Ample time my arse!

Amy Teale asserts that I had ample time to speak on the Morley Together Motion. I checked with Roland:

0:00 Cllr Gettings (Independent) Mayor, introduces Agenda item 12
0:12 Cllr Grayshon (Morley Borough Independent) makes announcement clarifying newspaper reports
0:36 Cllr Grayshon proposes Motion
3:35 Cllr Gettings asks for a seconder
3:39 Cllr Teale (Labour) gives a formal Second
3:45 Cllr Grey (Independent) proposes procedural motion to vote on the Motion in two parts
4:05 Cllr Bradley (Independent) Seconds
4:40 Cllr Gettings puts it to immediate vote on discussing in parts - lost
4:46 Cllr McSharry (Labour) Comments on Motion
5:10 Cllr Slingsby (Independent) comments
5:37 Cllr McSharry Point of Order on Cllr Slingsby's comments
5:45 Cllr Bradley Interjection on Cllr McSharry's comments
5:55 Cllr Leadley (MBI) proposes Move to vote
5:57 Cllr Grey points out he wishes to speak
6:02 Cllr Gettings asks for a seconder
6:07 Cllr Welham (Independent) Seconds move to vote
6:10 Cllr Gettings clarifies that vote against permits further discussion,
6:20 Vote on move to vote- passed
6:30 Vote on motion- passed
6:51 Cllr Grey expresses strong disappointment on not being given a chance to speak
7:07 Cllr Gettings makes closing remarks

One minute nine seconds. Less than I thought!

Another Wednesday, more letters...

Three pertinent letters this week.

The first is from an observer at the March Town Council meeting. The title was the width of the Postbag.


I don't know who he is but I am pleased that my thoughts on what observers might have thought of us are on the mark as far as he is concerned.

The second is from Amy Teale, leader of the Labour Group.


To save you looking it up, here are two definitions of petulant

pet·u·lant (pĕch'ə-lənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.

[Latin petulāns, petulant-, insolent, from petere, to assail.]
petulance pet'u·lance or pet'u·lan·cy n.
petulantly pet'u·lant·ly adv.

I have to say that Amy's letter betrays a huge level of ignorance of debating matters. When proposing an amendment,it is not permitted to actually discuss the motion first as the amendment will be refused by the Chairman in those circumstances. (You can't speak for or against a motion and then subsequently amend it- it would give you two bites of the cherry.) My proposition was democratically rejected but there was no effort to explore it first. At that point, the amendment having been lost, I was then entitled to speak on the original motion and would have done so had I not lost the opportunity to do so shortly afterwards. (I was happy to let a couple of others speak first (keeping your powder dry!) and that was my downfall
Her points about Derek Bradley being wrong in blaming just the Labour party have merit, but she spoils it with a personal attack about having "lost the plot".

having the opportunity to raise concerns in the proper place (the Chamber) is exactly the point I am making and has obviously sailed straight over her head.

her suggesting that I would rather remain silent in the Chamber and then go to the press is at best disingenious- did she not hear me stress that I wished to speak at the meeting?

As for blatant electioneering, it seems somewhat of a ridiculous comment seeing as how I'm not standing again! I have no idea what Derek Bradley's intentions are though.

Amy, I'm waving goodbye to you from the window of the Cluetrain that you missed...

Finally, one fromDerek Bradley.

I'm a bit puzzled by this and wonder if he has got confused.One Motion on whether to give funding to a charity was indeed deferred after I picked several holes in the proposal. However, the Morley Together Motion was accepted by a majority- but at breakneck speed and with abuse of procedure-it must be that he blinked and missed it!

Election countdown- 40 days to go...

The election day for Morley Town/Parish Council (as well as two of the City Council Morley ward seats) is to be Thursday May 3rd, 7am to 10pm. The election will officially be published on March 27th (Tuesday) and prospective candidates then have from Wednesday 28th to Noon on Wednesday 4th April to get their papers in and accepted by the Electoral Services Team.

The candidates will be published on April 5th and then the race is on.

The votes will be counted from 10am on Friday morning, probably in Morley Town Hall.

More details about the forms to fill in and the process can be found on Leeds City Council Website.

The other supportive letter

Letter of support

This is the letter from Derek Bradley. It is in two halves because it spanned two columns on the letters page.

Whilst he is correct that Labour did leap on the perceived Racist comment, the move to the vote was proposed by Tom leadley, Independent Councillor and the Independent Group Whip (i.e. chief cat herder!)

