Stoke-on-Trent City Council Budget Meeting 27/2/14

I thought depending on circumstances that I may attend this meeting but in the end had other priorities. It is good to have the webcast to catch up from in any case. 

This was the full council meeting on the budget. Rather than being a budget in the normal sense of the word, a large focus of the council's budget is on what they can cut and close. Much of the budget discussion is political hot air with the Labour council blaming the Conservative government, although back in the days of the last Labour government, the council were cutting and closing things just the same. Labour Council Leader Mohammed Pervez stated at last year's budget council that he expects cuts until the year 2020, there was no statement about a Labour government doing anything different if they should gain power.

Despite the mundane political sniping, there were a few comments worth noting (webcast times given in brackets). Mohammed Pervez (00:13:03) referred to a consultation regarding the budget.  The number one concern was cuts to the demonstrators at Gladstone pottery museum; Mohammed Pervez reported that demonstrators will now be kept but that the museum will be closed on its quietest days, Sunday and Monday. He also reported that prosecutions are being made for litter and fly tipping. I certainly hope that prosecutions will continue and intensify as there is far too much fly tipping and littering in the city. However he also mentioned the incredible amount of money being spent in Hanley. To me this is such a waste and could be better spent. We don't need unnecessary new council buildings. If companies want to build in Hanley then fine, but it shouldn't be for the council to squander money on, they should be focusing on local services for people.

Independent Councillor Dave Conway (0:29:03) was not happy with many of the cuts suggested, especially pay and conditions for low paid council workers, spoke out against the money squandered on the central business district and press officers and 'spin' and said he won't support the budget although opposing it won't make a scrap of difference.  He is right, against a whipped Labour majority the opposition cannot change the outcome.

Independent Councillor Paul Breeze (1:08:47) welcomed the council tax freeze but aside from that had a good go at the Labour group. He was frustrated that suggestions the opposition make are totally ignored. He mentioned 'Our City' magazine which he would like to see cut. I agree wholeheartedly, it is a waste of council tax payers money on what is essentially in my view Labour propaganda. He also mentioned the new bus station being too small and market traders suffering because bus stops have moved.  A gem of a quote aimed at Labour was that "reality will bite you on the bottom"!

Conservative Councillor Abi Brown (1:14:50) raised an interesting point about the Gladstone pottery. She talked in some depth about the Sunday closing, raising the issue that although average attendance is low, when special events are on it is high. Personally I can see the point in closing on days when there is low demand, but it's easy just to close things, I think it would be better to look first at improvements that could be made that would increase visitor numbers.

An issue of particular importance in my part of the city is Trentham library. This was the number two concern in the council's own consultation. But the council are to close it completely despite a high level of popularity and usage and low running costs. There is little evidence that I can see of any detailed thought or commitment from the council's Labour group or officers to alternative provision. However, there is an active local group, the 'Trentham Centre Association' campaigning for this, helped by our two councillors. These two councillors spoke as follows.

Independent Councillor Terry Follows (1:46:38) spoke against the closure of Trentham library to save just £40,000 per year, especially when it's one of the best used in the city for the time it's open, on 3 days a week.  He raised the importance of education and pointed out that there is no library in the nearby Trentham High School. Well it seems to me it's just a land grab! I attended just the first half hour of a meeting on 3/3/14. The BBC report states that any alternative "would not involve keeping the existing building open".

Independent Councillor Peter Hayward (1:48:58) accused Labour of ignorance or arrogance because they use the ridiculous argument that the thousands of people who don't respond to their consultation are in agreement with them. 

Of course the budget and cuts were voted through (2:29:27), because of Labour's majority.

Twitter

Nicky Davis: Nicky_Davis_

Stoke-on-Trent City Council: @SOTCityCouncil #sotcc

Stoke-on-Trent City Councillors: my public list 'SOTcouncillors':

@VoteMunday @CllrAndyST4 @OlwenHamer @LeeWanger @CllrRuthRosenau @paul_shotton @debra_gratton @terry_crowe53 @shazadhussain11 @BurslemCentral @pervezstoke @Alisonwedgwood @mattwilcoxstoke @longtontom @Matthewfry1 @AbiBrown1 @button1001 @MarkMeredith01 @CllrActional22 @adrianknapper

Trentham Library Under Threat Of Closure?

