So…I’ve been clicking around the TDF site – giving due consideration to all sides of the argument concerning certain elected public servants and their ‘strategic’ decisions – and then I find this link to ‘Clause 4.16.9’ of the TCBC Constitution. And suddenly I go from mildly amused, to terribly intrigued. That same part of me that quite likes ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and gets all excited by cryptic puzzles and unsolved mysteries suddenly took over, and I found myself gazing in amazement at the list of conditions that now qualifies a public question as inappropriate, and therefore able to be rejected outright.
Wow. Talk about ‘Gordian Knot’ – you might as well replace the current list of criteria with one that reads:
‘Any question composed of words and/or syllables – constructed as a sentence or phrase, being either written or spoken, and relating to anything at all, ever. Clicksies, no comebacks.’
Seems to me that Clause 4.16.9 (apart from sounding ever so Biblical) was lovingly crafted to be a foolproof ‘get out of answering anything even remotely sticky free’ caveat – and I’m using the term ‘caveat’ in its root definition as a warning and as a mechanism to halt proceedings. It’s there quite simply to prevent people like us from opening our big gobs and exercising our right to question. It’s a censorship tool – nothing more, nothing less.
But it’s also a fun way to while away a few hours while you’re waiting for the Labour Party to implode. You see, I’ve come up with an idea for the whole family. It’s called…
BEAT THE CLAUSE!
And it’s really easy to play. All you have to do is come up with a direct, meaningful question to put to the Cabinet that can’t be shut down using Clause 4.16.9. Now I’m not saying for one minute that you should actually go and submit any of these questions to the Cabinet – ‘cause, let’s face it – that’d be pointless. They’d only go away and create Clause 4.16.10 and it’d probably look just like the one I came up with above. All you have to do is post them as a response to this blog, and we’ll see if we can prove beyond all doubt that there isn’t one single meaningful and direct question any of us can come up with that TCBC wouldn’t be able to reject using Clause 4.16.9…
And if anyone DOES manage it – could you then turn your attention to solving the problem of free energy and world hunger? Cos you’re obviously some kind of genius…
Wednesday 25 June 2008
Fun Things to do While You're Waiting for Democracy to Kick in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Easy, here goes....
Provided I live or work in Torfaen, but I never ever go to Pontypool and I don't know nor am I related to anyone who lives there I could ask why a bus stop has been moved to right outside someones house (Someone I don't know of course, in Pontypool) when there was a much better place to put it down the road. (How I would know about this, maybe I read it in the paper?) Then provided no officer or councillor lives in the area and it is not the subject of any legal or enforcement proceedure and that the question in no way critisises any councillor or officer of the council, and has not been taken up as a cause by any political party then they could only reject it if the answer was to take a lot of time effort or money to prepare, (that is the officers just couldn't be bothered, very unlikely). EASY!
However.... I suppose...... they could say this question relates to the circumstances of a group, ie bus passengers, or the individuals who lives next to the bus stop... Hmmmm.... what was that about free energy and world hunger?
Okay...so the premise is - you don't know anyone in Pontypool, you never ever go there, but you want to know why bus stop X was sited at location A and not B? Sounds terribly frivolous to me...and it definitely relates to the particular circumstances of individuals and/or groups...good one! Let's keep em coming!
What is the cost per councillor per meal, the total cost per monthly council meeting and the total cost per year of the food and drink offered to all councillors after meetings of the council?
On what grounds could they reject that one?
You might argue that this one falls under (g) 'conditions of service of employees' - and they'd likely also invoke the 'disproportionate time' thing. The only thing I WILL say about the food and drink thing...is that bottled Evian water costs a damn sight more than tap water does.
And something else strikes me as curious - in part (d) of the clause, how exactly does one define 'exempt' information?
I thought it was possible to write and ask questions to officers and members outside of meetings - and that way a detailed official response can be provided.
Is this naive? Have they also stopped this? We should be told.
Does anyone actually know what sort of "spread" The councillors get after a meeting. I am just assuming that it is something pretty good, otherwise why is everyone in such a hurry to get to it? Is it a hot meal, that may go cold if Public Question Time drags on for more than twenty minutes? Do the officers go too? Do they have alcoholic drinks?
Someone enlighten me!
Oh and ref " - in part (d) of the clause, how exactly does one define 'exempt' information?"
That question could be asked, unless in itself it is exempt information.
Email toni.edwards@torfaen.gov.uk
She is catering manager for council meetings.
Frazer said:
Oh and ref " - in part (d) of the clause, how exactly does one define 'exempt' information?"
That question could be asked, unless in itself it is exempt information.
****************
Well, see...It relates to the activities and aims of an organisation. The Constitution itself is a key element of the activities and aims of TCBC, so asking a question about anything contained within it could be rejected on those grounds. Yeah, I'm providing tenuous reasons here - but that's the point. If they wanted to, they could refuse to answer anything...
Post a Comment