In message , David
Cantrell writes
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:00:45PM +0000, Ian Jelf wrote:

However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly
than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. If
anyone else undertakes actions they are not subject to anything except
the law of the land and their employers' internal disciplinary
procedures. Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account
by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors".

That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary
procedure to me.

Yes it sounded like that to me. That's one of my objections to it.
Being a councillor, like being an MP is not a job. It is an elected
position with no "employer" other than the electorate itself. (I
accept that the issue of such people being paid, even if it's only
expenses, muddies the waters now on this issue.)


In any case, I *do* think it reasonable that while people in positions
of authority (such as councillors, police, MPs, etc) should be held only
to the same standards as the rest of us, they should be punished more
severely when they fail to meet those standards.

The we differ on this issue! :-) That's okay, of course. This is
Usenet!

I say that despite once having seen a councillor do a complete tantrum
at being refused service in a Tourist Information Centre because it had
closed for the evening, including the full "I am a City Councillor" and
another threatening to sue me because I'd criticised his party!

For all that, I cannot accept them being *more* severely punished than
others.


Because not only have
they breached the standards that we expect normal people to adhere to,
they have also abused the trust of we who put them in their exalted
positions and permit them to have power over us.

It strikes me as not being a council's job to hold its own members to
account in this way. Certainly temporarily barring them from meetings,
effectively putting them out of office for a time, seems to me to be
deeply undemocratic.

Indeed. If they think that barring a councillor from meetings is
appropriate, then it should be permanent and a by-election held.

But the only people that should be barring anyone from office are the
electorate next time the seat is up for election. The electorate are
the councillor's "employer" (in the vaguest sense of the word).


Once again, I stress I am not referring to Colin here.

Nor am I. I can't be bothered to read all the background.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk