To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
The Chairman read a statement and a question on behalf of Mr Quinn referring to Item 11 (Land at Post Hill) on the agenda:
This report proposes that the Council builds 70 properties and asks Cabinet to agree that any new ‘Teckal’ company would deliver them.
It was only on 29 October that Cabinet agreed expenditure to: “secure legal advice on exploring the advantages of new governance arrangements to include a holding company and Teckal-compliant subsidiary, in order to deliver the most benefits for Mid Devon”. As I understand it, this advice has not yet been received by Cabinet.
Paragraph 3.5 states that to be a Teckal Company, the Council must “exercise a degree of control over the company similar to that exercised over its own departments”. It is difficult for the public to understand how the Council would do this.
It seems to me that asking Cabinet to agree to give this development to this Teckal Company, before it has even been formed, is rather like “Putting the Cart before the Horse”.
A high value development, like this one at Post Hill, is complicated and will obviously need careful and experienced management.
The projected timetable (at paragraph 11.3) does not seem to give sufficient time for Cabinet to receive and consider the report into a possible ‘Teckal’ Company and then, if it is approved, to bring the company legally into being and staff it sufficiently for it be able to properly manage the commencement of this development.
My questions are:
When is the report on the possible ‘Teckal’ Company expected to be brought before Cabinet?
And will this report be ‘Open’ – to allow for public scrutiny?
The Chairman indicated that a response to the question would be provided when the item was debated.
Mr Cashmore referring to Item 17/18 (3 Rivers Developments Limited) on the agenda stated that: We know that councillors are expected to abide by the 7 Nolan Principles of Local Government.
But were you also aware that council officers, from the (CEO down), as well as being expected to fulfil the terms of their employment contract, are also expected to abide by the 7 Principles of Decision Making? (as found in section 15.2 of your own constitution? 300+pages!). In particular, I draw your attention to para d) there is a presumption in favour of Openness in all decisions. & para g) the giving of reasons for the decision, and the proper recording of those reasons.
Therefore, Does this cabinet not agree with me that we should all be concerned of the motives of any elected councillor or official, (either working as an individual, or as part of a group) who, at face value, appears to be working hard to hide council information from public scrutiny?, - rather than taking every opportunity to publish it?
Last week I used Zoom to speak to the Governance working group, but was surprised to be told that the meeting was being recorded, only for the use of notetaking (!)
As all Mid Devon meetings are now being conducted virtually on Zoom, can you please list any reasons why this council should NOT go ahead and agree to publish ALL their virtual meetings live on YouTube?
This simple step was successfully implemented some months ago by East Devon District Council and I urge you all to have a look to see how it works. It could allow the public to actually see their own councillors at work, either live as it happens, or at any other time. It may also help you to improve engagement with our younger community.
Which now leads to my question regarding 3 Rivers. Does this cabinet share my concerns, that unless it starts to provide far greater transparency regarding the aspirations and plans for 3 Rivers then they should not really be surprised at the growing public disquiet regarding it's shocking performance to date.
Therefore my question is: When does this council expect 3RDL will be able to complete paying off its council loans and start returning a profit to the ratepayers of Mid Devon as originally intended?
The Chairman indicated that a written response would be provided.