No marks for not answering the question on the paper

What is the point of a council meeting? Isn't it to consider important local matters?

What is the point of questions to the Leader of the Council?

To hold him to account for his team's actions and to inform the public by publishing them.

This all seems to have been forgotten in tonight's full Council meeting. Here, read the questions and mostly non-answers for yourselves.

Questions to the Leader and Committee Chairman if He Has Delegated 16122014 190 by MisterMustard

Mr Mustard started reading.

Q1. A sucking up type question by a new councillor. (The park have had to go to charity for funds which it is the duty of the council to provide). No need as the council will shout about this from the rooftops on twitter, in the local papers etc.

Q2. Not an answer. A standard diversionary tactic in the second sentence. What Labour would do we'll only find out should they come to power. Rather petty by Richard, Mr Mustard thought.

Q3. But what will Richard actually do about the Open Space. Nothing informative here.

Q4. The question simply hasn't been answered. Mr Mustard doesn't think there have been any prosecutions for fly-tipping in recent years otherwise the council would have done a press release saying how marvellous they were.

Q5 &Q6. Properly answered.

Q7. What was the point in this question?

Q8. Not answered.

Q9. So if it always dealt with swiftly why do we need to step up efforts? Some figures about the number of incidents by month might have been more informative as well as doing something about catching the perpetrators.

Q10. You might eventually see an answer. It should have been here.

Q11. Pavement parking is already banned across the whole of London. Does Cllr Gordon not know this?

As there are 143 questions (more than usual) let's just consider the poorer ones.

Q13. Cllr Gordon again shows he doesn't know enough about the Council.

Q14. Not answered the size questions as the responses would be too embarrassing. Appropriate is in the eye of the beholder.

Q15. Should a routine council service really be the subject of a question to full council.

Q16. In which case Richard you should have asked Cllr Rawlings to clarify his question so that you could do him the courtesy of a proper answer.

Q17. Ah, a question from the councillor who voted to move a meeting to clash with the Labour Party Conference. This looks like another politically inspired act of no use to residents.

Q19. More petty politics.

Q20. Mr Mustard has his money on the overall take being higher.

Q21. More petty politics. It can't be irresponsible to follow the council constitution unless the constitution itself is irresponsible.

more later but read the rest and see how appalling it is.

Residents have been badly served by these partial answers.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

.

Too busy issuing parking tickets to write statutory reports

Barnet Council Parking Dept or a Vampire Squid?

On Black Tuesday Mr Mustard wrote about the praying mantises issuing parking tickets in manifestly unfair circumstances in North Finchley. The sort where you have parked perfectly properly when leaving your car and where the tables have been turned on you whilst you are carrying out your business and you return to your car to find a parking ticket.

It's funny isn't it that the public are expected to follow thousands of petty rules about parking and if they make the tiniest mistake they get hit with a fine for, say, £110 and then have to appeal to show that what they did was not wrong (guilty until proven innocent in matters of parking) and yet Barnet Council are quite happy to ignore statutory requirements.

Mr Mustard gets the definite feeling that the council regard rules as for little people and that they, the council are the masters of the universe, are somehow above such matters as is evidenced by the "leader" Richard Cornelius opining on the pettifogging bureaucracy of the EU when it comes to procurement rules, you know the ones, the ones that open the market up to competition rather than awarding contracts, or even undocumented deals, to your favourite suppliers, and that help ensure that we get the best price, and that the service required is properly documented, and that the work will be carried out in a safe manner, all those pettifogging rules are the ones that Richard somehow doesn't like.

Council failure

"The Secretary of State Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions refers to an annual report on enforcement which should be issued within 6 months of the year end" was the preamble to an FOI question which Mr Mustard sent to Barnet Council asking to see the reports since March 2009.

Was a report written for the year ended March 2009? No.

OK then, what about to March 2010? Nope.

Maybe the council got around to it by March 2011? Not a chance.

Surely after 4 years to get their act together there would be a report for the year ended March 2012? Not yet.

The report for March 2012 had not been compiled by 3 August when he asked. As Mr Mustard has asked to see it, he hopes it will now be written by the deadline of 30 September 2012. He has made a note of this deadline and on 1 October will ask for the report. If it has not been written he will send Barnet Council a Penalty Charge Notice for £110 and he will send another every day until the report is produced. He will also be having a word with the Secretary of State about sanctions.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Bloggers' open letter re. Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz

Helen Michael: open letter to Councillor Richard Cornelius and to Scotland Yard

Since the electoral defeat of former Assembly Member and Barnet Cabinet member Brian Coleman in May, Barnet’s Tory council leader Richard Cornelius and his colleagues have sought to distance themselves from most of the more controversial policies that Coleman promoted.

Most significant among these is the parking scheme, which has caused so much anger among the residents and traders of this borough.

At a meeting with Barnet traders at a North Finchley forum in December last year, Councillor Cornelius was told in no uncertain terms by the shopkeepers and small business owners of this borough about the devastating impact of this ridiculous scheme. He replied:

“I’m listening, but I haven’t got any intention to do anything else other than that ... I’ve heard you and it’s obviously affected me. I don’t know what I can do. I don’t know if I can do anything.”

 

Local cafe owner Helen Michael said:

“We are wasting our time – you’ve said in no uncertain terms that you’re not going to do anything. We are begging for our businesses, for our livelihoods. Please do something.”

Councillor Cornelius and his fellow Tories sat back and watched as the life of our local high streets ebbed away, in some cases losing up to 40 percent of their usual level of trade.

He refused to do anything for us, so we acted for ourselves.

Bloggers, traders, residents, community activists and trade unions united and voiced their opposition to the changes. Prominent among the campaigners was Helen Michael. As spokeswoman for North Finchley traders she made every effort to focus attention on the injustice and devastating impact of the policy, and hold Councillor Coleman to account for the consequences of his scheme. Her efforts won admiration from London Mayor Boris Johnson – and even Richard Cornelius, who is reported to have suggested she should think of standing as a Conservative candidate for the council.

Only since Brian Coleman lost his seat on the London Assembly, and then his Cabinet post, and in response to two other electoral defeats, has the Tory group on Barnet Council admitted that the parking changes were unfair, and sought to retract them. Councillor Cornelius has now apologised for introducing the policy, and a review is underway.

How ironic it is, therefore, that the woman who did what Councillor Cornelius failed to do, and fought for the best interests of residents and traders, is now being investigated by Scotland Yard, after an allegation of wrongdoing in relation to a poster produced by her in the course of the parking campaign. An omission on this poster was rectified early on in the campaign, and Helen Michael was informed by local police that there would be no further action.

Despite this assurance, Helen Michael is now being investigated by officers from Scotland Yard, and yesterday spent two hours, under caution, being interviewed at a local police station about the poster, and her motivation for its publication.

We believe that this targeting of a local campaigner is a deliberate and politically motivated act of intimidation.

To involve the police in this way is inappropriate, and a serious misuse of their time and resources.

We call on Council leader Richard Cornelius to speak out against the victimisation of a brave, resourceful and admirable woman. We call on Scotland Yard to desist from taking any further action in regard to this matter.

Signed:

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne