The Dame thinks this an excellent and long required improvement. Every week some new scandal emerges from this council. It's leader seems more focused on his personal advancement than promoting rectitude.
Every councillor who cares about the dignity and reputation of our council should support the amendment
Dear Councillors,
The Labour Group has submitted an amendment to the recommendations of the Administration Committee in respect of the new standards regime (item 7 on the agenda for tonight). This is set out below. A copy will be laid around the Chamber .
To amend the recommendation in paragraph 1.2 to read:
“Given its poor record in recent years concerning members' conduct and standards, the consequent tarnishing of the Royal Borough's public reputation and the need to meet the Nolan standards, it will be only by instituting a rigorous and impartial standards regime, including a strong independent element, that the Council can hope to re-establish its good standing with local residents. The Council is therefore recommended as follows:
1. To begin the statutory recruitment process to establish a Panel of five Independent Persons, to be interviewed by five members (three from the majority party and one from each of the minority parties). This Panel will:
a. be chaired by the Borough’s Honorary Recorder
b. be responsible for ensuring that the Council maintains high standards of conduct
c. make recommendations as necessary on the local code of conduct
d. advise the Council on the process for dealing with complaints, which process must include the provision for a right of review
e. carry out initial investigations into allegations of breaches of that code
f. report its findings to the Audit Committee and any successor Committee.
2. To agree that the Administration Committee has responsibility for:
a. advising the Council of any allowance to be paid to members of the Panel of Independent Persons; and
b. bringing the new regime for standards in the Royal Borough for full Council approval on 27 June in order to meet the required implementation date of 1 July 2012.
Thereafter the Panel of Independent Persons will initiate a three month period of public consultation with Borough residents to ensure that this new regime meets the public’s aspirations as to how the conduct of Council Members is to be scrutinised and regulated.”
Mover: Cllr. Blakeman
Seconder: Cllr. Dent Coad
It is a disgrace that RBKC should come to have to need this recommendation.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope that Councillors support it, bearing in mind their abysmal track record of self management, morally and on behalf of the residents who pay their wages and who they are supposed to represent.
Well done Councillors Blakeman and Dent Coad for giving them this opportunity.
Thank you Dame Hornet for your support on this.
ReplyDeleteBizarrely and in the face of common sense and good practice, the Council voted down our entirely reasonable amendment.
The Mayor of London set a good example of suspending his Deputy Ian Clement when he faced a possible criminal charge; likewise he accepted resignations from Ray Lewis, Tim Parker, James McGrath and David Ross when faced with various accusations and reputational damage.
However, we were told, in the Royal Borough it was 'not until he (Lamont) was charged that any decision could be made'.
More than one subsequent comment from the Tory front bench recommended 'a light touch'.
Given the seriousness of the charges against Lamont I can't imagine this will give any comfort whatever to residents appalled at events over the past two years. The reputation of the borough has been seriously damaged, but the Tory leadership cannot see it and will not rectify weaknesses.
This means that if a similar situation arises today, they would feel perfectly justified in hushing up the affair until the day before the accused goes to Court; disgraceful.
More serious misjudgement from Pootin and his henchmen.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the vote had to be re-counted three times shows that Pootin's grip on his SRA slaves is slipping.
He looked like a dead man walking last night.
Interesting to see if Private Eye picks up on this in next weeks "Rotten Borough". More misery for the majority and more shame on our Borough.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a sensible measure to restore some faith in our rotten borough. That it has come to this is beyond belief. RBKC should be a flagshi borrough - and not a flagship for incompetence decedenge and degeneracy - hope they vote this through and start reparing our image.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who heard Cockell speak to oppose the motion last night, his hesitant mumbling speech, would have been struck by a sense that this was someone whose time was up, and who knew it. Dead man walking.
ReplyDeleteSo the new, "improved" standards arrangements for the Royal Borough comprise ONE independent person - who can only make "recommendations" to councillors - and a complaints procedure that does not include any right of review or appeal should the complaintant object to a decision. This truly beggars belief!
ReplyDeleteSo they have 'arranged' another toothless, powerless committee, it's about time that someone started to let the majority of residents what these creatures have been doing in their name.
ReplyDeleteWould the Dames wonderful new intern help to create a list of what's actually happened in this rotten borough in the last year. It needs to be put through every door in the borough, or the useless local rag regain their credibility by doing it.
The reality list is needed.
Ultimately we now have a standards committee that is the equivalent to a bunch of gummy budgies, capable of only sucking seeds. Shame on them all.
This will come back to bite them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a total disgrace. We all know how well "light touch" regulation worked in the city.
ReplyDeleteWhen processes fail, you learn from that, redesign your controls and make them tougher. Well, that's what you do in business if you want effective controls. And why would you not want that? Is there more coming that they want to sweep under the rug?
Perhaps I lack imagination here, but what other reason might there be for this rather bizarre rejection of a perfectly reasonable proposal that might redress some of the harm done?