MP's rebuttal in full...

Here is the reply to my letter last week, via the Postbag page.

It doesn't really answer the question, does it? Of course, the cat gets let out of the bag again on page 15 where this appeared...

Yeah, right. Oh, look, a photo opportunity. Blinky (left), Watermelon (right).

Are they new £20 notes they are holding? the ones with adam Smith on? Surely they aren't trying to buy our votes?


If you want to see a more senior politician make a fool of himself, go here (strong stomach required!)

Press reactions

Well, the Wednesday letters page was slightly unexpected. There was a mild rebuttal from Colin Challen MP, telling me I was rather wide of the mark about Morley Together being partisan. There was a letter from someone using my stance to make a point previously made about Mayor Bob not standing down after announcing his candidacy for Morley North. There was a supportive letter from Cllr Bradley, which, however, blamed it all on Labour. The other letters were from old Labour complaining about New Labour, a familiar position.

Cuttings up in due course.

Scans from last week's paper

Retribution day

Tomorrow, the weekly paper comes out. There will probably be letters opposing my stance and supporting the Town Council &/or the MP. No doubt that variants on phrases "works tirelessly for the town" and "a credit to the people of Morley" will be used.

However, I have received two unsolicited supportive emails from two well known Morleians not on the Town Council but who know of it.

Chairing for dummies

Ensure the meeting is Quorate (and remains so)
Deal with each item of agenda business in order
Each Motion needs a proposer and seconder before discussion
The proposer can have ten minutes, all other speakers five minutes
Try to balance for and against discussion once seconded
Ensure each Member speaks only once on a motion
Suspend discussion whilst procedural matters are dealt with
Amendments are like mini-Motions- they need proposing, seconding, discussion and voting on
Ensure Amendments have clarity and are pertinent to the original Motion
Do not accept another amendment until any open amendment is dealt with
Do not accept move to the vote unless everyone who wishes to has spoken or arguments are becoming repetive
Keep discussion on-topic and ensure order
Permit the original proposer to sum up if they choose to do so
Do not pre-judge the mood of the meeting regarding the likely decision outcome
Remain impartial other than when if choosing to speak yourself (if you are entitled to vote)
Casting votes should normally be used to follow the status-quo

The best book about formal meeting procedure is probably Citrine's ABC of Chairmanship.

Another pre-election election leaflet

BNP this morning- four sides of A4.

I've added it to the heap for scanning and fisking.

England expects every man to do his duty...

Over the weekend, I realised that my reading of the Standards Board code of conduct had a hole in it, so I asked them for an opinion.

Here is my email to them on Monday:

Seeking informal clarification on whether a complaint is necessary

I am contacting you about an issue that happened recently regarding conduct of a meeting Chairman.(Town Mayor) of my Town (Parish) Council.

To distill events to their simplest without layering in the politics and individuals concerned,

* An Agenda Motion was proposed for debate at full council
* The Motion was proposed and a proposal speech was made
* It received a formal second
* A procedural motion to debate the Motion in parts was lost after
being seconded
* The motion was briefly debated by two Councillors, the first of
which objected to the second 's choice of words and a third
interjected that it was true
* A move to the vote was proposed
* One Member protested that he still wished to speak on the Motion
* The Chairman asked for a seconder, clarified the consequences of
such procedure then allowed the move to the vote to be voted on

The concern here was threefold:

* A Council Standing Order states that the Chairman must only accept
a move to the vote "only if he is of the opinion that the question
before the Council has been sufficiently debated".
* A Councillor still wished to speak
* Debate had only been for One minute eleven seconds.

I looked very closely at the Code of Conduct rules over the weekend as I am aware that I am obliged to bring any breach before the Standards Board. My initial view was that this was not a Standards Board Issue, particularly when I saw the phrase "complaints about the way in which the authority
conducts and records its meetings" as a topic you cannot investigate.

However, on reflection and after further discussion with others, there is a view that the Chairman was not impartial on this occasion, albeit possibly with the best of intentions. On the basis of lack of impartiality, this is potentially a contravention "damaging the reputation of their office or authority."

There is a conflict here, hence my need to seek informal guidance.

If I am obliged to make a complaint, I would not expect it to be referred for subsequent investigation by yourselves, but that isn't up to me of course!

Thank you in advance in this matter.

Ian Grey

Today, I received this useful reply.

