Xmas Panto Probe Plot (From The Argus)

Xmas Panto Probe Plot

6:35pm Sunday 11th December 2011 in Blogs By Roy Pennington, Beach flaneur

This Tuesday (13th Dec) the Standards Board will be investigating the complaint that a former councillor Averil Older took a photograph of protesters, against their wishes, during a fractious budget-setting council meeting last March. This sets the scene for some standard municipal theatre, just in time for Christmas.

Like much pantomime, the characters are well-known, the acts follow a set procedure and there will be a puff of smoke just before the decision is made. It is a shame the meeting is in Hove Town Hall rather than the very place the “crime” took place in Brighton Town Hall Council Chamber.

The key-players could then act out the scene: one version by the complainant, a Trade Unionist employed by the Council , states: “Averil Older came up and stood directly in front of us and was taking photographs of the people sat in the gallery. A man sat in front of me objected to this and asked that she stop. She didn’t. When he informed her that he was a law student and that he could bring a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace she laughed in his face.”

Another version, by Averil Older, stated: “I was asked to stop by someone and I did. I did not hear anyone mentioning they were a law student etc. I did not 'laugh in his face' as I did not find the situation at all funny but extremely serious when the business of the Council Budget setting cannot proceed with constant interruption from the public - which began within a few second's of the vicar's prayers before the meeting had even begun.”

Such contradictions will have to be resolved, on balance if necessary. The use of the all-seeing eye of the web-cam will be no help as it is turned off when the disruptions started -- and there were many. And there were many complaints, too. So much so, at least councillor was sent on some kind of training course on how to treat citizens with due respect. Full details on that are blanked out from the complainant’s statement.

The evidence is a bit thin, though: none of the other protesters have given there version of events but it is not clear that they have been asked properly.

And it is clear that it was a provocative situation on both sides. As Averil Older has been charged with showing “disrespect”, she said: “I feel “respect”  must be two-way and in this case,  the protesters  were showing no respect (to the Council). They even started heckling at Prayers. I was so angry that at the umpeenth occasion when the mayor had to stop the meeting,  I just took my council-issued BlackBerry and shot a single photograph. I don’t know why I took the photograph,  I was just so angry with the protesters.”

She has not been charged of misuse of council equipment. Nor there is any sign in the chamber or elsewhere saying “no photography”. The only mention in council codes (e.g. Rule 31) seems to apply only to the press.

It seems that the Council Chamber is a semi-private space such that the only the owner has the right to deny use of a camera and sue for “ trespass” for persistant refusal. Individuals in any public space can rely only on laws about harrasment and public nuisance and in this case the number of “shots” are relevant. The fact that the photograph has never been published (other than by the Council itself as part of these proceedings) is also relevant.

As to the outcome on the two charges of the breach of the code of conduct, they are either “not proven” (in which case that is usually the end of the matter) or “censure” (a kind of official rebuke.) As Averil Older is no longer a serving councillor, the Board can only “censure” her.

As one councillor in another town put it: “I think that the sub-committee recognised that my ‘crime’ was of very little practical consequence. The censure I received seems to be the legal equivalent of being slapped round the face with a wet haddock.”

But that cheapens the process -- strong disapproval or harsh criticism is much more that. It could even be usefull to use the theological meaning of “censure” but that would be a different pantomime.

In any event, clarification of the use of cameras/ recording equipment in council meetings might be the real reason why the Standards Assessment Panel bothered to refer the complaint to a public hearing. Something which one on the three members on the Standards Board would know much about already.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here