689
Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to offer his congratulations to the Mayor on her election. He would support her in Mayoralty and hoped the councillors would support her by attending civic events in greater numbers than had been the case in recent years. He also offered his congratulations to the Deputy Mayor and Mayoress. He did not believe that the administration had a democratic mandate in view of the number of seats it had won and the votes received in the City Council elections. The people of Colchester were entitled to a system that gave all Councillors a say in the decision making of the Council. When the Cabinet system had first been introduced at Colchester Borough Council there had been a joint administration with a Cabinet of five Councillors, with the places shared proportionally amongst all the major groups. It could not be right that the group that came third in the popular vote should be able to form an administration.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and highlighted that in parliamentary election it was entirely possible for a candidate to win with approximately a third of the vote. In terms of local authority governance, under the cabinet system, the Leader of the council was elected by Council and had to be able to command the support of the Chamber. The current Liberal Democrat administration would not be able to function without the support of the Labour and Green groups on the Council. He believed that non-Conservative groups on the Council had a clear majority on the Council and a clear mandate. The administration would work in a consensual way and would collaborate with the other groups on Council. This was the mark of good governance.
The Democratic Services Manager read a Have Your Say! contribution submitted by Alderman G. Oxford offering congratulations on behalf of himself and Alderman B. Oxford to the Mayor and the Mayor and Mayoress and the Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayoress on their election. He also offered thanks to former Councillors Hogg, Jowers and Barton for their long service to the Council.
Alderman Higgins addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) and offered her congratulations to the Mayor on her election as one of only sixteen female Mayors of the Council. It was highlighted that when Lower Castle Park was closed, for example for events which could last from Thursday to the following Tuesday, there was no cycle access along the path by Lower Castle Park. With Middle Mill weir being closed there was no safe route for cyclists and it was requested that this cycle path remain open when events were on. This could be done with barriers. At present the alternative was a very long diversion.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that a full written response would be sent. The Council was doing all it could to expedite a repair to Middle Mill weir and the Council and the Events Company were looking at the access issues raised.
Cheryl Taylor addressed the Council pursuant the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) about the proposed changes to the Have Your Say! arrangements. These changes threatened the principles of openness, transparency and public engagement, which were essential to local democracy. Limiting the number of speakers would limit the diversity of voices heard and could prevent residents’ views being heard on important issues. Removing the right of reply reduced the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and would mean the debate was one sided and less effective. Pre-registration and the limit of one speech per person created unnecessary barriers. These rules would exclude those unable to plan ahead or impact on those with multiple pressing issues. Allowing the Chair to decide on the order of speakers and to reject inappropriate questions relied on subjective opinions. Clear and transparent criteria for these judgements should be developed to ensure fairness. Whilst efficiency was important, the changes risked sacrificing public input for quicker meetings. Alternative ways of streamlining meetings should be explored. The changes could stifle public engagement and erode trust in the Council and should be reconsidered.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that there had been considerable discussion within the Council about how to strike the balance between public engagement and meeting efficiency. It was now proposed to retain the right of reply. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of the meetings process was important. The meetings were business meetings in public, rather than public meetings. The Constitution provided for 15 minute Have Your Say sessions but over time the practice was that this was regularly exceeded, which meant that decisions were often take late. This was not a good basis for effective decision making. The proposals struck a better balance between public engagement and meeting efficiency and were an extra opportunity to be heard on top of the other opportunities for engagement.
David Charalambous addressed the Council pursuant the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) about the bystander effect and its relevance to government. In view of recent scandals, no reliance could be put on governing bodies to regulate effectively. Councillors were the public’s first and last line of defence and the public could not afford for Councillors to be bystanders. Councillors needed to apply due diligence to information they received, in particular climate data. There was no consensus on this issue, as was claimed, and it needed to be borne in mind that those challenging consensus views were sometimes dismissed or persecuted before being proved right.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Mr Charalambous for his comments. Council was made up of people who loved to challenge information and views. Council would follow the sum of the science and data as it changed.
Brian Rees addressed the Council pursuant the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to stress the importance of the decisions taken by the Council to the local community and the consequences if those decisions were based on incorrect information. History was full of decisions based on poor information. To assist in coming to the right decision on climate change, an important public meeting would be held to which all important parties, including Councillors, would be invited. It would be an opportunity to hear from two United Nations accredited climatologists who would present evidence that would allow decision makers to avoid poor choices with long term consequences.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and reiterated the comments made in response to the previous speaker. He had undertaken to explore the scope for a public meeting and would respond on that in due course.
Lance Peatling addressed the Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1). He had attended several Have Your Say! sessions and they were largely completed in a matter of minutes and were rarely consequential or an impediment to the scheduled business. Council should give due consideration to the evidential basis on which the changes were being proposed. Given the impact of the changes which would forestall the public from freely expressing their concerns, councillors needed to carefully analyse the evidential basis for the decision.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised that the Council was not discriminating or rejecting public participation but looking to strike a better balance and better use of time.