|
|
YES
|
5
|
|
|
|
NO
|
3
|
|
|
|
long as there is tea and biscuits dont mind
|
1
|
|
|
Guests can't vote. Try login or register. The poll has expired.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,399
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
I'm very surprised to read your views Caoimghin. I seem to remember from previous posts that you have a degree in law. If that is the case then you must have some rergard for the legal position or, if you do not like it, then try to get the present government of which you are an acknowledged supporter to change it.
The qualifications for election to a local authority are that a candidate must (a) reside in that authority's area; or (b) have been employed in that authority's area for a full period of twelve months prior to the date of the election; or (c) have been actively in business in that authority;s area for a full period of twelve months prior to the date of the election; or (d) be the owner of property for a full period of twelve months prior to the date of the election. "Property" can include a grave plot!!! The law does NOT specify "the ward in which the candidate seeks election". I personally disagree with qualifications (b), (c) and (d) but recognise the legal position. Perhaps Caoimghin should note that, to the best of my knowledge, 8 of the 18 Labour councillors in Redbridge do not reside in the wards they represent. I am fairly certain they would firmly resist any proposal to implement his view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 21/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 89
Location: Barkingside
|
Wards, as well as parliamentary constituencies, are a mere electoral convenience. They are designed with the intention of having an equitable number of voters in each unit. They do not represent discrete areas or communities and frequently divide them. Take a look at the Redbridge Ward map. And the parliamentary constituencies.
Barkingside High Street has one side in Fullwell ward and the other in Fairlop ward. Prior to the last boundary review each side of the High Street were even in different Area Committees, the east side then being in Aldborough ward.
So, if you have an even number High Street address you cannot represent the ward that has odd number High Street Adresses, because you don’t have a “real feel for the area”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
I am not Alice in Wonderland but I am becoming more and more confused: at a meeting at area 4 where we were airing our views about our allotments (oh so boring, I know!), this because three councillors there are members of the Cabinet (and they are very relevant to our predicament), we were told to stop talking about our allotments because they are located in Area 3. not Area 4 and we should concentrate our efforts on Area 3.
Let's apply some logic. Our councillors in Area 3 have stated that they support our desire to keep our allotments where they are. Not one of them is in the Cabinet. The members of the Cabinet are clustered in Area 2 and Area 4, and, in Area 2, three of them are clustered in the Monkhams!
Why should councillors answerable to the residents of the Monkhams area worry in the least about us?
Need I say more?
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,399
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
I have just spotted the poll that has been set up here (but is not on other Area Committee sections - possibly because the creator lives in Area 6?). Readers should be aware that its outcome will have no effect whatsoever unless there is a change in the law, which seems highly unlikely. An earlier posting on this thread suggests that some councils insist on candidates residing in the wards where they seek election. There is no provision in law for this, and it would be illegal for councils to insist on this arrangement, but I should be interested to be told which councils are acting in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 26/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 284
|
I realise it's illegal, I have never stated it was legal nor said it's being done. What I have posted are my own personal views on how I'd like the system to be as a resident and tax payer. There may well be good reasons for not having Cllrs reside in the ward they represent, but one of the constant criticisms that comes up on this forum is accountability of Cllrs - my view is that I can see some benefits of having a Cllr reside in a ward. But, I recognise the main reason why this probably doesn't happen is the lack of good candidates, in that you may have a plethora in a neighbouring ward who would represent any ward well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
|
Am I wrong in saying that theoretically councillors are elected to the Council but have a special responsibility for the ward they elected to .Its just an easier way to split up the borough into smaller
parts for electoral purposes, otherwise we would have in excess of 200 candidates to vote for, when you have to select 63 that would really put people off voting and get very confusing, but the results might be more interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 26/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 284
|
You vote for the 3 candidates you want at local elections. It's not a list system. You have choice over what candidate you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 16/04/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
|
We are elected by the voters of the ward where we stand. We deal with issues that are raised with us by the residents of the ward and do our best to represent the views of our residents to the Council. Inevitably there is a tension with the position that all 63 Councillors are responsible for the proper running of the Council and have to take decisions that may be for the good of the Borough but are not supported by the majority of the residents of the ward they represent. If they do their job properly there is plenty of work for ward Councillors to do in their area and it becomes more difficult to cope with a larger area without more resources. An average ward in Redbridge will have a population between 10,000 and 12,000. This is bigger than the population of many small towns. Redbridge, in total, has a population on a par with cities like Norwich or Reading, of around 250,000.
There can be advantages with living in the ward you represent but there are many good Councillors, of all the main political parties, who represent wards where they are not resident. I have to be careful what I say because I live about 200 yards from the boundary of the ward I represent! When I was first elected, however, I did live in the ward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
Thanks to the redbridge i and to the contributions of several councillors (whether from my area or otherwise), I have learned a great deal about local affairs. I feel grateful to the councillors who have put their names to comments, letting us know that we are not being ignored and guiding us when we get it wrong.
