For the first time since Reading Borough Council became NOC (No Overall Control) in May 2008 the CCEA (Corporate, Community and External Affairs) Scrutiny Panel voted on 21st January to use its' powers to ‘call in’ a Cabinet decision.
The 'call-in' procedure is there to offer additional scrutiny to any decision made in the council's cabinet. Either the general CCEA panel can raise a matter of concern and send it back to the Cabinet for a revised decision, or an individual councillor can raise the matter and send it back to the scrutiny panel for that specific policy area which may then decide to then send it further back up the chain of command to the Cabinet.
This process may sound quite lengthy, but it provides the checks and balances necessary to ensure the democratic system works and issues are dealt with effectively.
It is essentially the method by which an active opposition group can hold the ruling group to account; when one party has a strong majority of councillors and controls the appointments on the scrutiny panels (as has been the case with a long period of Labour dominance in recent years) the 'call-in' procedure tends either not to be used as motions to 'call-in' a decision can be voted down by the majority.
After a report by Reading's Culture Scrutiny panel recommended increasing council funding to the South Reading Leisure Centre from £56,000/year to £128,000/year (ie more than doubling the subsidy), Cllr Epps (Leader, LibDem) picked up on the lack of detailed reasons and requested that it be 'called in'.
The 'call-in' procedure is there to offer additional scrutiny to any decision made in the council's cabinet. Either the general CCEA panel can raise a matter of concern and send it back to the Cabinet for a revised decision, or an individual councillor can raise the matter and send it back to the scrutiny panel for that specific policy area which may then decide to then send it further back up the chain of command to the Cabinet.
This process may sound quite lengthy, but it provides the checks and balances necessary to ensure the democratic system works and issues are dealt with effectively.
It is essentially the method by which an active opposition group can hold the ruling group to account; when one party has a strong majority of councillors and controls the appointments on the scrutiny panels (as has been the case with a long period of Labour dominance in recent years) the 'call-in' procedure tends either not to be used as motions to 'call-in' a decision can be voted down by the majority.
After a report by Reading's Culture Scrutiny panel recommended increasing council funding to the South Reading Leisure Centre from £56,000/year to £128,000/year (ie more than doubling the subsidy), Cllr Epps (Leader, LibDem) picked up on the lack of detailed reasons and requested that it be 'called in'.
Cllr Epps has explained that he feels there was not enough attention in Academy Sport's business plan detailing how they intended to raise usage and income levels and that this lack of detail meant that an increase of tax-payer subsidy is cannot justified until it is provided.
It seems that Reading's opposition Conservative group failed to spot the discrepancy in the Culture scrutiny report, or at least failed to question it. However, once Cllr Epps raised the issue they agreed strongly enough to support the motion to 'call in' the decision, and they have since released a press release to show how active and involved in the issue they are.
Cllr Mike Townend (Con, Church) says: "the objective is to bring the council's management fee contribution back down to the originally agreed figure within a specific time frame."
Meanwhile Cllr Tom Stanway (Con, Caversham) stated: "I trust that Cabinet will decide on a more stringent monitoring process regarding this additional funding requirement."
Oranjepan says:
It is good to see opposition parties working together to hold the ruling Labour group to account in the public interest. Let's now hope earlier partisan game-playing will be consigned to the past.
Update: Was was 'ere adds a view
No comments:
Post a Comment