Dear Councillor Grey,

Thank you for your email of 12 March 2007 regarding events at a recent town council meeting you attended.

Although the Standards Board for England (the Standards Board) cannot give definitive advice in relation to specific factual situations, the following general guidance is intended to be of some assistance. It should be noted that the Standards Board's Ethical Standards Officers who are responsible for the investigation of allegations of misconduct made to the Standards Board are operationally independent. Whilst Ethical Standards Officers will be guided by the views of the Standards Board nothing contained in this email should be taken as binding on them.

Based on the information provided in your correspondence I would suggest that it's unlikely that an allegation submitted to the Standards Board against the chairman, on the basis of the conduct you describe, would be referred for investigation. The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, whilst I acknowledge the views expressed in your email, I feel that the complaint really concerns the actions of the council as opposed to the conduct of the chairman. Secondly I think it unlikely that that the complaint would be considered sufficiently serious to warrant a publicly-funded investigation.

I appreciate your concerns that a failure to report the conduct of the chairman to the Standards Board could result in a potential breach of the Code of Conduct and leaves you open to allegation yourself. However, whilst a technical breach of the Code of Conduct, the Standards Board only refers allegations concerning the 'whistleblowing' provision of the Code of Conduct for investigation in exceptional circumstances. As you may be aware, the Code of Conduct is being reviewed and a new Code of Conduct should be released in time for the May elections this year. One of the recommendations made by the Standards Board to Communities and Local Government (CLG) was that the duty to report breaches should be abolished. For further details of the Code of Conduct review you may wish to visit our website at http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/TheCodeofConduct/ReviewingtheCode/

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely,


Natalie Ainscough
Policy Adviser
The Standards Board for England

The phrase "whilst a technical breach of the Code of Conduct" could apply to me or the Chairman, I imagine.

The Papers are in...

Well, my second letter and derived article from my first letter have been published in the Morley Observer & Advertiser. (Nothing online yet though). It was third letter after a pro- Challen/Balls letter from the local Labour exec and another pending Morleygate scandal about newspapers going missing in the Library. The strapline was Where's the third box?

As to the article, it takes up all of page eleven, allowing for the other three quarters of the page being adverts.

The strapline is:

Retiring councillor's parting shot
----------------------------------
Council branded 'morally weak'

It basically paraphrases my original position, shuffling the order round slightly to make it more article-like. I am somewhat disappointed that the Journalist, Erica Madelin, has basically just re-hashed my complaint without any obvious attempt to get the other side of the story. I imagine that we will have to wait another week for that, unless the Yorkshire Evening Post picks up on it.

Erica normally comes to our full Council meetings (and sits at the reporter's desk which is right and proper) but was unable to be there last Wednesday. However, Roland was there, a fair witness who is able to offer an impartial view. Hopefully, more from Roland in due course.

I have received some information from what can best be called unidentified sources. It seems that Morley Mirror has been distributed in my Ward (the one I live in) for some time now (the last one I saw was called Morley Forward). As they know where I live (not in the sinister sense, at least not yet!) then my house is likely to have been bypassed during leafleting. Sources suggest that Searchlight & the Unions may have helped out with leafleting (who obviously wouldn't know about me) and that the next Councillor for Morley South will be a David Langham, heavily promoted in the pre-election election leaflet meeting a Minister and visiting nearby bus stations.

I had worked out the last bit for myself since Sunday. I have seen the name David Langham as the Promoter shown on Labour leaflets and I thought that he worked in the Constituency office. However, googling suggests he is (or was) a Councillor as his name is on challen's website. (I can't say I'm that interested who/what he is at present).

Morley Together in the Yorkshire Evening Post

...is now appearing in Google searches pointing to the Leedstoday.net site, home of the Yorkshire Evening Post. It wasn't showing up last week though.

I don't read the YEP, Karen thinks it is rubbish, at least compared to the Manchester Evening News. Perhaps Google agree with her!

Anyhow, I now know what the pledge actually says (or at least how it is reported) and it seems that the participants get a nice certificate as well.

I'll get round to reading it all in due course. Interestingly, another article has comments and not everyone thinks it is a good idea.

Letter to the Editor

There has been an unhealthy stampede to sign up to MP Colin Challen's Morley Today campaign. To do so is admirable as it appears to have noble aims. However, I am skeptical of taking these things at face value because there is something Macarthyist about pledges like this: if you don't sign, then by default you have ticked the NO box which says "I'm a Racist" next to it. Where is the third box that says "No thanks, I'm not interested, don't pre-judge me because I choose to ignore this."?

