23 April 2004

Dear Mary Collins

I have the following three questions for the Council meeting to be held on 11 May. Please tweak as necessary.

Yours sincerely

Cass Mann

CEO, Positively Healthy
1 Princes Street
Richmond Surrey TW9 1ED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q1 Will the Leader join me and the borough's Jewish residents, as well as all right-minded residents, in publicly condemning Richmond Park MP Dr Tonge, for endangering all who live in the borough by the support she has recently given suicide bombers? Her comments, made as a Richmond MP, may well encourage local activist cells, as yet undeclared and unknown, to engage in atrocities with the perception that they would have her approval, as London is now, following the recent Spanish bombing, considered the next target area for such cells and atrocities.

Q2 Will the Leader confirm that I have understood him correctly when he stated, in response to my tabled questions at the Council meeting on 20 April, that elected members may use their official title, official email address, official email communication pathway and Council's geographical address, but be deemed by him as to be writing exclusively in their personal capacity regardless, with the Council having no interest in or control over their communications? At what stage do such communications secure official status, as at present the borough's residents are required to consider all official communications from their elected members as unofficial and personal and without official status?

Q3 The Leader's well-established inability to read or recall official documentation led him to state that The Standards Board for England (SBE) could take action against elected members for breaching Richmond's Equality and Diversity Policy and Strategy, when SBE's protocols clearly state that they can only act when the Members' Code of Conduct is breached. Could the Leader advise why he misled the Council meeting of 20 April in this regard, in his response to my tabled question?

Cass Mann

M.Collins@richmond.gov.uk wrote on 29 April 2004:

I'm sorry but the 11th May meeting is the Annual Council and there is no facility for either public or Members' Questions. The meeting is almost entirely ceremonial (election of new Mayor) and procedural (appointment of Cabinet and Committees, approval of programme of meetings, etc). There are no Questions, Ward Concerns or Motions.

The dates of the Council meetings will be confirmed by Annual Council on 11th May, but I'm expecting the next 'ordinary' one to be on 15th June.

You do need to be aware though that it is going to be proposed that a number of changes are made to the way in which Council meetings are conducted, which is likely to include reducing the number of Public Questions per individual to 1; limiting the length of the Question; and identifying new grounds on which the Chief Executive can reject questions.

I can "reserve" you the 1st Public Question 'slot' on the 15th June agenda, but you might like to wait until there's some clarity about the new Rules rather than spend time re-working your 3 Questions now.

Mary Collins
Democratic Services Manager

Comment from Cass Mann 29 April 2004

A further nail was hammered into the coffin of democracy and accountability in Richmond when it was unilaterally decided by Richmond Council that in future full Council meetings, the sole public forums held whereby residents could question and challenge elected members, were to be immediately restructured following, coincidentally no doubt, the recent difficult questions raised by myself which the Leader experienced great difficulty in responding to, as reported in recent editions of Richmond & Twickenham Times.

The newly imposed guidelines for asking public questions at full Council meetings state that "a number of changes are (to be) made to the way in which Council meetings are conducted, which is likely to include reducing the number of Public Questions per individual to 1; limiting the length of the Question; and identifying new grounds on which the Chief Executive can reject questions" (quoting draft Council guidelines 29 April 2004).

As a perusal of public questions tabled recently at full Council meetings exclusively features myself as having asked the full complement of three questions per meeting, this new prohibition must only refer to my tenacity in asking difficult questions and the Council's problems in responding. This state of affairs suggests that Richmond Council is committed to secret government, where they decide who asks what at the whim of the Chief Executive. This disgraceful state of affairs and outright censorship would be familiar to any person unfortunate enough to have lived in the former Soviet Union and smacks of the way the Stasi conducted themselves.

Do Richmond residents really want to be governed in this inexplicably undemocratic manner? I think not and it is time we made our demands for full democracy in Richmond clear and not have our rights jeopardised by frightened councillors or an embattled Chief Executive who, with her diktat, seeks to suppress open government in the borough.

It is extrordinary that in Richmond all our Councillors are white, middle-class and middle-aged and either Conservative or Lib-Dem. There is not a single Labour Councillor and unlikely to be and this makes the Council a private members club for affluent caucasians who treat their residents and the electorate as Kaffirs and Serfs. So much for local democracy!