On 9th December 2013 I attended and took minutes for a public meeting, held at Trentham High School, about concerns that Trentham Library may be closed as a result of Stoke-on-Trent City Council cuts to be made in the 27th February 2014 budget.  This has been reported and commented on in The Sentinel.  The library building appears in a list under review.

Anyone wishing to comment on the council's budget proposals should do so by 20^th December 2013, by:

• post to - Budget 2014, Freepost Our City (no stamp needed)
• email to budget2014@stoke.gov.uk
• web site at

http://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/snapsurveys/BlueBookBudget/budget2013_14.htm

Councillors Peter Hayward and Terry Follows introduced the topic.

Dr Rowena Blencowe, head teacher at Trentham High, was introduced. She had provided the venue and said that school governors had decided there would be no charge for use of the school facilities for residents' meetings.

Marilyn Vigars had produced a Powerpoint presentation detailing key facts.

Ann and Maureen distributed sign-in sheets for those present.

67 residents attended the meeting! 10 had sent apologies for absence.

Cllr Hayward presented the Powerpoint.

Due to council cuts Trentham library is under medium threat of closure.

The library is not just a hut, it is a freely accessible community asset. As a library, it of course lends books, but is more than that; there are toddler classes, story time sessions and silver surfers. The rumour in the council is that library services will be centralised in Hanley with books distributed out to other areas.

Trentham library is one of the most used in the city for its size. The annual running costs are £3,000 for the building and £24,000 for staffing. There is a real and sustained threat of closure if nothing is done.

A resident asked why the hours couldn't be cut instead of closing the library?

Cllr Hayward said the council does want comments and alternative suggestions and in discussions so far it seems they may be willing to provide librarians and database access if they can get rid of the building.

There is a 20^th December 2013 deadline for the council to decide cuts to the library service so that is also the deadline for asset rationalisation and a business plan. £3,000 would need to be raised but this could be done over a few years. Cllr Hayward said if this can be done, then the community would have the existing building and may also be able to raise money to add extra space to the building for community use.

A resident pointed out that we are rate payers so aren't we entitled to the library?

Cllr Hayward explained that the council are only obliged to provide a library service but this could be centralised in Hanley.

A resident asked if Trentham library could be relocated to the children's centre in Hanford?

Cllr Hayward said that the council had planned to close children's centres but didn't because the government would in that case claw back funds. There are considerable parking problems at the children's centre.

A resident asked if Trentham library could be relocated to Trentham High School?

Cllr Hayward said that would depend on ongoing support from the head and governors and parking would need to be considered.

There was a discussion of cutting the library hours, this can save a bit on staffing costs but not too much as there has to be two staff.

A resident reported that in the 1980s the library only opened on Tuesdays and Fridays, 3-7pm and was a third of the current size but was still very well used.

Cllr Hayward said in defence of the council, in other areas of the country other solutions such as asset transfer to communities were being used and our council is doing the same.

A resident asked, given that we are rate payers and the library is already 'ours' why do we have to buy it again?

Cllr Follows outlined 3 different options:

1. Keep the library where it is.
2. Sell 2 building plots from the grassed area by the library and use the money to keep the library going for a while.
3. Move the library to Trentham High and sell 5 building plots from that site, using the money to keep the library going longer. The head is agreeable provided there is no cost to the school.

Cllr Hayward was keen to start asset transfer to the community on account of the short deadline.

A resident commented that the council plans do not make financial sense because to centralise the library and send out ordered books, the costs must be astronomical.

A resident said things should be left as they are. Although government has reduced funding for councils, our council has no justification to close Trentham library in order to make a very small saving when he said millions of pounds are being spent on Ingestre Square, the public sector and new build.

Cllr Follows said the council think we don't need things in Trentham because they view us as having big houses and several cars.

A resident asked why the council can't bring in money from the massive debts owed to them in council tax and rent arrears?

