Council Changes Undermine Democracy Claim
25 May 2011 by Paul RhoadesToday's North Lincolnshire Council AGM saw several changes made to the constitution of the council following the election of the Conservatives as the new ruling party, according to information released this afternoon by the Labour group.
While change is inevitable, it is not always for the best, and today's changes could see a reduction in the democratic accountability of the council over the next session.
Most notable is the story broken by Visit Scunthorpe yesterday by which the conservative group have, as predicted slashed the number of council meetings which are open to the public from 8 to just 4 per year. This means that there will be just two opportunities in the next year where members of the public can submit questions to the council to be answered publicly at a council meeting. All other correspondence will be answered privately.
This greatly undermines the accessibility to the democratic process which has been enjoyed by residents under the previous Labour regime, where council meetings have been well attended with several questions being asked by the public, and answered by the leader of the council.
Another notable change governs the liberties afforded to residents of North Lincolnshire Homes, in the past it has been customary that questions relating to the local housing association could be raised and answered at council meetings. The council have now revoked this right, which could not only result in a reduction in accountability, but also diminishes the transparency of the relationship which previously existed between the local housing authority, the council and its tenants.
These new rulings now mean that issues relating to tens of thousands of local people cannot be discussed at some of the council’s most important public meetings.
In a further erosion of civil liberties, the ruling Tory group have also passed a motion banning councillors who are not a member of either the conservative or labour group's from asking questions or moving motions. This will have serious implications for democracy should there be a by-election within the next four years and an independent councillor is elected who is not a member of the big two.
While currently all councillors are members of either the conservative or labour groups, the implication for the future political make up of the council has in effect been coerced into a binary party dictatorship, designed to put off independents and candidates from smaller parties from even standing by stripping them of power.
This motion would also help quell dissent in the Tory ranks by effectively removing the power of any councillor who disagrees with the party whip, relinquishes their membership of the party and stands as an independent. This is particularly relevant to the Conservative party in North Lincolnshire who in the last session lost two of their candidates who for various reasons, chose to leave the party and stand independently within the chamber.
Photo shows Neil Eyre who stood as an independent candidate in the Froddingham ward in this May's election, beating the Tory candidate in to third place.
Under new rules, if Neil had been elected then he would be unable to either ask a question in the chamber or to table a motion for the council to debate, in effect gagging any one who is not a member of either the Conservative or Labour groups.
The new rules make a mockery of democracy in North Lincolnshire and show that before they've even started local Conservatives are running scared of the electorate.
In a brief statement given to Visit Scunthorpe this afternoon, Labour leader Cllr Mark Kirk said: “How can anyone claim this is open and transparent? How can anyone cast aside the cares and issues facing tens of thousands of North Lincolnshire Homes tenants? How can the public hold their councillors to account if they can’t mention their name in a question or a debate?
“The post-election pledges by the Tories to be ‘open and transparent’ have gone up in smoke less than a month after they took over. North Lincolnshire Council is now a closed shop with decisions being made behind closed doors.”
Other changes to the constitution also made to day included councillors no longer being allowed to question council leader Liz Redfern, and that questions must not “relate to or mention the names of individual members”. Again with these changes one can not help put conclude that they have been put in place to protect the interests of the ruling group, and not those of the electorate.
If you would like add your own news article to Visit Scunthorpe, Login or sign up, its free and easy and you can start publishing your own content here, straight away.
Comments
For clarity, here is the motion, as voted down yesterday by the conservative group, which specifically moves to reject the changes to the constitution of the council as proposed by the conservative group:
ITEM 6(j)
Moved by Mark Kirk
Seconded by Len Foster
This council rejects any move to make North Lincolnshire Council less ‘open and transparent’. In doing so, council rejects any move to:
· Remove the Forward Plan from debate at full council
· Stop questions being asked relating to North Lincolnshire Homes or their tenants
· Ban questions which hold individual members of the council to account
· Ban notices of motion from anyone not a member of the two main political parties
Instead council adopts the same constitution as agreed for the 2010/11 council year. Furthermore, in keeping up with the digital age this council recognises that both members and members of the public should be able to use social networking sites such as Twitter
Paul,
do you have the motion voted in by the conservative group? the above motion introduced by the Labour Group is quite clear but i would like to see the precise wording of the motion voted in by the Conservative group.
