25 October - The secretive nature of a dishonest Council is revealed in its Constitution
You may recall that Mr. Dimitri Shvorob’s attempt to unravel the apparently
inappropriate relationship between Bexley Council and the developer it pursues
through the Courts via a question to Full Council failed because
the Head of
Democratic Services speaking on behalf of the Mayor said it was defamatory.
As several Councillors will know all too well, Mr. S. is not one for rolling
over whenever Bexley Council decides to be difficult; which is most of the time.
To cut a longer story short, he discovered that the rejection was covered by the
questions protocol included in the Council’s Constitution.
One of the reasons for rejection listed therein was, ‘[If] it is defamatory, frivolous or offensive’.
Why Bexley Council is so keen to protect Mr. Singh from potential defamation is not clear.
Pursuing the matter further, Dimitri discovered that the Constitution was revised
earlier this year but the Council has stopped short of reintroducing the practice of
publishing the home address in Council meeting Agendas
of everyone who has the temerity to question our secretive Council. (Definitely secretive if
you compare the questions rules with any neighbouring borough.)
The address rule effectively disenfranchised residents who might have good reason to hide their addresses. The practice attracted
the
attention of the Information Commissioner. although it took two years to bring Bexley Council to its senses.
The current restrictions on Full Council questions are as follows with the recent amendments underlined.
• It is not about a matter for which the Council has a responsibility or which affects the Borough.
• It is defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive.
• It has been submitted by someone who has been the subject of a warning from
the London Borough of Bexley or the Council regarding their behaviour.
• It is substantially the same as a question which has been asked in the past six months.
• It relates to individual human resources issues.
• It relates to individual planning or licensing applications, or to a
decision of the Planning or Licensing Committees on a specific application, review or similar matter.
• It requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information.
• It is not directed at the correct Member of the Council.
• It contains multiple parts.
• It would result in a breach of data protection legislation or would more appropriately be responded to under the Data Protection Act 2018.
• It refers to legal proceedings taken or anticipated by or against the Council.
• It relates to a day-to-day Council function or the provision of a Council
service and has not first been raised with the relevant service area.
• It is a statement rather than a question.
• It names or identifies individual service users, officers or members or staff of partner agencies.
• It makes or relates to allegations against, or compromising comments about,
the conduct of individual Members or officers.
• It relates to an individual or the questioner’s own particular circumstances.
• It would more appropriately be responded to by the Council under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
• It is from, or on behalf of, a political party,
or bears the name, insignia or other device of a political party.
The restriction on questions that could be rephrased as a Freedom of Information Request looks like
a wonderful Get Out of Jail Free card to me. Bexley Council will abuse it. I am
also willing to bet that the final restriction will not be applied when the question is
on behalf of the Conservative Party as they so often are just before elections are due.
It also appears to give new protections to the Planning Department
whose
integrity has been questioned recently.