Five City Councillors today submitted a requisition for a Special City Council to be held next week to debate the Council’s collective submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the creation of 44 new one-Member Wards to replace the current 20 three-Member Wards.
The Administration & Appeals Committee has been convened specially to consider the submission next Wednesday, 9th June 2010. Since the closing date for submissions to the Local Government Boundary Commission is Friday 11th June it is clearly vital that a Special Full Council be convened on Thursday 10th June.
Since at this very late stage no such Special Council notice has been issued I have today, with the support of Cllrs Pauline Joynson, Mike Barnes, Mick Bell and Janine Bridges submitted a requisition to the Lord Mayor requesting that a Special Full Council be called. The last date for issuing such a summons is tomorrow, Wednesday 2nd June to meet the required 7 days notice for such a meeting.
It was still unclear at the close of business today when the Report setting out the Council’s submission would be available.
However, now at least, a Special Full Council will be called thus avoiding the debacle of having no properly approved submission to make to the Bounday Commission
“Councillors act to avert crisis”
Very impressive. And for stoke-on-Trent’s usual committee of ditherers, quite unexpected.
Until you realise of course to whome this so called ‘crisis’ refers.
Because failing to influence the boundary commissioners proposals poses a risk to their OWN re-election doesn’t it.
So in fact the crisis that is being averted is one that only really affects them. Not so impressive after all then. Nothing but self interest in fact.
http://www.moderngov.stoke.gov.uk/Published/C00000556/M00003686/AI00022269/$OREPadminandappealsresponsetoLGBCE.docA.ps.pdf
Yes, still no appendix A, not on the web anyway.
And yes full council should have the chance to debate and vote on this. But leaving it so late seems loopy to me. How are councillors meant to give this proper consideration? And who has been involved in constructing the 44 single member ward submission?
I had previously put in a 45 single member ward submission and now, following immense evidence from RAs in particular in support of two member wards, have put in a 22 two member ward submission:
http://www.pitsnpots.co.uk/blog/2010/06/boundaries-last-chance-contribute
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQnPMdnm-yQhZGhoM3pyY3dfMTJjNWg1djdrOA&hl=en
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdDhsNVNBRmNQTml4QVJpSzNpd1BGVnc&hl=en
Unfortunately I won’t be able to observe either of these meetings. Could be interesting, would be good if someone from pitsnpots is able to go and report back. Last full council on boundaries was utterly shambolic:
http://www.pitsnpots.co.uk/news/2010/01/council-chaos-chamber-dithers-over-boundary-review
largely as a result of the antics of our now council leader!
So tell me where is it written that Stoke-on-Trent must have 1 Councillor to over 4000 residents. Do some research on other Boundary Commission work in progress and you can find where for one LA, they have recommended just over 1000 residents per councillor.
Where is the compatibility in this!!!
Gobowen: its not that why everyone is allowed to present their wishes backed up with evidence.
So get writing and get everyone you know to write in to Boundary Commission you have till 11th June
I couldn’t agree more Gobowen, the reduction in councillor numbers is mad. Bizarrely the LGBCE don’t accept evidence based on comparisons with other councils!!! And where it is written is in the LGBCE decision following the first part of the consultation on number of councillors
http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce-documents/responsessubmissions/stoke-on-trent-review/correspondence-sotcc-cex-launchstageone-letter-2009-10-20.pdf
which I’m not terribly convinced by. The only way now to stop the reduction in numbers would be to lobby MPs to get the LGBCE recommendation to parliament turned down.