Like Paul C said in his initial post it is vital that we see the actual dialogue used in the motion passed by the consevative group, so that we can all see clear as day if the Conservative group has voted in a constitutional change that i would argue is potentially unlawful, as it would restrict the power of elected representatives that are not Labour or Conservative.
If this is the case the best way for it to be tested is for a Labour councillor to leave the Labour party (because a tory isnt going to do it) and become an independent councillor. They then put forward a motion in the council which if not recognised by the council will prove that the constitutional changes made are indeed designed to remove power from councillors who are not Labour or Tory.
do you have the motion voted in by the conservative group? the above motion introduced by the Labour Group is quite clear but i would like to see the precise wording of the motion voted in by the Conservative group.
Like Paul C said in his initial post it is vital that we see the actual dialogue used in the motion passed by the consevative group, so that we can all see clear as day if the Conservative group has voted in a constitutional change that i would argue is potentially unlawful, as it would restrict the power of elected representatives that are not Labour or Conservative.
If this is the case the best way for it to be tested is for a Labour councillor to leave the Labour party (because a tory isnt going to do it) and become an independent councillor. They then put forward a motion in the council which if not recognised by the council will prove that the constitutional changes made are indeed designed to remove power from councillors who are not Labour or Tory.
The agenda item was:
Item 6(j) approve consttitution and governance issues - report by the Director of Corporate and Community Services (see Appendix 3)
This needs to be read in conjunction with Appendix 3, when I've found a link to where it can be downloaded from the council web site then I'll post that.
It’s all true!!!!!!!
I have just had it confirmed by the council that this change to
the constitution is final. It can only be reversed according to them with a
majority vote at the next council meeting which if memory serves me correct is
the end of June.
ill paint a picture:
a Labour councilor removes himself from the party and declares himself an
independent or moves to say the lib dem party. A resident of his ward/residents
of his ward comes to him with an issue or motion he/she/they would like their
representative to put to the council. The Councilor then goes to the Council to
give notice of said motion for the next council meeting, and according to the
newly amended constitution must be told NO! You can’t give notice to move a
motion because you a not a member of the Labour party or conservative party.
However unlikely this scenario is it is not outside the realms of possibility
because we have seen Tory councilors go independent before, so we should all be
asking the question.
Why change It?
This rule change does not affect the council right now, right this second, but
it will the second we have a councilor that is not affiliated with either of
the two main parties. This section of the constitution has been changed in such
a way that leaves it open to Major abuse.
The conservative party rules the council because they have a majority that can
vote for what it wants. That’s the way democracy works; the majority rules. If
that majority starts enacting changes that stifles the minority and only
strengthens the main political parties and appears to make smaller independent
candidates powerless then we all need to start asking why.
I argued this point with the council. I pointed out the flaw in changing this
rule and they did accept my point. Their response to my point was that the rule
would be changed back if a 3rd party entered the political landscape. I argued
back to that 'if it can simply be changed back, why change it to what it is
in the first place'
The council's only argument for changing it was that it didn’t affect anyone because
of the current way our council is split right now. That’s it. That was their
argument for changing it.
This to me is not a reason to change the constitution. Just because the two
main parties are the only parties in power doesn’t mean you change the
constitution to reflect that.
The Tory party has made a huge mistake making this change. They have either
made a mistake and didn’t realize the full ramification of what they have done
meaning they are incompetent, or they did this with malice so they could ensure
that only the two main parties are the ones in control of what gets put to the
councils.
This is not about transparency, this is about removing power from anyone who is
not part of the LAB/CON party system, and they are banking on us to be ignorant
of what they have done so they can get away with it.
The Labour Party may have brought this to our attention but I don’t see or hear
them doing much about it and they could quite easily test this new rule by
temporarily leaving Labour and becoming independents. I don’t see them doing
this because they are just as power hungry as the Tories.
This change tells me one thing:
The party politicians we have as our councilors are more concerned with holding
onto power for their respective parties than just getting on with the job of
running the county council.
If they wanted to stop their party members from leaving and becoming
independents then why not change the rules so that if a councilor changes
parties midterm that the seat must contested again in a by election? Wouldn’t
that be right for the people?
If a ward voted in a Tory, is it right that the councilor stops being what the
electorate voted for? If you voted for a party and not the candidate which
1000's of people do, would you be happy that that person then ran your seat in
line with a party whose ideology you never voted for and don’t believe in.