Cllr Hayward pointed out that although he and Cllr Follows are in political opposition in the council, he admits that debt collection rates are improving.

Cllr Hayward suggested we should put forward a proposal for Trentham library that the council would be embarrassed to refuse.

A resident said a pragmatic solution is needed to force the council into a corner. He suggested the council be asked to grant ownership of the entire library plot to the community so some could then be sold to run the library for ~10 years. This could be 'too difficult' for the council, in which case they can leave the library as it is.

Cllr Follows said he had already suggested this to the council but has not received a response as yet.

A resident, drawing on experience from her work, said that Hanford and Trentham has the least number of activity groups for older people in the city.

A resident suggested that as the data show that 33,000 books are borrowed from Trentham library each year, if each person paid 10p per book, the £3,000 would easily be raised.

Cllrs Follows and Hayward said that given the huge turnout at this meeting we can surely keep Trentham library and keep it on its current site. What is needed is a working group of 4-5 people for ~12 months to arrange asset transfer. Cllr Hayward said there will be more and more cuts year on year so it is best to take the library into community ownership in order to keep it.

A resident asked how the council manage to waste so much money?

A resident said there are 30 'clowns' – Labour councillors, agreeing to every cut. He wants the lot out. We have two good independent councillors fighting them who will always be outvoted.

Cllr Hayward said that a business plan for asset transfer does not generally have to go to a council vote, if it did we would be in dire straits.

Cllr Follows said the council have experience of Trentham residents and how much they are capable of fighting, because we fought to save Trentham High School and won.

Cllr Hayward said Trentham is not seen as a 'soft touch'.

A resident asked how we can present our plans to the council by 20^th December?

Cllr Hayward said we need ~6 residents to help with the plan, especially those with business experience. Cllr Hayward said he can then collate a general package by 20^th December. Then there can be more meetings to sort out the details.

A resident said it is important to initiate a plan in order to avoid falling under the 'savings' for this year's budget.

A resident said the solution seems to be to have residents volunteer to maintain the building, rather than volunteer in the library, as the council would provide the staff.

A resident said there are sources of grant money that can be obtained.

A resident asked for the land to be kept as well as the building.

A resident said the older generation could have difficulty going to a library elsewhere. He didn't think the council motivation in closing Trentham library is to save money, he thought they want to make money by selling the land.

A resident said very young children use the library as well and like to browse physical books rather than just view them on the computer.

Cllr Hayward said a local girl had used the library and won a prize for a Christmas card design.

A resident said we have skills, ability and a good mix of people in our area, so have the power to save the library.

Cllr Follows said if we can't keep the library where it is, It has been agreed it can come to Trentham High School. The head said they only have a very small library.

A resident said the library needs both books and computers.

A resident said that some people use the computers at the library to develop their skills.

A resident was concerned that although the current head is agreeable to the library being in the school, without any offence, the situation may change some years later.

A resident said Trentham library is our last community building and we need to keep it.

Cllr Hayward said that only 40% of people communicate with the council via computer.

A resident said that the value of the library to the community, from toddlers to life long learning, should be mentioned in the business plan.

Ann would take a note of residents willing to help with the business plan. Cllrs Follows and Hayward assured residents that they would lead the plan and liaise with the council but the substance of it needs to come from the community.

A resident said that the library staff had told him it was 'done and dusted' that Trentham library would close.

Cllrs Hayward and Follows said it certainly wasn't a done deal. They also said that amongst the libraries in the city, Trentham has only medium threat because the saving would be such a small amount.

A resident asked for publicity in The Sentinel.

A resident said if we have a good community facility we can put on more events for older people.

A resident said there are always people using the 3 computers in the library and that David Cameron wants everyone to have computer access and skills. The library could be expanded to help this and we should certainly make the point that computer access should not be cut off.

A resident said other areas have good facilities and there are funding sources we could use.

A resident referred to reports on the elderly and an emphasis on loneliness, the library is really helpful to combat this.

Cllr Hayward said the top two reasons why people like Trentham library are the parking available and the friendliness of the staff.

Cllr Hayward encouraged people to submit letters to the council for their budget consultation, protesting any planned closure of Trentham library. Last year there were only ~800 letters from the whole city, so a large number from Trentham would be helpful.

