SBC: 9 X-Party Opposition Cllrs Challenge CEO’s Diktat

SBC: 9 X-Party Opposition Cllrs Challenge CEO’s Diktat

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD reporting on a call for an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council.

~~~~~

According to a Press Release received yesterday evening, nine Scarborough Borough Councillors, headed up by Labour members Councillor Rob BARNETT (Proposer) and Councillor Eric BROADBENT (Seconder) have served a Requisition on Scarborough Mayor Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.] calling for an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council.

The objective is to establish the legal authority of CEO and Head of Paid Service Mr Jim DILLON to prohibit Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF [Ind.] from visiting Council premises – including the prohibition from attending meetings of Council or Committees, and from contacting SBC Officers – a prohibition which has been in place since the beginning of March.

This topic has been covered in great depth in the Enquirer here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Here follows yesterday’s Press Release:

FULL SCREEN

Yorkshire Coast Radio initial report here.

Listen to Councillor RANDERSON’s interview and statement.

Scarborough News report here.

It has also come to light that a growing number of Parish Councillors in the Parish Councils within Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF’ ward (Hertford), whose confidence in her remains at the highest level, are expressing the gravest concerns. One Council has written formally to Mr DILLON and is collectively far from satisfied with his ultra-lame response – namely, that Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF still has her i-Pad and can therefore still view Council documents, which should not, he opines, inhibit her effectiveness as a Councillor, despite the fact that he has blocked her input into the decision-making process.

Mr DILLON has further confirmed that Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF can now contact Officers – but only via him.

This seems to be a tacit admission that emails are still being illegally intercepted.

What a response. He should perhaps have taken some external legal advice. Or some bromide.

Given that the Council presently comprises 50 Councillors – 25 of whom are Tories, plus 2 independent Independents ‘in their pockets’ (so to say), thus ensuring a safe majority – it is probably the case that no Motions will be carried. Except, perhaps, for an ad hoc Motion to ban all nine of the named signatories from visiting Council premises, attending Council and Committee meetings and communicating with Council Officers via intercepted emails. Snort, snort.

Nevertheless, readers will be gratified to see – seven months ahead of local elections – that some Councillors do put principle ahead of party and perks. They should be roundly applauded – unlike Mr DILLON, who clearly imagines that he can do just as he pleases.

Finally, I learned today that Councillor ‘Officers’ are not Officers at all – not in the sense that members of the Police forces are Officers, or ranking members of the armed forces are Officers. No. They are ‘Officers’ only in the prosaic sense that they work in Offices. Pen-pushers. Paper-shufflers. Desk-jockeys. And not necessarily the best. Or even average.

I quote from the Press Release:

“The fundamental democratic principle at stake is that it cannot be right that the voters’ choice can be nullified by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.”

Hear, hear to that!

FULL SCREEN