition group.

Also the Leader of the Labour Group was not consulted about the postponement of the Council Meeting (which he should have been according to the constitution.

Clare Pritchard is going to raise the subject of the Market Hall at the end of Cabinet on Thursday, but I am sure the controlling group will ignore the pionts she raises.

The Cabinet meeting is on Thursday 16 at 11am at Scaitcliffe House and is open to members of the public to spectate but no member of the public will have an opportunity to address the meeting.

[cashman]

Cynical, but seems i was right.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by claytonender

He would have lost all the motions put forward by the opposition group.

Also the Leader of the Labour Group was not consulted about the postponement of the Council Meeting (which he should have been according to the constitution.

Surely then if the 'cancellation' of the meeting has not been done with due process, then there is a constitutional case for the meeting to go ahead. The agenda has been published and if Britcliffe and some or all of his gang fail to turn up than Labour & the Indy's go ahead on their own.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Surely then if the 'cancellation' of the meeting has not been done with due process, then there is a constitutional case for the meeting to go ahead. The agenda has been published and if Britcliffe and some or all of his gang fail to turn up than Labour & the Indy's go ahead on their own.

If that is the case? will be interesting to note if anyone has the balls to do it.

[claytonender]

Extract from Part 4 of the Council's Constitution

4.3 Changing Dates of Meetings of Full Council

4.3.1. The Council’s written constitution allows for the time and place of ordinary and extra ordinary meetings of the Council to be determined by the Managing Director.
4.3.2. On occasions when it is necessary to change the date of the Council meeting or to arrange an extra ordinary meeting, it is custom and practice to consult with the Mayor, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition to agree an alternative/new date.

Unfortunately the constitution only states that it is custom and practice - and Peter Britcliffe does not abide by 'gentleman's rules', but prefers to ride roughshod over everyone else.
Can't for the life of me think why.
(Answers on the back of a postage stamp please).

[Neil]

Originally Posted by JCB

That would be an appropriate reason and gesture .

I disagree but I do agree that a minutes silence would be respectful.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by claytonender

Extract from Part 4 of the Council's Constitution

4.3 Changing Dates of Meetings of Full Council

4.3.1. The Council’s written constitution allows for the time and place of ordinary and extra ordinary meetings of the Council to be determined by the Managing Director.
4.3.2. On occasions when it is necessary to change the date of the Council meeting or to arrange an extra ordinary meeting, it is custom and practice to consult with the Mayor, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition to agree an alternative/new date.

Unfortunately the constitution only states that it is custom and practice - and Peter Britcliffe does not abide by 'gentleman's rules', but prefers to ride roughshod over everyone else.
Can't for the life of me think why.
(Answers on the back of a postage stamp please).

Yes, but Peter Britcliffe isn't the Managing Director. He is merely a consultee, and has no more right to single handedly cancel the meeting than the Mayor or Leader of the Opposition.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by gynn

Yes, but Peter Britcliffe isn't the Managing Director. He is merely a consultee, and has no more right to single handedly cancel the meeting than the Mayor or Leader of the Opposition.

He would have had a hell of a say in it though and given the expected nature of tonight's meeting and the likely outcomes it all rings true. Peter Britcliffe really does need replacing as Leader of the Council, how can behaviour like this be either democratic or good for the borough?

Vote any way but blue, every Conservative vote is de facto a vote to retain him as Leader.