South Tyneside Independents continue to harrass officer
Notices of motion ruled “out of order”
The Mayor of South Tyneside Cllr. Tracey Dixon will be drawn into another needless and embarrassing argument with Independent councillors and supporters after two motions submitted by Cllrs. Jane Branley, Vic Thompson, George Waddle, Steve Harrison, and Tom Defty were ruled “out of order”.
A motion regarding the joint waste venture between South Tyneside, Sunderland , and Gateshead councils was withdrawn because it relates to a Cabinet function rather than a council function under the Local Government Act 2000.
A second notice of motion attempted to make the council rid itself of it’s Chief Solicitor and Returning Officer Brian T. Scott. The motion called for South Tyneside Council to appoint an independent Returning Officer, something which legally the council just cannot do!
Brian T Scott has been bearing the brunt of Independent councillors attacks for some time, it seems that they particularly dislike being told or advised that they cannot do the things that they would like to do. I also get the feeling that they would like to lump him in with some great conspiracy theory involving the Labour Party, and Chief Executive Irene Lucas, and 18 missing ballot boxes!
By submitting these types of thinly veiled attacks in the form of notices of motion, they do rather look as though they are suffering the after effects of sour grapes. This is not politics, this is a sustained campaign of attacking the Returning Officer, this is like the kids on the school field screaming blue murder because the referee disallowed a goal with a dubious offside decision. You have to question whether the Independents have any real notion of the protocols of local government?
Come on councillors try and stick to attacking Labour’s policies or promoting some of your own (and remember your integrity is at stake too.)
It’s refreshing to see opposition councillors take an interest in the waste strategy, but I really do hope this isn’t just a cheap election stunt.
Not wishing to detract from their obviously principled stance, I wonder what is the Independent Alliance councillors’ position on waste and incineration, and how many of these councillors took the time to respond to the waste strategy consultation?
Comment by rossinisbird — February 20, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
The infantile disorder of the Council Chamber is now out in the Community via Independant leaflets.
Theleaflets have a co-ordinated section regarding South Tyneside Homes and the coming inspection for 2/3 star status and £160ml+ cash injection into repairing Council housing.
Instead of seeing this as a positive to the tenants of the houses (their homes) and the Borough, they try to whip up anti Southtyneside Homes feelings, yet 90%+ tenant satisfaction tells a different story.
How irresponsible of elected members and their supporters, that they circulate the Personnel details of the Lead Inspector on the same leaflets.
One thousand homes have been renevated with tight resources available to the employees of Southtyneside Homes,with the resources which would follow a successful inspection what could be acheived.
Surely it is the responsibility of all elected members to help nurture the formation of Southtyneside Homes for the benefit of the tenants.
South Tyneside MBC remains the largest employer in the borough, Southtyneside Homes being set up to repair and maintain the Borough housing stock.
Surely it is in the interests of all elected members, officers, and employees of South Tyneside MBC, that Southtyneside Homes flourishes into the organisation it can be with the right financial support, to deliver for the tenants of the Borough.
The Progressives have spoke loud and clear as to what they think of the Independant Group.
To the same independants I say don’t play Politics with peoples homes, and jobs.
As a Labour Party member of 37 years a maintenance Joiner for 33, and a Trade Union Shop Steward for 29,I would have preferred the Government to directly fund South Tyneside MBC for the maintenance of their housing stock, but it wasn’t to be, so I had to accept that and move on and get the best deal for the borough tenants and the employees of Southtyneside Homes.
If the actions of this small group of Independants were to jeapordise the future funding they would never be forgiven by the tenants, or the employees of Southtyneside Homes.
Comment by Wilf Flynn — February 22, 2008 @ 1:05 am
Mr Flynn Just a few Points.
(1) How long have you lived in a home that belongs to South Tyneside Homes?
(2) Why weren`t the Tenants of this borough given the original four Choices? Mr Flynn you can Explain to all the Blogers how the Four Choices went to two.
(3) Wasn`t it your Labour party who nearly closed the UPVC window Factory?
(4) Wasn`t it your Labour Leader of this Council who called all the public LUNITICS?
(5) Wasn`t it one of your Labour Colleagues who Leaked your Leaders Comments?
So Mr Flynn Please get your own House in order before you have a go at others.
Comment by Arther — February 22, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Cheap election stunt, surely not! I remember the Riverside CAF meeting last summer when the waste strategy was discussed. Councillor Branley had ample opportunity then to oppose incineration but failed to do so.
Comment by Bryan — February 24, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Arther
As a Labour Party member of 37 years, a Shop Steward in Housing maintenance,29 and a maintenance Joiner for 33,I would have no problem answering your few (5) questions, but I will not answer a pseudonym.
Comment by Wilf Flynn — February 24, 2008 @ 9:37 pm