Political blog: August 11: Final word on Kent TV? Not quite..
Comments |
I was on holiday when
county councillors held yet another meeting to pour over the
entrails of the decision to extend the contract for Kent TV for
another seven months so missed all the excitement.
(I wasn't the only one - there were apologies for absence from
ten members of the cross-party committee, which must be a
record).
Happily, I've been able to catch up with what went on
thanks to the
webcast of the "extraordinary" cabinet srutiny committee
meeting - all 80 minutes of it - and can report that, er, not
terribly much came out of it.
In fact, after the discussion the committee resolved to take no
further action on the matter after hearing detailed accounts and
answers from leader Paul Carter and chief executive Peter
Gilroy.
I did pick out one or two interesting titbits, nonetheless.
It does appear that, contrary to the views expressed by
several Conservative members at the original scrutiny meeting to
discuss the contract, the senior politicians were involved
in discussing with chief executive Peter Gilroy
what should be done. Mr Gilroy helpfully detailed a series of six
dates between February and April when they took place and with whom
- notably deputy leader Alex King and leader
Paul Carter.
What remained unexplained was why Conservative backbenchers
appeared not to have been kept in the loop about the matter, given
the heightened political sensitivity about the project.
Not all members of the committee seemed completely
convinced that the issue of public perception that chief executive
Peter Gilroy could be seen to have a potential conflict of
interests was adequately dealt with.
Cllr Jeremy Kite - a Conservative - was
particularly astute on this point; effectively saying that
regardless of whether KCC had ticked all the right boxes in terms
of assuring itself that it had acted appropriately, there remained
a view outside County Hall that there still could be a potential
conflict.
Council leader Paul Carter - who on several occasions complained
about the "heavy weather" being made about the saga - responded
that if members had been appraised of all the facts, then they
would not be under that misapprehension - a valid point but
one that does again beg the question as to why they weren't in the
first place.
I did get a feeling that some members - who have it constantly
drilled into them that they should avoid such conflicts and that
public perception is paramount - felt particularly perplexed
about this issue.
One or two comments from Cllr Carter did appear to indicate
that KCC is leaning towards the idea of continuing with Kent
TV. He spoke about looking forward to an "exciting debate"
in the Autumn after an evaluation about the "plus points of
Kent TV and how it is beginning to reach out to the community and
support the community in a variety of ways." (To be fair, he
did later on allude to the examination of Kent TV's "strength and
weaknesses.")
Either way, the debate looks like continuing. Cllr Trudy
Dean (Lib Dem) who normally chairs the committee was among
those unable to attend the meeting will no doubt want to
respond to some of the comments made about her handling of the
previous meeting - despite the best endeavours of stand-in chairman
Cllr Roger Manning to stop them - when they reconvene in early
September.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It looks like the
Ashford independent councillor Jack Woodford has
escaped serious censure from his fellow members after being caught
up in a race row that erupted on Facebook.
It seems Ashford council's standards committee feels unable to
sanction Cllr Woodford because the comments were made outside his
role as a councillor.
There are plenty of critics of standards committees, many
regarding them as toothless watchdogs. While the committee did
reproach Cllr Woodford it has sought refuge in a rather timid and
feeble recommendation - namely that all members should attend some
kind of training in diversity and internet use to make sure
that things like this didn't happen.
Their suggestion is rather like the way in which
teachers sometimes deal with miscreants at school, punishing
the whole class for the misdemeanours of a single pupil.
I cannot believe that the committee really feels that every
single member of Ashford council could be prone to making unguarded
comments and abusive insults on social networking sites, so why
should they all be expected to go on a diversity course?
Perhaps it felt such a recommendation would make up for its
inability - perhaps unwillingness - to take any action against Cllr
Woodford.
Either way, I suspect the committee will not be terribly
popular.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have a report from the agenda for a meeting of KCC's planning
applications committee next Tuesday to thank for this piece of
bewildering jargon.
Apparently, social services has a policy to move towards
"self directed support, person centred planning and personal
budgets".
I think this means "giving people what they want" but local
councils often cannot bring themselves to be so plain...
Tuesday, August 11 2009
The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.