Scottish Borders Council's dim and distant pledge of "openness and transparency" had already been tarnished long before Hawick councillor Watson McAteer submitted a written question last week about the state of play at the town's High School.
The answer he received from the ruling Conservative/Independent alliance in charge of service delivery at SBC simply beggars belief and should be challenged. More about Mr McAteer's 'audacity' later.
To the man on the Denholm omnibus it seems successive administrations at Newtown St Boswells have developed a system which makes scrutiny and public accountability increasingly difficult to achieve.
For example: elected members cannot spring unexpected questions on the ruling group and its paid officials at full council meetings; instead queries must be submitted in writing days in advance so that a "suitable" answer can be given.
One of our readers tells us this hermetically sealed version of accountability differs completely from the 'good old days' of county council local government when rebel members like Haig Douglas and Rory Hamilton regularly ambushed county convener the late Duke of Roxburghe at question time. In those days Any Other Business was far more meaningful.
Nowadays some of our local councillors even refuse to answer direct questions from their constituents for fear of divulging some titbit of confidential information which shouldn't be confidential in the first place. Queries are shunted on to officers or must be sent in the form of Freedom of Information requests which take 20 working days to process.
There has been a Scrutiny Committee at SBC for several years, but its ability to really scrutinise questionable decisions has been virtually neutered. Items which it should have tackled have simply never reached its paltry agenda. A former chairman has said privately his hands were tied behind his back.
So back to Mr McAteer who avid followers of Borders local government will know was sacked from the administration recently along with fellow Hawick member Stuart Marshall. Surely they were not dismissed for dissent or insubordination?
His perfectly reasonable question to his former colleagues read as follows: "In the months prior to this year's school holidays, Hawick High School suffered disruption from a small group of persistent unruly children. Their actions impacted pupils and teachers and resulted in wide-scale public concern. Can the Executive Member [for education] assure her colleagues, the parents and most importantly the children who have returned for the new school term that these problems are now resolved and that they will be able to study in a safe, secure and fully staffed learning environment?"
There have been reports of further disruptive incidents at the school since the summer break including incidents attended by the police.
The written response, apparently provided by council leader Shona Haslam has the strident sentiments of a ruling clique in a one-party state.
"None of us should be under any misapprehension about the nature and intent of this question", boomed the uncompromising opening gambit. In other words, how dare you Councillor McAteer!
But there was worse to follow: "It is an unashamed attempt by the Member to stoke fears in the school and community for his own narrow political purposes. That is utterly reprehensible, and it is not a situation that we in this Chamber should countenance again.
"If the Member is truly concerned for the interests of those he claims to represent, let him approach me with the issues directly, and I and the Service Director will work with him and others to develop a collective approach to issues which arise. If, on the other hand, the Member persists in fear-mongering for petty political gain, then he shames himself and this Chamber, and does gross disservice to the ward he is supposed to represent".
If the issue raised by Mr McAteer should not - in Councillor Haslam's eyes - have been aired publicly then that is an outrageous state of affairs whether or not the motive was for 'petty political gain'. And to brand the contents of a legitimate question 'utterly reprehensible' is patently ridiculous and dangerous for democracy.
A council insider declared: "This is a stark illustration of the culture at the top of SBC which simply will not tolerate criticism or opposition. It's been like that for ages. And anything which might damage reputations must not be aired in public. It is high time this entire ethos was challenged and quashed".
No comments:
Post a Comment