In message , David
Cantrell writes
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35:31PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
Joe wrote in :
The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal,
unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England
Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in
June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel.
So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in
order to get an apology.

What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I
would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one.

Indeed but what else is there to do or where else is there to go with
this matter?

I think it underlines a very basic flaw in the way in which councillors
are treated. Don't get me wrong, I often hold these people, making
far-reaching decisions about things they have no real knowledge of [1].
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".
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. That is the job of the councillor's electors next
time they go to the polls. If they break the law then of course the
*law* should deal with them. But not a council, no.

Good grief; that sounded like me standing up for local councillors! I
think I'll go and lie down for a while. :-)



[1] Once again, I stress I am not referring to Colin here. I know
nothing about his politics or achievements and don't wish to comment on
this particular event.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

Ian Jelf gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly
than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair.

There's one relevant detail that you're forgetting, though, Ian.

I know you said you weren't commenting on this particular case, but it's
a good example to use. Was the ambulance driver blocked by Joe Public, or
was it blocked by a councillor believing he was performing part of that
role?

I'd say the latter. In which case, it comes fairly within scope of a
regulatory body for councillors.

Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account
by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors".

When they have their councillor's hat on, and are justifying their
actions as "I'm a councillor", then - yes. That's appropriate.

In message , at 13:00:45 on Thu,
12 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf remarked:
I think it underlines a very basic flaw in the way in which councillors
are treated. Don't get me wrong, I often hold these people, making
far-reaching decisions about things they have no real knowledge of [1].
However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly
than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair.

While I will be the first to demand that elected officials should
refrain from fiddling their expenses, it does seem a bit harsh when the
goalposts are moved such that no-one can be elected/appointed if, eg,
they have *ever* filed a late tax return.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35:31PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
Joe wrote in
:
The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full
personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the
East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver
involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology
was agreed with the Hearing Panel.
So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been
spent in order to get an apology.

What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I
would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one.

It's in the Standards Board procedures, apparently. In fact I offered the
apology before was ordered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I
would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one.
Indeed but what else is there to do or where else is there to go with this
matter?

He should have been charged with the offence he committed.
If he wasn't a councillor, he almost certainly would have been.

If I was the ambulance man, I'd demand the union took out a private
prosecution. Once these eejits are allowed to get away with it, they start
to think 'councillor' means 'I own this town' - not the theoretical 'I serve
this town'
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

In article , (Andrew
Heenan) wrote:

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I
would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one.
Indeed but what else is there to do or where else is there to go
with this matter?

He should have been charged with the offence he committed.
If he wasn't a councillor, he almost certainly would have been.

If I was the ambulance man, I'd demand the union took out a private
prosecution. Once these eejits are allowed to get away with it,
they start to think 'councillor' means 'I own this town' - not the
theoretical 'I serve this town'

I suggest you read the Standards Board report of the case, especially the
Ethical Standards Officers' conclusions. You will see that it was accepted
that I did not realise that the ambulance was on an emergency call when I
stopped it.

Many of the more lurid and not necessarily accurate descriptions of my
actions related to the period after the patient had been successfully
treated when the ambulance was definitely not on an emergency call and was
on its way off the green. The most ridiculous claim was that I locked the
gate in front of the ambulance. I never did any such thing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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. 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.

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

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

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken

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

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.

Nothing Orwellian about it. People stand for election to represent 'the
people', and therefore are public servants. It takes approximately 3.2
seconds after the end of their acceptance speech for many of them to forget
this, and revel in the power.

There's nothing 'Orwellian' about reminding them of their public duty
(in vain though that reminder might be).

What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those
who bothered to vote - let alone those who didn't, but are still entitled to
be represented by honest men (and women) ?

No rocket science involved, is there?
--

Andrew
"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

In message , Andrew Heenan
writes
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.

Nothing Orwellian about it. People stand for election to represent 'the
people', and therefore are public servants. It takes approximately 3.2
seconds after the end of their acceptance speech for many of them to forget
this, and revel in the power.

Absolutely. I've seen that happen on countless occasions, usually
through ignorance but often as you say through a hunger for "power".

But they are not "public servants" (that term applies to employed
council officers). They are elected officials which I consider to be
an important distinction.

There's nothing 'Orwellian' about reminding them of their public duty
(in vain though that reminder might be).

No I agree. There's nothing Orwellian about reminding them of their
duty.



What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those
who bothered to vote -

That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials.

If a councillor wants to be a complete ******* then that's their
prerogative. The democratic process should ensure they don't get in next
time.

As has been said before, we get the leaders we deserve.


let alone those who didn't, but are still entitled to
be represented by honest men (and women) ?

If they didn't vote, they have no grounds for complaint about who they
get to represent them.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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