Black Xmas Panto Redacted (From The Argus)

Black Xmas Panto Redacted

10:14am Sunday 18th December 2011 in Blogs

In a bizarre council meeting this week, the Complaints Committee (a.k.a. Standards Committee Hearing Panel) will be considering a complaint made against a Member (Case Reference: BHC-006219 ) covering report of the Monitoring Officer in connection with a Code of Conduct complaint against another Councillor, a copy of which has been circulated to Members of the Panel only.

The public will only find out what is it all about if the Panel decides at the start (or at the end) to disclose the details of the complaint. And even then, details may be blanked out (exempted) on the grounds that it contains personal information relating to an individual and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

What kind of panto is that! Kafta and Brecht, eat your hearts out! Redacting the whole proceedings is a farce! I want my money back!

Seriously though, the Council seems to have shot itself in the foot by insisting that the details are not revealed until most of interested parties have had the chance to comment on why the non-disclosure should be maintained. The main party who have an interest in this, the public itself, are not represented, by the way. They have have been side-lined, the gallery will be cleared.

And this is, apparently, the very reason why the public have been banned: it is said that council lawyers have they wanted to “downplay” the publicity surrounding the hearing and there was concern that a public debate could prejudice a fair hearing.

Excuse me, but it there not a presumption that all meetings must be held in public, unless there is a good reason not to do so?

Pre-empting heckling in this way smacks of low-level dictatorship or its opposite, fear of weak chairmanship. The locks must be picked and the doors must be opened. If the noise from some of the public gets too loud such that the august members of the panel can’t think straight, then of course call the guards. Until then, let the public interest prevail: usually, the public is so disinterested about the workings of democracy that this kind of censorship gives local government a bad name.

It may well be that some personal private information in this case deserves being withheld but that is highly unlikely. Note that many facts have been already been published.

Holding meetings in camera are a serious matter. Indeed, even disussing the matter, be it lightheartedly or otherwise, could be viewed as some kind of “contempt of court.” Certainly, the possible punishments that can be meted out to guilty councillors warrant a judicious approach. The fact that they there is no jury to be nobbled does not stop the possibility that panel members could be influenced by injudicious commentary.

Silence on set, let the camera roll….

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