I didn’t go to the
Stoke-on-Trent City Council meeting on 29th March 2012 as I attended a governors' meeting at Trentham High School followed by a prize presentation evening at Stoke-on-Trent 6th Form College – which was a very good event.
I eventually found
time to watch the webcast. As usual the petitions and public questions
particularly interest me.
Petitions
Philippa Brown
(0:20:11) gave a loud presentation of a 112 signature petition demanding that
the monopoly running the ice cream and snack bar at Central Forest Park be
dismantled and volunteers reintegrated.
She claimed a previous petition had been ignored. She said the profit making was detrimental
to park users and people are being ripped off (complete with spectacular
rolling ‘r’). She quoted Cllr Mark Meredith’s election leaflet; “the volunteers have set a precedent that the
council will be embracing”, “the views and ideas of park users are an essential
contribution”. But she said, on the
contrary, the precedent had not been embraced and volunteers had instead been
squashed, oppressed, suppressed, discriminated against, victimised and some
threatened with a court injunction! Why
am I not surprised? She said the
council legal department advocates mediation before legal action, but no
mediation had been offered.
Lee Martin
(0:23:49) presented a 111 signature petition against extending the contract of
the snack bar at Central Forest Park.
He expressed disappointment that the contract had gone to a business
rather than the community group. He
accused the council of not following EU guidelines and not properly valuing
volunteers. He said it was shameful and
queried whether the council knows the price of everything but the value of
nothing. He said he has respect for
Cllr Mohammed Pervez but accused him of underestimating the strength of public
opinion.
Public questions
The numbers given correspond to those in the document.
1. Adam Colclough (0:28:02) had asked whether, given the
serious health, social and economic impact of gambling addiction, will the
council be supporting the High Streets First campaign which calls on Eric
Pickles to grant communities the power to decide whether they want a bookies or
a bookshop on their high street.
Personally I am opposed to gambling and agree that Adam’s question is an
important one. The response had been
waffle related to planning. Adam rather
diplomatically reiterated his actual question.
Cllr Adrian Knapper (0:29:01) said there had been a reduction in betting
licenses from 41 to 37 then admitted he didn’t really know about the High
Streets First campaign. Why not? This had been referred to in the original
question, so why had he not found out then?
5. Kieran
Clarke (0:30:20) had asked about dog fouling penalty enforcement and obtained quite a
detailed response. He asked if this
could be publicized in ‘Our City’ magazine.
Cllr Janine Bridges (0:31:29) did not give such a good answer to this as
the magazine is undergoing a tender for new provision.
6. Kieran
Clarke (0:33:58) had asked about the current status of Ford Green Hall, Etruria Industrial Museum and Stanley
Head Outdoor Education Centre and been told the first two would transfer to
trusts but Stanley Head would not. Kieran
did not believe there was authorisation to close Stanley Head as it had not
been mentioned in the budget. Cllr Sarah Hill (0:33:48) confirmed they do have authority to do this. Yes, I’ve noticed, they do whatever they
like.
7.
Lee Martin (0:34:33) had asked about council policy with relation to EU guidance on ‘Buying Social’ and been told the
council is “constantly reviewing how social objectives are incorporated into
its procurement processes”, which doesn’t really answer the question. He further asked about how social benefit is
measured. Cllr Paul Shotton (0:35:17)
admitted this is difficult and promised to reply in writing.
10. Mick Williams (0:36:10) had asked (again!) who decides policy for community
engagement, but had been given waffle about ‘consultation’ with no
clarity whatsoever on decision making.
Mick referred to the 3 area meetings of residents’ associations going in
different directions. He said one area
had a first objective “to do what we say we will” and asked what is meant by
this? Cllr Gwen Hassall (0:39:16) said
the areas are going in the same direction and did not seem to recognise the
objective quoted. She said she would
talk to Mick about this. I hope she
does! It’s way beyond time the council
thrashed out the issue of community engagement decision making with Mick and
actually answered his questions.
