Wrong to have in-house ruling (From Warrington Guardian)
Text us your news! Start your message Warrington News and send any photos or videos to 80360
Wrong to have in-house ruling
3:23pm Thursday 12th July 2012 in Letters
I IMAGINE some banks wish they could adopt a similar system to that used by Warrington Borough Council when someone complains about a councillor.
In May I made a complaint. I have now learnt that the decision whether to refer it to a standards committee rests with the solicitor for the council who is also the assistant director of corporate governance.
I am also led to believe there is no right to appeal that decision. Whatever the outcome there should be an opportunity to have it looked at again by a group of elected members, if not an independent individual.
Just imagine if banks were able to refer complaints to an in-house advisor as the final arbitrator.
It certainly wouldn’t increase public confidence.
DAVE WILLIAMS Fearnhead
Comments(3)
Billy Lines-Rowlands
says...
12:29pm Fri 13 Jul 12
The the assistant director of corporate governance is actually the person you would want to look at a compliant as they are neutral and are not elected representavices. You suggest elected representatives look at complaints-that would be 'in-house' and wrong. Unless you want to have a seperate election for people who look at complaints?
I know from previous letters and comments you have made public that you do not like the political party that your 3 local councillors represent, however that being said I can't quite help but think that this letter is politically motivated. But still, I would be very happy to take time and take on any issues and concerns that you have and I would do my best to fulfill the role I was elected to, regardless or your political affiliation or even mine. Feel free to get in touch, in confidence and I will do my best to help you. Thanks, Billy
Karlar
says...
4:30pm Thu 19 Jul 12
choperado wrote:You're being harsh with the comments about elected council members. Most really do care about the concerns or wishes of those who elected them and try to put matters right. But they are stifled by the system under which they are forced to operate. Because of that they are the ones who bear the brunt of the electorates' frustration when the system lets them down, as it all too frequently does. It's the elected members who also shoulder all the blame for mess ups, deliberate or innocently caused by council officers.
Huge conflict of interests and a disgraceful corruptible policy. Shame on those that work with that system. Councillors are one of the lowest ranks in politics yet these seem to be wielding power like MPs. Voted in by the people, answerable to the people. I can't believe this country feels it can preach to others around the world about democracy. Self service is all they care for.
As you've said "the solicitor for the council who is also the assistant director of corporate governance". The solicitor is an unelected officer of the council, so it is hardly surprising from this situation the problem of which you complain will arise.
For the record I am not a councillor and nor am I related to one. It’s the system not the members that should be held to account.
choperado says...
10:28pm Thu 12 Jul 12