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
|
I notice that two of my ward councillors attendance record for attending council/cabinet/area committee meetings is 42% and 64%.
Is it right? Is it legal???? I find it disrespectful to the residents and the other councillors who do find the time to make the effort.
Incidently, the third one's attendance record is 111%
Oh! I think I am right in saying that only one lives in the borough, can you guess which one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 25/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
|
Eleventy-one percent attendance, is that councillor one of twins or triplets who count double if their sibling turns up ????
On the main subject, I think that one can have a fairly good understanding of a ward without living there, although it's better if they do, but certainly they need to live nearby, either in the borough, or if it's a ward on the boundaries, in an adjacent ward in the next electoral area. The so-called North-South divide in Redbridge would seem to be a major obstacle, for example a councillor in a "well off" ward may well be accused of being less in touch with the sitation in a more deprived ward, but dealing with such accusations is part and parcel of Political life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
|
[quote=Darel]Eleventy-one percent attendance, is that councillor one of twins or triplets who count double if their sibling turns up ????
I believe 111% means turning up for meetings over and above the bare minimum a councillor is expexted to attend with no family doubles or triples involved!
However, my point was, how do you explain/account/justify for a meagre 42% and 64% attendance and decreasing rapidly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,399
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
desi wrote:[quote=Darel]Eleventy-one percent attendance, is that councillor one of twins or triplets who count double if their sibling turns up ????
I believe 111% means turning up for meetings over and above the bare minimum a councillor is expexted to attend with no family doubles or triples involved!
However, my point was, how do you explain/account/justify for a meagre 42% and 64% attendance and decreasing rapidly? I suggest you contact those councillors direct to ask for an explanation. I suspect that I could identify them without having seen the statistics!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 25/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
|
Having looked up the stats in question I have concluded the same. I must applaud councillors who turn up at meetings at which they are not expected. As you say 64% is poor and any lower seems just to be not doing their job. If they were just unlucky and had problems at that time or holidays booked for instance, they really should have made the attempt to at least send a representative. I know the lure of cheap holidays is very tempting, but duties must come first. I would hope that a decent representative would maintain at least 80% attendance record, and that should be an absolute minimum limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
|
In some cases the Redbridgei figures are actually complementary towards the councillors, especially when you get down to the "John Motson" style statistics, some of the figures on the website are just simply not true! To be sure of the attendence record of a councillor, you have to "read between the lines", The devil is in the detail of the minutes of each of the meetings. I checked one of my local councillors attendence record and came up with startling differences; the website shows a respectable 83% record of attendence (Official figure, see below)
(AS PUBLISHED ON WEBSITE)
Statistic Count Percentage
Total expected attendances: 12
Present as expected: 10 83%
Absent (incl. apologies): 2 17%
Apologies received: 1 50% of absences
However, when you look at the minutes of the various meetings under his attendence record to see what he should have attended (i.e. RPC, Area, Cabinet, full council), it should have read;
Statistic Count Percentage
Total expected attendances: 19
Present as expected: 10 53%
Absent (incl. apologies): 9 47%
Apologies received: 2 11% of absences
There may be some mistake but I can't see it, there is deffinitely some clarity needed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
|
desi wrote:In some cases the Redbridgei figures are actually complementary towards the councillors, especially when you get down to the "John Motson" style statistics, some of the figures on the website are just simply not true! To be sure of the attendence record of a councillor, you have to "read between the lines", The devil is in the detail of the minutes of each of the meetings. I checked one of my local councillors attendence record and came up with startling differences; the website shows a respectable 83% record of attendence (Official figure, see below)
(AS PUBLISHED ON WEBSITE)
Statistic Count Percentage
Total expected attendances: 12
Present as expected: 10 83%
Absent (incl. apologies): 2 17%
Apologies received: 1 50% of absences
However, when you look at the minutes of the various meetings under his attendence record to see what he should have attended (i.e. RPC, Area, Cabinet, full council), it should have read;
Statistic Count Percentage
Total expected attendances: 19
Present as expected: 10 53%
Absent (incl. apologies): 9 47%
Apologies received: 2 11% of absences
There may be some mistake but I can't see it, there is deffinitely some clarity needed here. Excuse me for the chaser, but has someone given clarification yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,399
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
|
mr hickey, do you have the powers to read red i manager's mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,399
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,023
|
If a Councillor attends every meeting that they are a member of, they then get a 100% attendance record. If they also attend other meetings as substitutes, these are recorded as additional meetings over and above the meetings for which they were expected to attend. As a result, they were shown as achieving attendance percentages above 100.
Constitutional Services have now found a way in which to record such attendance without creating percentages in excess of 100. Those attendance records affected are being amended accordingly.
Posted on behalf of Constitutional Services.
Regards
Redimanager
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