And now, in Morley Mirror, Labour's pre-election election leaflet, it all becomes apparent. It is little more than a partisan attempt to get Labour back into local power.

People of Morley, we have been suckered. I think Colin Challen needs to tell us a lot more about where this idea came from, when he can make time from saving the planet, that is.

A series of unfortunate events

It this stage in the conflict, it is necessary for me to keep my powder dry as now that the press are involved it becomes more difficult to predict the course of events and you don't expose your tactics to your opponents.

Mayor Bob and I have communicated and know each other's position. We are both men of principle and it is not appropriate for me to make public what were private discussions.

Hpowever, my perception of it is thus:

His view is that the process and decisions of last Wednesday were right and proper, if rather unfortunate. By involving the press, I risk bringing the Council into disrepute and he will of course have to support the Council rather than me.

My view is that the Council brought itself into disrepute last Wednesday, firstly by being Chaired without full impartiality with regard to process. Secondly by Members deciding that stifling debate was a better approach than the risk of hearing something that might upset the elephant in the room. Thirdly by rubber-stamping an unsafe motion that was obviously flawed by anyone prepared to actually read it and think beyond the Political correctness.

As to poor old Mayor Bob who has suddenly been lumbered with the wrath of the Greyster, I say again that he is a man of integrity. But, ponder this- is a Town Mayor the leader of Council or the Chairman of Council? Is it further complicated along the way by the Mayor having a regular vote as well as a casting vote? Is being impartial a state of mind based on events or perceptions of likely events?

As to the consequences, a further item to ponder- Morley Mirror has hit the streets, a pre-election election leaflet. It is the usual green eyed monster stuff that Labour are so good at (or bad at, depending on how transparent you think it is) but surprise surprise, Morley Together features in it. So, Ladies and Gentlemen of Morley Town council, Schools and businesses, who were suckered up to sign up for it because it would be inappropriate not to do so, we have all been conned. Morley together IS partisan. It isn't just about chasing out the British Nasty Party Socialist Fascists at all, it is also about ushering back in NeuArbeit, the busted flush that Morley so vigourously rejected four, three and two years ago.

Their campaign says HOPE NOT HATE, Morley must choose. I think there is a typo there as neither are palatable, not the HATEful BNP nor the HOPELESS Labour lot.

(...and I still haven't properly Fisked the leaflet yet).

An exam paper we'll never see...

Westminster Village Associated Examining Board
GCSE Political Studies- Paper 2- Local Government Presentation assessment

Task: Role play practical
Time allowed: Preparation- 20 minutes, Presentation- No more than five minutes

Scenario:

You are an elected Member of Morleygate Parish Council. In your Agenda paperwork, you observe the following motion as item twelve, the last item of business:

Resolution proposed by Councillor J Schofield:-

"This Council notes the 'Morley Together' campaign and agrees to sign up to the principles laid out in it.
Council is mindful that discrimination takes many forms and believes that all kinds of discrimination are unacceptable".

There is no supporting paperwork for this Agenda item.

Objectives: To make a presentation on the Agenda item. A maximum of five minutes will be allowed for you to speak at which point the Chairman will call you to order if the time limit is exceeded.

Assumptions: That all previous speakers have made lacklustre presentations which have not influenced your views on the topic either way.

Marks will be awarded according to the following marking criteria:

Rational analysis of position:- 6
Clarity of position:- 4
Effectiveness in influencing listeners:- 3
Confidence:- 2
Sincerity:- 4
Delivery:- 1
==
Total marks 20

A maximum of five marks overall may be deducted for use of the following techniques:

Intellectual laziness, irrational arguments, cultural relativism, guilt by association, zero tolerance, self-loathing, ad hominem attacks.

All rough notes shall be attached to this paper by the supplied treasury tag at the end of the practical and handed in to the invigilator. This will be returned to the Board along with the recorded media. In the event of a marginal result, rough notes may be taken into consideration to determine pass or fail at the discretion of the Board.

Separating business from pleasure...

This is the new home for ongoing debate about Morleygate so that I can keep my blog clear for more generic opinion, anecdotes and chit-chat about living in Morley.

I am a Town Councillor on Morley town Council and I am very unhappy with my colleages for stifling debate on contentious decisions.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

For the background on Morleygate, see these past blog entries. (Start at the bottom and work up)