It has been obvious for some years that BiB readers prefer reports on a
lying Bexley Council to those that merely record the mundane because since it
apparently cleaned up its act the number of web visits
has fallen to no more than 25% of peak levels. But an alternative view is that the Leadership is just as
bad as it ever was (†) and the reduced number is due to less scrutiny. Most of the scrutineers were
elderly and I can immediately think of seven who have died in recent years.
@tony’s tussle with “vexatious” FOIs maybe proves the theory given the amount of
interest it aroused. BiB readers may love a scandal but the Leader of Bexley Council is not so keen.
She has told @tony that he has already been given a clear response to his
questions and politely asks him to go away. “I understand you have been advised
that our Petition Scheme is in accordance with statutory guidance.”
Maybe it is time to report @tony’s complaint more fully. He has a daughter who
has to cross a busy road to get to school but his request for a pedestrian
crossing has been refused. Hence him thinking that a petition might help his
cause. This is how he described the situation to me…
The 2011
Bexley Action Group petition is, of course, an inspiration and a warning. I
am trying to get clarity on the rules before I start collecting signatures - my
pedestrian-crossings-for-schoolchildren hobby horse again - and I encounter
resistance from Mr Fox and Ms. Narebor. They won’t say in advance if a petition
is “admissible” - go collect signatures, then find out.
They won’t promise a Full Council debate if there are
2,000-plus signatures. It isn’t even clear what the full
council meeting is. According to them it’s just a “meeting that all councillors can attend”,
which would also cover a pub quiz. The Information Commissioner may get them to clarify the rules,
but should they break them, the complaint will go to the hopeless Local Government Ombudsman, and perish.
Overall, for all the effort, I am none the better prepared than the BAG musketeers were.
This was the set of questions that earned @tony the vexatious tag.
Page 56 of “Codes and Protocols”, Part 5 of Bexley Constitution and Codes
of Governance, says: “Petitions which are considered to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise
inappropriate will not be accepted”.
Can you please provide the full list of reasons why a proposed petition
could be deemed “inappropriate”?
Page 56 of “Codes and Protocols”, Part 5 of ”Bexley Constitution and Codes of Governance”, says:
“If a petition has more than 2,000 signatures, this would be sufficient to
trigger a debate at a Full Council meeting. This means that the issue raised
in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend”.
Can you please confirm that “Full Council meeting” refers to a meeting of
the Full Council. (“A meeting which all councillors can attend” is a broader concept).
Page 56 of “Codes and Protocols”, Part 5 of “Bexley Constitution and Codes
of Governance”, says (emphasis added):
"If a petition has more than 2,000 signatures, this WOULD BE SUFFICIENT to trigger a debate at
a Full Council meeting".
Page 3 of ‘London Borough of Bexley Petitions Scheme’ document says (emphasis added):
“If a petition contains more than 2000 signatures it MAY be debated by the
Full Council unless it is a petition asking for a Council officer to give evidence at a public meeting”.
Can you please confirm that a petition with over 2,000 signatures - not
deemed “vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate” (cf. a related question about what
“inappropriate” is) - will be debated at a Full Council meeting if requested by the organiser, or
provide the full list of reasons why it could not be debated at a Full Council meeting.
Those are the questions which Bexley Council does not want to answer and Teresa O’Neill
has emphasised the same in her email to @tony. (Should I be jealous? She has
never emailed me; not even when I provided her evidence of criminal activity for
which a Cabinet Member was arrested.)
What is difficult about saying exactly what constitutes a meeting at which Petitions will be heard?
Maybe I am confusing two issues but three month old correspondence with @tony
suggests to me that the ICO has already pronounced on the subject of contradictory publications.
† It still needs to be said that ten years ago I would have been unable to
name more than one or two Conservative Councillors who I regarded as trustworthy
and in recent years the number has climbed well into double figures - party
loyalties excepted. The party always comes first.
@tony subsequently explained that the comment included in the first
version of this blog to the effect that Labour Councillors have not been of any
help, is a misreading of his correspondence. That is good to know.