Quote:
Originally Posted by gynn
But the Council's Constitution is there to protect against one party or one individual acting against due process.
It seems perfectly reasonable to postpone a meeting out of respect for the death of a colleague, but it is unreasonable to postpone it for more than one or two weeks.
The questions to which the Managing Director should be asked to provide a written reply are:
1. Why, specifically, have you cancelled Tuesday night's meeting of the Council?
1. Was custom and practice followed, according to paragraph 4.3.2 of the Council's Constitution, in that the Mayor, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition were consulted on the cancellation of Tuesday's meeting.
2. If not, what were the special circumstances that prevented custom and practice being followed?
3. Why has the meeting been cancelled, rather than postponed to a date one or two weeks hence?
|
Bless you, my child.
You're talking as if the current Leader of the Council pays any heed to the document. The Constitution is merely an irritating itch that happens to double as an outsize doorstop. Any uncomfortable points within are rewritten to suit his personal needs.
I understand that we're due a monster council meeting on 7th December which is likely to go on for about 8 hours, by which time everyone will be far too knackered to argue points properly and it will be even more of a panto than usual. Peter probably also hopes he will have won a by-election by then, evening out the numbers a bit.
In theory, your questions are right and proper but they will be wriggled out of. An almost guaranteed comeback will be along the lines of Labour having no respect for the deceased, something which is certainly not true in Cllr Griffiths' case as no one has ever had a seriously bad word to say about him from either side of the fence.