I went off the subject a bit there but isn’t that a constitutional change that
people would want as opposed to what we have just received.
I urge all people that agree this changed needs to be reverted back to what it
was. Get in touch with your local Tory councilor and argue that what they have
done is wrong and to vote for its retraction at the earliest possible time
before our democracy is damaged further.
To all those of you who don’t really care about this change and the people
who are not concerned about these changes in our constitution. That’s fine. It’s
your right to not be bothered or concerned and I respect that, but you have to
respect the fact that there are people like me who neither agree or consent to
such an nonchalant attack on democracy like this and I ask that you respect
our right to oppose this flagrant breach of trust in the custody of our once
fair and just constitution by the ruling Tory party.
Thanks for the background and verification Neil.
I am very concerned about the reduction in public meetings.
Where there have been 6 meetings which the public can attend, there are now 2.
This is not just an attack on democracy, its also a public gag.
Well said Neil.
I really wonder why the change is necessary. What is the justification? I'd really like to hear more about the reason for actually making this change. I'd like to think that the full ramifications of the change weren't thought out but the cynical side of me wonders. Perhaps the next meeting of the council will see this decision reversed and in the interests of "openness" and explanation being provided as to why the constitution has been changed.
Democracy is not a perfect system; I'm sure many people would accept that. But to put through a change that deliberately creates a two tier system whereby Labour and Tory councillors are given more rights than Lib Dem, Green Party or Independent councillors smacks a little of a Big Brother mentality. How is it a fair system where these smaller parties are allowed into Council meetings but are effectively unable to talk, table motions, ask questions etc. I suppose it ensures that NO ONE from another political party will ever have a say in North Lincolnshire again. Long live the Labour and Tory monopoly!!!!
I look forward to hearing more...
It is very unusual that constitutions can be changed with a simple majority anyway. I don't understand why when it was first written it didn't require a change be approved by 2/3s of council members? That is a pretty standard requirement which is in place to avoid instances such as this.
Neil Eyre has just published an excellent piece focussing on the impact these changes would have on independent candidates should they be elected.
Get over to his blog and give this man some support, tweets and face book links now please!!
If you would like to leave a comment about this article, Login or sign up now
Please Note
Views expressed on this site are those of individual posters, who by making these posts indemnify Visit Scunthorpe and its operators of any legal responsibility or obligation.
Please respect the privacy of others, if someone gives you infomation that you use in your post, please don't identify them.
Visit Scunthorpe is North Lincolnshire's only truly independent, non commercial, community news web site.
Established in January 2010 we have lots of members with a wide range of views who all contribute
independently with articles of their own.
You won't find dozens of adverts covering our site, or some poor attempt to promote local business services under the guise of offering a community service.
Here on VisitScunthorpe we are interested in just one thing, building an online community which is representative of the people of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire and the surrounding area.
Paul. Founder Visit Scunthorpe.
How it Works
If you would like to have the ability to add articles and comments to Visit Scunthorpe then all you need to do is sign up with a valid email address for an account. This is free, your email address is confidential and we don't send out spam emails.
Once you've completed the sign up then you are free to post and comment on well... pretty much anything, we just have some basic civilised rules to prevent people from inciting violence, hatred or making individual attacks.
If you have a web site or directory which covers either independent news and blogging, or is related to North Lincolnshire or Scunthorpe then get in touch to set up a reciprocal link.
Wow . It's been quite a few weeks in local politics. Whoever said that local government was dull? I've never seen so many blogs, tweets, articles and press releases flying round.
Some of the changes reported in this article are extremely worrying. The fact that it has been suggested here that independent (and other Lib Dem, Green Party etc) councillors won't have the same rights and responsibilities as the main party politicians is probably the most worrying. It does nothing more than set in stone the current monopoly that red and blue enjoy in North Lincs. What chance for the area if there is no chance of electing new councillors with new ideas and real power in the future.
However before I (and others) have a knee jerk reaction to these changes I would really like to see the notes of the meeting. What is the actual wording of the constitution now? Thoades: I note that this is article is written "according to information released this afternoon by the Labour group". Do we know the actual dialogue (if any) that took place in the chamber? Or are the public as usual stuck in between the warring factions and in a position where they don't know what to really believe.
I'd love to hear comments from other people who were at the meeting...because if this changes are enacted what chance of ever changing them back?
Reply Report