S-O-T council "honesty and transparency"?

[hardlypotter]

Secrecy in corridors of power

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Deals-pool-submerged-secrecy-corridors-power/story-13962413-detail/story.html

"Openness, transparency, accountability?"

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

Secrecy in corridors of power

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Deals-pool-submerged-secrecy-corridors-power/story-13962413-detail/story.html

"Openness, transparency, accountability?"

 

This is old hat from November.

 

Is this a bid to try and discredit Mo? If so it will not work.

[hardlypotter]

Is this a bid to try and discredit Mo? If so it will not work.

 

No discrediting tactics here. It's going to take the council to put Vale into admin, so why will they do it and for who? A timely reminder of how the S-O-T council works.

[philpvfc]

The council is corrupt....so therefor Mo is perfect for the Vale because the pair can work together in harmony.

[Warren]

Secrecy in corridors of power

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Deals-pool-submerged-secrecy-corridors-power/story-13962413-detail/story.html

"Openness, transparency, accountability?"

 

A lot of people who have never worked in or with Local Authorities like Stoke on Trent have misunderstandings about how they work. In Stoke's case, to be fair, in the past it has not been well run on occassions. But officers and members in local authorities generally follow codes of conduct that include the Nolan Principles on Conduct in Public Life and maintain high standards of integrity in decision making.

 

Decision making by the Council is ultimately open to scrutiny as the reports and minutes of meetings can be inspected, usually on-line. People can also attend Cabinet and other meetings although sometimes for legitimate reasons, including immediate commercial sensistivity, they may be excluded.

 

I generally stand up for the conduct of Local Government these days. Going back to the 1980's my boss at that time, Tim McMahon, was the District Auditor who surcharged and disqualified from officer 47 Militant Tendency Councillors in Liverpool. So I know what bad Councillors and Officers look like.

[MagicFlask]

A lot of people who have never worked in or with Local Authorities like Stoke on Trent have misunderstandings about how they work. In Stoke's case, to be fair, in the past it has not been well run on occassions. But officers and members in local authorities generally follow codes of conduct that include the Nolan Principles on Conduct in Public Life and maintain high standards of integrity in decision making.

 

Decision making by the Council is ultimately open to scrutiny as the reports and minutes of meetings can be inspected, usually on-line. People can also attend Cabinet and other meetings although sometimes for legitimate reasons, including immediate commercial sensistivity, they may be excluded.

 

I generally stand up for the conduct of Local Government these days. Going back to the 1980's my boss at that time, Tim McMahon, was the District Auditor who surcharged and disqualified from officer 47 Militant Tendency Councillors in Liverpool. So I know what bad Councillors and Officers look like.

 

 

I actually work for them ( can't say much for that reason) - and I think, like Warren says, a lot of people have absolutely no idea what goes on - and although there may be one or two dubious things that happen, the process is democratic and officers have to make decisions based on a series of codes of conduct that should make things totally open and above board. What's more, the public have rights under Freedom of Information to ask almost anything.....and they often do!!!

[MagicFlask]

They are

 

go on then, wise guy, chapter and verse please......how exactly are they corrupt, as opposed to doing things you don't agree with???

 

That sentinel article is one of their commentators / letter writers with an axe to grind, not a regular reporter.....and if you read the article itself, it's politically biased and judgemental - not exactly an example of what you'd call balanced reporting.....to be taken with a very large pinch of salt of the no smoke without fire variety....

[philpvfc]

go on then, wise guy, chapter and verse please......how exactly are they corrupt, as opposed to doing things you don't agree with????

 

Countless things....admittedly more so in the past, the one that really sticks in my throat was the deal done by the pottery industry with the council not to grant Toyota permission to base themselves in the potteries. You also have the case of Port vale market, they have never done anything for the Vale but bend over backwards for Sjoke.

This is no way inciting you because you work for them....it's some of the decisions which come from the top.

Stoke is not moving forward like so many other cities and in a big way our council is to blame.

[MagicFlask]

Countless things....admittedly more so in the past, the one that really sticks in my throat was the deal done by the pottery industry with the council not to grant Toyota permission to base themselves in the potteries. You also have the case of Port vale market, they have never done anything for the Vale but bend over backwards for Sjoke.

This is no way inciting you because you work for them....it's some of the decisions which come from the top.

Stoke is not moving forward like so many other cities and in a big way our council is to blame.

 

There might - please note might - have been some dodgy stuff in the past - but the bulk of what's going on now is above board.....the deals that certain now departed councillors and officers were involved in were typical of the time - and Port Vale market has two sides to the story......

 

Most of what you're saying is about making mistakes, or decisions you don't agree with rather than corruption - and there's a very big difference between the two - I wouldn't support every decision that gets made, but I equally would not assume there was anything corrupt going on......on the basis that the risks of getting found out are way too high!!!

[philpvfc]

There might - please note might - have been some dodgy stuff in the past - but the bulk of what's going on now is above board.....the deals that certain now departed councillors and officers were involved in were typical of the time - and Port Vale market has two sides to the story......

 

Most of what you're saying is about making mistakes, or decisions you don't agree with rather than corruption - and there's a very big difference between the two - I wouldn't support every decision that gets made, but I equally would not assume there was anything corrupt going on......on the basis that the risks of getting found out are way too high!!!

 

I would guess in most big organisations there is a certain amount of corruption takes place. If it's not corruption within S-O-T council then it is ****** bad management and decisions all the time.

[Warren]

Countless things....admittedly more so in the past, the one that really sticks in my throat was the deal done by the pottery industry with the council not to grant Toyota permission to base themselves in the potteries. You also have the case of Port vale market, they have never done anything for the Vale but bend over backwards for Sjoke.

This is no way inciting you because you work for them....it's some of the decisions which come from the top.

Stoke is not moving forward like so many other cities and in a big way our council is to blame.

 

Absolute nonsense. Let us deal with Port Vale market. It either met planning law requirements or it didn't, that is the basis of decision making on planning matters in local authorities. Acting as a regulator the Council enforces the law as it stands. It may be that planning law has changed now and a retail facility like that could be applied for again.

 

There is a difference between being disappointed about the performance of the Council on issues you have an interest in and other political matters and saying there is corruption. Exercise your vote next time. By the way, Councils are relected periodically, and therefore the people now are not the people past or the people future.

[hardlypotter]

Absolute nonsense. Let us deal with Port Vale market. It either met planning law requirements or it didn't, that is the basis of decision making on planning matters in local authorities. Acting as a regulator the Council enforces the law as it stands. It may be that planning law has changed now and a retail facility like that could be applied for again.

 

There is a difference between being disappointed about the performance of the Council on issues you have an interest in and other political matters and saying there is corruption. Exercise your vote next time. By the way, Councils are relected periodically, and therefore the people now are not the people past or the people future.

 

Planning decisions have a certain amount of interpretation allowed in a number of cases. They have to, to operate sometimes even in the strictest terms.

 

As for transparency and honesty of councils, my long detailed experience of dealing with another local council, and two government departments, is entirely the opposite of what you say, even with FOIs etc but I'm sure, as in many organisations, there are many well-meaning people doing their very best openly to deliver services, whilst others operate within the shadows with more Machiavellian tactics.

 

All I say is it's healthy to question what the council proposes to do, for who and why?

[hardlypotter]

Now a veto on prospective owners? Protecting or preventing who?