Were Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington right to vote for the New Committee?

The Annual Metting of TCBC took place on the 19th of April. The following is an extract from our report on that meeting.

Bob Wellington then went on about a chat he had with Duncan Forbes, head of Bron Avon Housing, about grant money that they could get which the council could not get. Then he mentioned parking problems in housing estates, with roads often blocked so that service vehicles could not gain access and so on.
All this was a preamble to a proposal to form a new committee "Policy Co-ordination and Development Committee" with a special responsibility allowance for the chair. It was being introduced now as it was hoped to appoint the chair of this committee at the annual meeting.

Cllr Veronica German, Liberal, accussed the leader of creating the new committee as there would otherwise be just one of his supporters without an SRA. All the talk had been for less committees not more and there was now one less scrutiny commitee, so why create this new committee now? Many other comments followed, with labour members supporting the proposal and condemning the opposition for not welcoming the opportunity to take part in policy making.

Elizabeth Haynes proposed defering the decision, pending further information. See her statement here. This was seconded and on a recorded vote this ammendment was lost by one vote, 20 to 21. Tom Huish voted for the ammendment (ie to defer the decision), together with Peoples Voice, Conservatives, Liberals and the independent group councillors. Labour and Plaid voted as one against the ammendment but this time Councillors Cathcart and Cunnington, normally supporting labour, abstained. However when it came to the vote on whether the committee should be formed the famous five, including Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington, voted with Labour, and it was decided that the committee would be formed by 23 votes to 20. (New Mayor Tom Huish voted against the formation of
the new committee.) "

Our first "Dear Councillor" letter is to Cllrs Cathcart and Cunnington, questioning why they voted the way they did. Cllr Cathcart has not replied but Cllr Alastiar Cunnington has done. The original email and Cllr Cunnington's reply are copied below.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Email From: Chris Harris
To: Alastair Cunnington ; Peter Cathcart
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: Your recent vote in Council.

Dear Cllr Cunnington and Cathcart,
I am concerned with the report to council at the last meeting headed "Agenda item 10 ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLICY CO-ORDINATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE." and the outcome of the discussions and the vote.
Some weeks ago I was musing about the change in Mayor, the election of the New Deputy Mayor and the resignation of Tom Huish from the independent group. Someone pointed out the difficulty for the leader persuading any of the labour group to take up the position of Deputy Mayor as they were all on £8000+ SRA's whereas the Deputy Mayor only got £5000+. So where could the new Deputy be found? If not someone from the labour group, maybe allow the opposition to propose a mayor? Plaid? One of you two?
Of course my best bet was Tom Huish, noting that he was the only opposition member to vote for the recent pay rise. This was indeed the case, Tom Huish was Bob Wellington's Choice.
Then there was the problem of the outgoing Mayor, where was the SRA to be found for him? He would not be happy to be the only one without an SRA? There are just one too few SRA's to go around.
Then this Agenda Item 10 appears on the Agenda for the 19th of May Annual Meeting, a report by Bob Wellington, to change the constitution, add a new committee and add an extra SRA allowance!
Where did this come from? Bob Wellington. When did you get to hear about it? A few days before the meeting if that. When did the labour cabinet get to hear about it? A day or two before you at the most. Where were the background papers mentioned in the report? There were none. Yet you, plaid and labour block vote it in.
If it had come in as a recommendation from the Constitution working party then Lynda Willis would have presented the report.
You must agree that the justification and timing of this report/vote is extremely dubious. It would take a lot to convince me that this committee was not created to justify paying an extra SRA because otherwise one labour supporter would be left out. If you think otherwise then I am prepared to listen, honestly, but everything just seems to be too convenient.
Bobs introduction to this report was a lot of waffle, chatting to boss of Bron Avon, they could get money that the council couldn't, parking was a problem in most parts of the borough. Oh and this committee might be an opportunity for opposition members to gain experience? (I later find out the committee is balanced politically so that there is one conservative and one independent seat, so no more experience than any other committee)
I see that you both must have had some doubts, as you both abstained on the amendment to postpone the decision pending further discussion. So if you had doubts, why did you not vote for the amendment rather than abstaining? It was not throwing the scheme out altogether, just requiring more consultation before finally deciding, but you, obviously together, decided to abstain. Can you see how this might look to me as if you are just trying to appear as independent but not rocking Bob's boat too much. Can you explain how I can convince myself to view this any other way. Especially as you then vote for the substantive motion, ie bringing in this committee, when a few moments before you expressed doubt about it. The two votes do not lie well together. Once again you are appearing to be part of Bob's well oiled machine. The recent vote on increases in allowances is another similar case.
The introduction of this new committee seems so divisive. It just seems like a demonstration of how cock sure the leader is of his support from his paid flock, how impervious he is to public opinion, or any other opinion, in his position as leader of an out-of-date, hedonistic regime.
Please can you take this opportunity to explain to me, the people of your ward, and the people of Torfaen why you voted for this new committee? I will publish this letter, and your replies, on the web site.

