That explains a lot

[demoneyes_phil]

According to today's Telegraph, current "ethical" rules being enforced (Prescott strikes again) on some local councillors mean they are being disallowed from speaking or voting in debates on any issue where they are perceived to have a predetermined opinion. Even if that were the issue on which they campaigned themselves into office! Or indeed in some cases, just be affected by the issue - cases quoted included those with cars being excluded from discussions of a park-and-ride scheme, or those with mobile phones from discussions of mast sitings. Or even one councillor who had publicly canvassed local opinion about a particular issue being excluded from the room when they discussed that issue because obviously having consulted the public meant he could no longer be considered unprejudiced.

So basically, if I understand all this correctly (and assuming the report is not wildly exaggerated!), local councillors who might have any reason to understand the background to an issue are, if these rules are applied, automatically prohibited from contributing to deciding what to do about it.

That could explain so much. Gravesend's policy on car parks and charges for starters!

Comments

[nelladarren.livejournal.com]

That would be ridiculous! Would that still be withing the constitution / laws?!

Second thought: are there really any people without mobile phones? :o) At least this might be one issue no one can be excluded - wait - or EVERYONE? ;o)

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

Alternative viewpoint: Our planning permission was turned down the first time around by the sister-in-law of the other person who had tried to buy our land (needless to say, unsuccessfully).

Unbiased? I think not. It's the one site that he couldn't get by throwing money at it - our new neighbours wanted *us*, not some developer, so went with our less-money-more-heart bid.

I wish interests *had* been declared in that situation.

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

I think there's a slight difference between requiring interests to be declared before discussions - self-evidently a good idea - and barring anyone "perceived" to have interests from even participating in them.

Of course the irony here is that obviously these wonderful "ethical" policies apparently did nothing to prevent the sort of "personal interest" abuses you suffered.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

There's certainly a difference between interests and opinions/prior knowledge. If I, as a politician, stand to make or lose a great deal of money personally if some deal does or does not go through, I could see that I be required to sit that debate out -- I'd be looking out for MY best interests, not the community's.

But prior knowledge/opinions? That's like excluding from a jury anyone who has a prior opinion that, say, murder or theft are wrong.

[madfilkentist]

That sounds as if some people are taking legitimate rules and twisting them to keep their opponents out of the debate. I seriously doubt that they're consistently applying a rule that requires ignorance of the issue in order to participate.

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

The standards rules are strange and weird and very misapplicable, but sort-of understandable.

The golden rule for Planning matters is that if you are perceived to have made up your mind in advance ("fettered your discretion" as the law has it), you may not take part in the decision. You can only speak as an ordinary ward member representing his or her electorate, which may or may not (depending on local rules) count as part of the time (a generous three minutes) allowed for each side of the argument. I've done this once, on an application for a local community house that I helped shepherd through the planning process.

That aside, you then come up against the wonderful definitions of personal and prejudicial interests. These are mostly distinct in level of effect. Personal interests (ones basically that don't involve direct advantage) only have to be declared. Prejudicial interests (that do involve some direct gain) require you to not take part in the debate, and in most places also require you to leave the chamber so that your mere presence can't browbeat colleagues into following your lead assuming you were stupid enough not to have done that long beforehand.

The nasty bit is just what constitutes an interest; anything to do with yourself, your work, your family or your friends. That sounds vaguely reasonable until you start trying to pin it down a bit. How close a member of the family are we talking about? Pretty much anyone if the Standards Board decides the relationship counts. Who is your friend? The Standards Board "does not presume to tell councillors who their friends are," until of course it has to rule on an individual case. I've declared an interest in a discussion (a progress report not requiring decision) on upgrading a communal TV system because the company I work for makes set-top boxes. Other colleagues have declared interests in everything from Being A Nurse (which debarred one councillor from a debate on Healthcare) to Being A Director Of A Charity Looking For A Grant (which, interestingly, isn't prejudicial).

It's not quite true that if you know anything about a subject you can't speak about it, but it's damn close. The only exemption enshrined in law is that Council Tenants can still speak and vote on Council Housing matters.