Two types of volunteers were requested:

• business plan working party
• ongoing library volunteers maybe needed in the future.

It was unanimously agreed that the business plan should focus on keeping the library building on its current site.

When asked how people had found out about the meeting, very many had found out from the poster in Trentham library!

A vote of thanks was given to Marilyn Vigars for producing the posters and Powerpoint presentation.

13 people volunteered for the business plan working party and there were plenty of ongoing volunteers also.

The meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Michelle Chow from The Sentinel talked to residents after the meeting.

The Year The Town Hall Shrank

The recent BBC4 documentary series this month on Stoke-on-Trent CityCouncil was filmed over a considerable period in 2010-11 by Blast! Films and clearly the local nature of this deserves comment from local bloggers such as myself.

To put my comments in context I will state where I am politically, which is political but not party political. Referring to parties of relevance to Stoke-on-Trent and this documentary, I have never voted for the Conservatives or British National Party. I have in the past, to my shame perhaps, voted Labour and Liberal Democrat. I currently have a preference for independents (although clearly will not like all of them or agree with everything they do) and voted for the Hanford and Trentham independent councillors in the 2011 local election.

I have to say I was a little surprised about the focus of the documentary, mainly on the cuts and on specific cuts. Clearly they will have filmed many hours of footage and had to select from that quite severely to fit it into a 3 hour mini-series. But I suppose I expected a rather wider coverage and certainly more depth than appeared.

I did get the impression that some of the worst aspects of our city and our councillors, of all parties including Labour and the BNP and even independent councillors, were shown.

The 'democratic' process

There was a lot that the documentary didn't say. I have mentioned some of these things in a previous blog relating to the relationship between local and central government. A key issue here has been the use (and abuse in my opinion), by Labour, of the Local Government Act 2000  which was used to impose an unelected board to interfere in our city, take away our system of election by thirds contrary even to a local council vote and inflict ward boundary changes on us. So now we can only hold our councillors to account once every 4 years instead of annually 3 years out of 4. The documentary focused on the 2011 local council election but didn't put it in this context very well. Furthermore it did not mention the outrageous curtailing of the terms of 20 of our councillors, who were elected for 4 years which was then cut down to 3. This is unfair and undemocratic both to the elected councillors concerned who had been lied to about the time they would serve and to the electorate who voted for them to give them a 4 year mandate.  I know there were people interviewed who would have talked sensibly about these deeper issues of democracy, but their interviews were not included.

The documentary included the time just prior to the 2011 election when we had 60 councillors in 3 member wards and a very politically mixed cabinet including members from the 3 largest parties/groupings; Labour, City Independents, Conservative and Independent Alliance, but notably also a Liberal Democrat but not members of the larger British National Party and Community Voice groups. (It is worth pointing out that independent councillors often form groups for pragmatic reasons because the council is structured that way but are not whipped in the same way as political parties.) The cabinet was led by Mohammed Pervez from the largest group, Labour, who remains the leader of the current 44 member council, 33 of whom are Labour.

The filming showed some of the worst antics of the councillors, such as Debra Gratton looking really out of her depth and just saying how difficult things were and Mohammed Pervez being advised by media man Dan Barton (who has since left the council) along with other council officers, but with his blank look, appearing as if it was all washing over him. He used that phrase “we are where we are” which I hate and which is overused by some councillors to try to 'justify' any further stupid decisions they want to make. The documentary stated that Pervez is paid £44,000 per year for his council role and that he also has a full time job as a research scientist, so I would imagine there is little time to get to grips with council matters. Peter Kent-Baguley and Brian Ward were seen in heated argument and Terry Follows was seen being vocally rather aggressive towards Barbara Beeston. Mike Coleman made an inadvisable comment about muslims and what they wear that I had better not repeat (in the 'retweeting' debate this doesn't have to mean agreement in my view, just that you want to alert others to what someone else has said). Terry Follows and Denver Tolley were both shown using the scare tactic that if they don't do what 'government' wants they will come in and take over. But in Denver's case, as Labour, they actually brought the government in when it suited them. Besides, there is a lot the council does that isn't driven by government, the deeply unpopular move of the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley, squandering our money and plunging us into further debt whilst cutting valued services, being just one example.

