Political blog, July 22: More Kent TV
Comments |
KCC's decision to
award a seven-month extension to keep its TV channel Kent TV
going until March was the subject of an interesting discussion by
councillors on Tuesday (21).
The subject came up - somewhat unexpectedly - during a
meeting of the authority's cabinet scrutiny
committee. It did so following an informal meeting
(which was held behind close doors place last Wednesday) at
which Cllr Trudy Dean, the leader of the Liberal
Democrat opposition and Cllr Roger Manning, the
Conservative representative on the committee had quizzed chief
executive Peter Gilroy about the events that led up to the
decision.
A minute of that discussion can be read here. (One interesting point is that the
issue of what should be done and when it should happen was first
discussed in March. Another is that there was no written note made
of the initial meeting.)
There were two issues councillors expressed misgivings about at
Tuesday's meeting. The first was whether, in taking the
decision Mr Gilroy had any conflict of interest given that he
was also chairman of the board of governors of Kent TV.
The committee accepted that in seeking legal advice that
indicated there was no conflict of interest, Mr Gilroy had acted
quite properly.
However, some clearly felt that the issue was a broader
one, namely whether there could be a perception among the
public that there might be a conflict of
interest.
Some of the strongest criticism coming from Conservative
backbenchers on the committee. Cllr Jeremy Kite
(Con) said that "it failed the public perception test" while fellow
Conservative James Scholes said it was
"inconceivable" that the public wouldn't think there had been a
possible conflict of interest.
For his part, Mr Gilroy told me that he was
"puzzled" by the concerns expressed and points
out that he had been obliged to take the decision because
members had indicated that they wanted more time to consider
Kent TV's long-term future after the June election. Had he not
agreed the extension, the process of winding down Kent TV would
have had to have started and it was his job to ensure that the
scheme was professionally managed.
Which brings me to the other interesting aspect of the debate,
which was the clear irritation felt by backbenchers that this
ought to have been a decision that the politicians should have
taken, rather than the chief executive. What was most notable was
that the strongest criticism came from Conservatives on the
committee.
The most serious rebuke came from Cllr Eric
Hotson, who said it was "unforgiveable" that over a period
of three or four months, the council's cabinet had appeared not
to be involved in the matter. Just to emphasise his point, he
added: "This is a criticism, without a shadow of a doubt."
Cllr Richard Parry also spoke about the "lack of member
involvement" while Cllr Richard King said it raised "a matter of
principle" and was "a question of who makes the decisions."
As it happens, it seems that their criticism may be misplaced as
it seems that the leader and deputy leader were involved at least
in some of the discussions.
But if they were involved, it seems not to have been
communicated to Conservative members, which might explain why
several were surprisingly outspoken.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The media's role in local
government has traditionally been about holding our
democratically-elected members to account for their actions and
decisions.
In my case, part of that involves going to a lot of meetings at
County Hall (although I've noticed that there are far fewer of them
than there used to be before cabinet government was effectively
imposed on councils by the Government.)
But ought we to be involved more directly? Cllr Jeremy
Kite, the Conservative leader of Dartford Borough Council
and newly-elected to the county council, floated an intriguing idea
this week when he suggested that perhaps KCC could involve media
representatives in scrutiny committee meetings, saying it could be
a way in which the authority could get a feel for what issues were
concerning council taxpayers.
"I can see a role for the media to be involved in scrutiny. For
us to get a true debate going, we need to find a way of tapping
opinion across Kent."
I am less keen on a suggestion by Cllr Bryan Cope, who suggested
on Tuesday that one way of improving the way backbenchers
scrutinised council decisions would be to do so in private, saying
he felt it did not do any good for officers and members to be
grilled in the glare of the public spotlight.
Wednesday, July 22 2009
The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.