Political blog, July 9: How Kent TV contract was extended and Labour fuels fire row
Comments |
Regardless of whether you
think Kent TV is a good thing or a bad thing,
Kent County Council has not always been deft in its handling of the
controversial scheme.
Because of the amount of public money involved, the pilot
project has consistently stirred up political controversy
and the decision to give Ten Alps, the company
responsible for operating it on behalf of the council, an extra
seven months to its contract has proved no exception.
KCC extends Kent TV
contract>>>
What has irritated the opposition Labour and Liberal Democrats
at County Hall is that they were not aware of what was happening
until after the event and even the extent of the involvement of
senior councillors from the ruling administration is unclear.
That is not to say there necessarily should have been. But the
Lib Dems contend there had been a commitment by the council
that before any further decisions were taken about Kent TV,
councillors would at least have had a chance to discuss them -
even if it did eventually result in an extension to the
contract.
In fact, I was under the same impression which is what led me
to requested the relevant papers and reports that had been
presented to members about the decision - assuming that it would
have something that KCC's cabinet or a member of the cabinet would
have had to sign off.
However, while the involvement of politicians is pretty opague,
I have now been provided with a report that details what was
considered by chief executive Peter Gilroy who approved the
extension, which you can read here.
Note that there is nothing to indicate what possible level of
additional public subsidy this may involve.
I gather the circumstances surrounding the decision will now be
examined by KCC's policy scrutiny
commitee, the council's backbench watchdog committee,
when it next meets.
Whether this will illuminate the sequence of events or
circumstances surrounding the decision remains to be seen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the reasons given by Cllr Roger
Gough for extending the contract was that it "employed
more than 11 people." I'm not sure what that implies - does Kent TV
employ 12? Or 13? Is 11 some kind of employment threshold figure
which if exceeded is used to justify financial assistance?
I suppose if the figure was in the hundreds, the phrase "more
than" might be appropriate. But I don't quite buy 11.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With 74 councillors after the election, the Conservatives enjoy
a healthy majority on all KCC committees. That includes the
Kent and Medway Fire Authority, where they now
have 18 of the 22 seats
available to the county council.
But their determination to take up every single seat available
to them under the rules has upset Labour's Les Christie. A former
fire authority chairman, he was hoping to keep his seat on the
authority but has been displaced after the number crunchers decided
that the party's entitlement to 0.5 per cent of a member was not
enough to justify a full member.
Now, the fire authority has never struck me as a particularly
politically overt committee. So why have the Conservatives decided
they need all 18 seats?
Les believes he is paying the price for his outspoken opposition
to a recent decision to increase allowances for KCC members.
I've no idea if that's the case - it's been denied by the way -
but even so, I cannot fathom why the authority will function any
better with 18 Conservatives than say, 17. It'll be interesting to
note the attendance record of members over the next year.
Thursday, July 09 2009
The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.