Monday’s meeting of the corporate governance committee debated a notice of motion by IPPG member Cllr Lyn Jenkins that sought to place a five-day time limit on group leaders’ ability to appoint substitutes to the planning committee.
The reason given for this change was that late substitutes didn’t have time to familiarise themselves with the often complex reports that the committee has to deal with.
While Cllr Jenkins was making a valid point, the problem with her proposal was that there was nothing in the law that would allow the right of group leaders to appoint substitutes to be fettered in this way, so the five-day limit was a dead duck from the outset. Indeed it was even suggested that they could make substitutions during the meeting.
So far, so boring! But, as so often with PCC, there was a far from boring back story.
What had inspired Cllr Jenkins to propose this reform was the shenanigans surrounding an application for a single affordable dwelling at Tancredston in her Solva ward.
When this application came before the planning committee last November the members voted against the officers’ recommendation that, as it was outside policy, it should be rejected.
As members were, in the words of the minutes, “minded to approve the application” the matter was deferred to the next meeting so that those in favour could come up with valid planning grounds for this departure from policy.
However, at the January meeting it was agreed, instead, that the committee would undertake a site visit and then when it met in February following the site visit, it voted to refuse the application.
While all that might seem fairly straightforward, there was some fancy footwork going on behind the scenes. Two facts that will help your understanding are that whipping is not allowed on the planning committee where the IPPG has a slender 8 -7 majority.
So it only requires one member to switch sides and the numbers are reversed.
Cllr Peter Morgan, who had been a prominent supporter of the application at the November meeting found himself back on the bench for the January and February events. His place on the field was taken by Cllr Lyndon Frayling, who, presumably, could be relied on to toe the party line which, of course, the party didn’t have because whipping is not allowed, if you follow.
There was an added complication in that deputy council leader Rob Lewis had declared an interest in the application at the January meeting and was therefore sidelined.
So he was substituted by Cllr Daphne Bush.
According to Cllr Jenkins, these substitutions, designed to ensure the “right” result, were made at 9 am on the morning of the meeting.
Incidentally, the meeting, which started at 10 am and ended at 5.25 pm, dealt with 11 items – several of which were contentious – so, as Cllr Jenkins observed, these subs couldn’t possibly have mastered their brief in the hour available.
As Cllr Jenkins said: Cllr Adams’ manoeuvres, described by Cllr Bob Kilmister as gerrymandering, were “not democratic, not fair and not just” .
So, whatever it is that attracts Cllr Jenkins to the IPPG, we can be fairly certain is something other than its Leader’s enthusiasm for the principles of democracy, fairness and justice.
Interestingly, a member of the IPPG suggested to me recently that I would achieve more inside the group than taking potshots from outside.
There are two problems with this: There is no way I would ever join a political group that had such a cavalier attitude to democracy, fairness and justice, not to mention the truth, and, in any case, I have it on no less an authority than its former Chairman Cllr John Allen Mirehouse that they wouldn’t have me (Biter bitten).
Cllr Adams is fond of saying that he concentrates on “outcomes not process” which to my mind bears a striking resemblance to the old dictators’ mantra that the ends justify the means.
But I will return to that subject another time.