In terms of the election itself the documentary reports Labour and anti-fascist groups “campaigning together”. Now I understand that there are very strict rules regarding election campaigns and campaign expenses and who is officially supporting whom and who is campaigning independently of whom, which clearly need to be adhered to!

I was astounded recently when it was reported in the local press that the council are squandering yet more of our money on spin! The article states that “Mohammed Pervez told The Sentinel he would review the authority's 'communication strategy' after seeing his party lose the Springfields and Trent Vale by-election to the City Independents in July”. The way that reads rather implies that our council tax payers money is being used to boost the image of “his party” - Labour. That cannot be right. I recommend reading the remarks made by former councillor John Davis (no relation) in this article, I have to say I totally agree with him on this.

BNP candidate Mickey White was interviewed, he wanted a future for his daughter and was frustrated at being unemployed with foreign migrants getting work. His concern for a good future for his child is one most of us parents share and his frustrations have some justification. Pervez has even stated at council that a rise in the city's population is due to EU migrants as well as birth rate.

Mike Coleman was interviewed talking about a well motivated, very organised body of people. The filming here left this a little ambiguous though I speculate that he may have been referring to a community of Asian origin, but I wonder if he was also on some level wishing his own political party could be that well organised. The worst aspect of the protesters outside the civic centre on election night was also shown when Mike Coleman was spat on. Protest by all means but that sort of assault is unacceptable. Mike lost the plot when he lost the election and went on to be convicted of racially-aggravated harassment.  Resorting to law breaking is not the answer either. I believe the BNP are now finished in Stoke-on-Trent and maybe even further afield.

A most pertinent comment was made by a local voter, Dave, who said he votes differently in local elections than he does in general elections. Now that is something I would like to see more of, firstly someone who is willing to consider the issues and actually go out and vote and secondly someone who is willing to consider voting differently in different elections, depending on the issues involved. How he votes is obviously his choice but it would be good to see more people making considered decisions rather than blindly following a party by tradition or not even bothering to vote.

Cuts

Right at the start of this documentary series it is stated, correctly, that central government Conservative cuts are responsible for reducing local government funding, for 2011-12 this was an 8.09% cut for Stoke-on-Trent, amounting to £21.6million. (Of course Labour have openly stated that they would be cutting if they were in government as well, just not so fast.) But the documentary immediately goes on to say that the Labour led council is therefore going to 'save' £36million. So it's not all down to central government, much is down to local council poor choices and as independent councillor Dave Conway states, “bad management”. This is a council which pays its chief executive silly money and even then he needs an assistant also on silly money.

Amongst the cuts the documentary focuses on is the cut to children's centres and the successful battle led by Melissa Beydilli to keep these open, followed of course by cuts to the services offered at these centres. It was interesting that Mohammed Pervez telephoned Melissa to ask to 'help her' with her talk when she presented her >5000 signature petition against the closures to full council. Melissa spoke well about the importance of early provision for children, but the filming also revealed a worse side. She was dropped off at the civic centre in a car which parked on a double yellow line! After the children's centres were 'saved' and of course after Labour had won so many council seats in the 2011 election and introduced a Labour only cabinet, they proposed a 30% cut to the children's centres budget. This is when Melissa realised what they were really like - “conniving” and said the campaign had been “used and abused”. In the end the cut was negotiated down to 20%.

Various other areas cut were also mentioned including Shelton and Tunstall swimming pools. The shenanigans that go on with swimming pools in the city are incredible. I'm not even going to dare to go there in this blog.

