As he is now a member of Scrutiny Committee there will be a chance for Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) to get to the bottom of the Kingdom contract which employs operatives to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for litter dropping in the borough, at tonight's meeting.. Duffy has raised the issue of the legality of the contract as well as whether the Council has received 'best value for money' from the arrangement.
One of the documents tabled has been withheld from the public. The public report can be found HERE
UPDATE
When it came to the agenda item this evening Carolyn Downs, CEO said that the public and press should be excluded from the meeting because of the 'below the line' report. It apparently contained information that had not yet been communicated to Kingdom. I suspect this means that it contains a recommendation to end the Kingdom contract and perhaps to provide the service in-house. Downs also said that it was unusual to have a paper discussed before it had gone to Cabinet. Councillors who are not on Scrutiny were allowed to stay as they are bound by confidentiality rules.
Separaetly Cllr Duffy protested at the withholding of documents he had requested from Downs. He'd discovered that there were no minutes of the meeting where Kingdom was awarded the littering contract. He'd then asked for any notes that officers had taken at the meeting. Downs refused this saying that these were private notes by officers and that if they were released it was likely that officers would stop taking notes at meetings for fear that they would be made public.
Duffy asked, 'What's the point of electing councillors if officers are going to make the decisions?'
Surely in a Council with nothing to hide scrutiny should take place in front of press and public?
One of the documents tabled has been withheld from the public. The public report can be found HERE
UPDATE
When it came to the agenda item this evening Carolyn Downs, CEO said that the public and press should be excluded from the meeting because of the 'below the line' report. It apparently contained information that had not yet been communicated to Kingdom. I suspect this means that it contains a recommendation to end the Kingdom contract and perhaps to provide the service in-house. Downs also said that it was unusual to have a paper discussed before it had gone to Cabinet. Councillors who are not on Scrutiny were allowed to stay as they are bound by confidentiality rules.
Separaetly Cllr Duffy protested at the withholding of documents he had requested from Downs. He'd discovered that there were no minutes of the meeting where Kingdom was awarded the littering contract. He'd then asked for any notes that officers had taken at the meeting. Downs refused this saying that these were private notes by officers and that if they were released it was likely that officers would stop taking notes at meetings for fear that they would be made public.
Duffy asked, 'What's the point of electing councillors if officers are going to make the decisions?'
Surely in a Council with nothing to hide scrutiny should take place in front of press and public?