Kind regards
Chris Harris http://www.torfaen4us.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply From Cllr Cunnington 25th of May 2009
In reference to your paragraph:
"I see that you both must have had some doubts, as you both abstained on the amendment to postpone the decision pending further discussion. So if you had doubts, why did you not vote for the amendment rather than abstaining? It was not throwing the scheme out altogether, just requiring more consultation before finally deciding, but you, obviously together, decided to abstain. Can you see how this might look to me as if you are just trying to appear as independent but not rocking Bob's boat too much. Can you explain how I can convince myself to view this any other way. Especially as you then vote for the substantive motion, ie bringing in this committee, when a few moments before you expressed doubt about it. The two votes do not lie well together. Once again you are appearing to be part of Bob's well oiled machine. The recent vote on increases in allowances is another similar case."

It would be impossible for me to explain to you - how you could convince yourself - since that choice can only be controlled by you.
In respect of the vote, I can't help what people "make" of my decision (...or make up...) that is entirely their choice, but the clue is in the word "doubt" which I immediately corrected with the substantive vote which leaves all options open.
I happen to think that the position is a reasonable one - and furthermore I hope its successful. It's a pity that we live in a society with so many people actively willing projects to fail - but with that naive outlook, perhaps such consistently critical people are not after all fit to be in control of a council, particularly when the very ones complaining, fail to hold together a simple thing like a coalition and in some cases fail to attend meetings. On that basis alone I am not surprised that the same people failing in imagination, would have equal difficulty in the concept of a cross part working committee since it involves participation and co-operation.
As for your statements of - appearing to being part of the well oiled machine - make of it what you will invent. I know what I believe and its not what you suggest, suffice to say however, thus far I don't have any significant problems with the current council policies. Furthermore, I would rather be part of a well oiled machine which works - than one lacking lubrication which causes it to seize at the first opportunity..
I can't help further noticing why you have not focused on the members of the opposition who continually rant on the issue of expenses for the benefit of theatre and the press... yet presumably continue to draw theirexpenses - in my view - since they do not "have" to draw them, would it not be an act of supreme leadership on their part if they simply refused to draw their basic allowance to allay any thought of duality...after all - no one is "forcing" them to take the allowance. But I cannot see this happening...human nature etc...In retrospect, I applaud the example set by Cllr Stuart Evans of the coalition by championing an earlier motion not to take up the allowance available for the position of Opposition Leader, to which they all gave full support.
Also to your final comment on voting allowances - The vote was a simple issue, I wouldn't want to tie the hands of the council in the future by restricting the allowance to another member ( from any party ) if their circumstance in life required it. I have not taken the increase, neither do I claim daily milage or telephone internet expense since its too much bother - which you are free to check...funny how no one seems to point out these facts...or perhaps they are not newsworthy.
If you are impartial, as an excercise, why don't you check for example say - any other members to see if any have actually taken the increase or if any claim other monies above the original basic allowance, or is it the intent of the website to only continually seek easy targets like me for simply supporting what they believe to be the right cause...and incidentally if we had a "Swingometer" last years vote was 23 - 20...this years vote changed to 27-16...does that say something ?
Thus far the only repeatative critisism is on the same few blogs with the same few topics by the same few people which turn out to be I suspect afew councillors with a personal axe to grind, hiding behind strange blog names - and the same career bloggers who would complain if they wonfive million on the lottery because thay had bought two tickets, thereby wasting a pound on the one that didn't win.
I'd be happy to see comments from all the bloggers who supported the various campaigns, marches and petitions put forward by the maverick Member - who was ultimately kicked out by all the (now) other fragmented groups. Also what do they now think about their Coalition which they "championed" as the best thing since sliced bread, which fell apart due to arguments, different policies etc...do they still think that a liason "that strong" which fell apart at the seams would have been a responsible group to be in charge of a local authority, where peoples welfare and peoples jobs are involved...I don't think so...as I predicted at the start.
And heres the best one...can all the people that voted for their independant who is now part of a Group...please explain how those alleged Independant Councillors who have now formed themselves into a registered political group called strangely "The Independant Group"...( and this is even better )...with a Leader and Deputy Leader and who meet specifically to agree a block vote...are Independant?...or are the members unable to form a decision themselves. What happens when one member argues for a cause in their own ward which conflicts with another project in the ward of one of their other members...will they split up and reform again or flip a coin to see which project they support.

Regards
Alastair

-----------------------------------------------------------

We invite your queries and non-abusive comments. Please keep your contributions reasoned and reasonable.