Another strong focus of the documentary was the closure of council care homes, Eardley and in particular Heathside House. The residents seemed happy there and the carers did really seem to care. It was interesting listening to some of the residents. I had to chuckle during a quiz when icebergs came up, a resident said it was a lettuce. Alice was a very jovial character and fantasized amusingly about a luxury holiday. Mabel didn't hold back in having her say and reported that they weren't asked about whether they wanted the care home closed, they were just told. Pervez described the care homes as “poor quality”, which annoyed Gaynor, the manager of Heathside House. A resident's relative in a meeting with Pervez said it was “baloney” for him to talk about short term rehabilitation when people have dementia, complained of “no proper consultation” and accused the council of failure. It slipped out during the documentary that the strategic decision to close the care homes had been made a couple of years previously, not attributable to the Conservative government then. It was quite heart wrenching seeing the old folk moved out of Heathside House. Gaynor took redundancy. I wonder how the residents and former staff are doing now.

What infuriated me the most about the care home issue was Pervez talking about “choice” for elderly people. They had no choice! 'Choice' seems to be a term used by Labour when they are doing exactly the opposite and dictatorially imposing things on people. Shame on them!

Further comments on the cuts are given in a good letter toThe Sentinel by Alan Lear, which I have commented on.

And the result of the 24/2/11 budget and cuts:

For:- Lord Mayor Tolley, councillors Al-Khatib, Barber, B. Ali, Z. Ali, Bell, Bowers,

Brian, Bridges, Brown, Clarke, Daniels, J. Davis, M. Davis, Dillon, Follows, Fradley, Garner, Gratton, Hamer, Hassell, Irving, Iqbal, Khan, Knapper, Lyth, Matloob, Najmi, Pervez, Powell-Beckett, Reynolds, Rosenau, Ryan, Shotton, Smith, D. Walker, Ward, Wazir, Wilcox and Wright. (These are Labour, Conservative and Independent Alliance, City Independent, Liberal Democrat and Non-aligned councillors.)

Against:- Councillors Barnes, Baddeley, Batkin, Coleman, Conway, Burgess, Marfleet, E. Walker, Joynson, Kent-Baguley, Rigby, Salih and Sutton. (These are City Independent, British National Party, Community Voice, Liberal Democrat and Non-aligned Christian Independent councillors.)

Pervez talked about approving this “budget of £36million” and then needing to take out a further £28million. Note that he is not talking about a budget as I would know it, a plan for spend, he is focusing just on cuts. The 2011 local election followed this budget. It was pointed out in the documentary that this election provided in part for a judgement on the cuts so far and the cuts to come. It is noticeable that the electorate largely voted for parties and people inflicting the cuts and less so for those opposing the cuts. So in some sense the people of the city are getting what they collectively asked for.

Council tax

The documentary series highlighted the council's appalling record on collection of council tax, exposed by Dave Conway at a full council meeting. There were millions of pounds of council tax debts dating back to 1993! One council worker said people were given repeated chances despite having excuses like forgetting (for 10 years in one case), spending all their money on holiday and not treating paying the debt as a priority. Pathetic!  Some had been given repeated court summonses which they had ignored. One had £6,000 of debt just written off. People were shown with nice cars and large televisions but still not paying their council tax. The bailiff shown struggled to get anywhere as she could only seize possessions with the council's permission which they wouldn't give. There were just no proper repercussions if people didn't pay. The chief executive John van de Laarschot interviewed on this passed the buck to elected members, indicating that they need to decide policy on this.

Some of us, including myself, always pay our council tax and pay it on time. I don't have a problem with the concept of taxation and social responsibility and wish that others who can't be bothered to pay weren't so selfish. Many people on low incomes and benefits get much or all of their council tax paid for them. If this isn't sufficient then they should appeal to the council to do something about it, not just ignore it. I don't think council tax is a great tax, I would prefer a local income tax, but as I'm in a minority on this I have to put up and pay up. I hate the way this council squanders my money but given that others in the city have put this council into power I have to live with it. But I am outraged that this council lets irresponsible residents off, they really do need to be more hard line on this. They should clamp down promptly to stop people building up large debts which become more difficult to pay back and to deter people from trying to get away without paying.

Summary

I found Mohammed Pervez's smiles whilst inflicting the cuts disturbing, he said he had driven the whole budget process himself and even said he enjoyed it! He enthused about his political ambitions. He talked about applying Labour values, but if this is what today's Labour values are then I want none of it. This is the man the electorate of Moorcroft choose to keep in power and has so much power given to him by Labour voting electorate in other wards bolstering the number of Labour whipped councillors. Under our poor approximation to democracy we look destined to suffer under a Labour council until at least 2019. The 2015 general election will bring out extra Labour voters who will put their crosses in the local Labour boxes too. Until we get more electorate willing to turn out and vote on local issues and for sensible alternative candidates, we are stuck with a Labour council.

Meanwhile I continue to be an independent voter when I get the chance and possibly even an independent candidate at the next local election.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 18/10/12

The public gallery was full for this council meeting with people angry at the closure of community halls. Watch the meeting on the webcast.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (0:14:18) began with an announcement of more cuts to come, another £50 million over 2 years, no surprise there then. He only spoke out about the speed of the cuts though, typical Labour.  

City Independent Cllr Dave Conway (0:25:49) pointed out that the Labour council leaders can't blame government for borrowing £40 million to pay £50 million back in the wasteful move of the civic centre to Hanley and also that the Labour council leaders only kept children's centres to avoid the government claw back and would have closed them otherwise.  Cllr Conway said he expected to see their spin in 'Our City' magazine, he accused them of mismanagement and asked them to resign.  

Conservative Cllr Abi Brown (0:30:15) accused Labour of preventing regeneration in the Potteries Shopping Centre and having empty buildings not for sale whilst selling buildings people want to keep.

Lord Mayor Terry Crowe (0:31:00) announced that the next meeting has been moved from 6^th to 20^th December. I wonder what they are trying play down by having a meeting when many people are distracted by arrangements for Christmas with their families? Or am I being too suspicious?

Petition

There was just one petition, Neil Hawkins asked the council to revisit their plans for community hall closures and accused the council of being negligent. I mentioned in my blog on the 5/7/12 council meeting that Cllr Ruth Rosenau had indicated most or all would likely be closed soon.

The 'usual' procedure followed; City Independent Cllr Randy Conteh (0:38:49) moved a motion to refer the issue to the City Renewal Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the point of this is it would allow the lead petitioner and councillors to discuss things in detail). Conservative Cllr Jack Brereton (0:40:06) seconded it. Then the councillors had a go at each other and inevitably the Labour majority voted the motion down.

Public Questions

There were 7 public questions including one from Angela Maxfield on criteria for schools admission, which is a particular interest of mine. There were 3 supplementary questions.

Mike Barnes, question 3, had asked about information passed to councillors following a report finding the council "failing in its statutory duty to ensure an appropriate level of preparedness" in the case of an emergency such as rioting. Cllr Olwen Hamer had detailed which committees and councillors this had gone to including the cabinet member for transformation. Mike (1:26:49) asked, given that the report stated "the City Council is no longer prepared to be able to continue to deliver all of its critical services in the event of an incident", but Cllr Paul Shotton had dismissed disclosure of the report as administrative, who is misleading the public?  Cllr Hamer (1:27:57) responded that nobody was, improvements have been made and Mike has been sent the report.

Gabrielle Hoban, question 6, had asked what the point is of asking supplementary questions in public when responses are not made in public. Cllr Mohammed Pervez had said if a detailed response is required a written response after the meeting may be better. Gabrielle (1:29:34) asked why she is still waiting for responses to two questions raised in 2011! Good question. I'm no fan of our council leader but his response was correct this time; Cllr Pervez (1:30:11) apologised and said if the questions are forwarded to him he will provide answers. I hope, despite past performance not boding well, that Gabrielle does indeed receive her answers.

Mike Barnes, question 7, had followed up an announcement of £500,000 of tax payer's money to improve swimming facilities at Dimensions, by asking about progress. The answer from Cllr Mark Meredith had been rather noncommital and said whilst a new 25m pool at Dimensions is desirable, available funding is not enough. So, another example of highly spun council announcements with little substance then. Mike (1:30:34) said some buildings had been redacted on a list of buildings to be sold to help fund the transfer of the civic centre to Hanley and asked if Dimensions was one of them. I could see the answer coming; Cllr Meredith (1:31:34) said that as information was redacted he can't answer the question. So much for an open and transparent council then.