Claudias Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 ^ ^ ^ I disagree. When a committee is split 50/50,unless it is essential that the matter be decided that day,the chairman should declare the motion void,thus permitting it to be raised again at a future meeting. And how many times do you propose such a stalemate is allowed to continue for? As many times as necessary. Politics is all about 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' so it doesn't normally take long to find a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainlander Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 50% of the council plus the convener is a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 ^^ Not when the convener gets to vote twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marooned in Maywick Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 50% of the council plus the convener is a majority. Doesn't it only need to be 50% of those in attendance when the vote is taken? Plus the convenor, if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I would question the principles and integrity of a councillor who could one day fight vigourously against a proposal, but if the proposal carried they were pushing as hard to further it tomorrow. Surely you mean the opposite don't you? The most fundimental quality any councillor, or indeed anyone employed in public service, needs, is the integrity to put thier own feelings and opinions to the side and do what is required of them. Whether that be representing their constituents or performing other duties as required by the council. Of course common sense dictates it would be unusual to expect someone with an opposing stance to champion a particular cause, but it could happen. The current headline story the Shetland News is running is a prime example of the lack of this integrity within the current members : http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/November/news/Revolution%20rumbles%20at%20the%20town%20hall.htm Most of the issues being raised have either been resolved (and should therefore be backed by all councillors) or are under investigation, so they should wait for the outcome. I really hope behind the certain few "headline grabbers" there are some who would like to stop wasting Shetlands money going over the same ground for the umpteenth time and actually get on with things.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 ^^ I meant exactly what I said. Integrity comes from taking a stance, and sticking to it. In the event that that stance is outvoted, integrity comes from accepting, gracefully and with dignity, that you are in the minority, sitting down, shutting up, and letting those who support the more popular alternative get on with it unhindered and in peace. I would seriously question the motivation, and consequently the contribution of anyone who fought vigourously against a proposal, could make to facilitating the progress of that same proposal, when their own opinions and feelings where strongly and wholly against it. In any case, the only realistic rule of thumb the public has by which to measure the principles and integrity of any councillor is if they take a stance and stick to it. If all councillors are expected to be all gung ho and enthusuastic about every decision the council takes, regardless of their own beliefs in teh matter, how can you tell who can be trusted and who's just playing devil's advocate on the day for the hell of it. The "leadline grabber" IMHO is far too little far too late, but that aside. The issues cited may well be either "resolved" of still being investigated, but that doesn't alter the fact that none of the issues should ever have arisen in the first place, and even if they did, immediate and decisive action should have been taken. Not allowed to run on and fester, and things build one on top of the other until the whole pile has all but imploded. Cluness is a lawyer, Shannon is a lawyer, Riise is a lawyer, most of this has plodded along at "lawyer speed" and in "lawyer procedure", and we have what we have. The nation has been run by sundry lawyers for two decades, and you see what state its in. Lawyers do not make great leaders, end of. Its not a new proposal, a seperate political and civic leader has been mooted before in the lifetime of this council, it go no support at its last airing. Eight backers is light, but it is 1/3 of the council, so probably worth a punt again to see who bites. A mid-term reshuffle IMHO is no bad thing, especially for this council, there was a hefty new intake at election time, none of whom were really equipped at that point to consider office bearer roles, hence most positions went to one or other of a very limited pool of the usual suspects. Those new guys have some experience now, if any of them feel they can do better, and can get their colleagues to back them, give them a crack of the whip, we don't need to worry about anyone making anything worse right now, we're about as far down the tubes as we can go without disappearing in to the sewer permanently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainlander Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 My first instinct is to agree strongly with Spinner72 when he says that "The most fundimental quality any councillor, or indeed anyone employed in public service, needs, is the integrity to put thier own feelings and opinions to the side and do what is required of them." However, Ghostrider's statement that "the event that that stance is outvoted, integrity comes from accepting, gracefully and with dignity, that you are in the minority, sitting down, shutting up, and letting those who support the more popular alternative get on with it unhindered and in peace" seems a reasonable middle way. It allows for those councillors who are unable to put their own wishes aside to retain views they may see as fundamental, but would also allow council business to continue unimpeded by the continual regurgitation of negative comment even once decisions have been reached and should be moved on from; this would seem a vast improvement on the manner in which business appears to be conducted at the moment. As Spinner72 says, the latest "news" on the Shetland News (and now the Shetland Times) websites is a prime example of this. I had assumed that the suggestion of civic and political leaders was something new, but Ghostrider has pointed out that it is not. And certain councillors wanting rid of Mr Clark is certainly nothing new, as Mr Wills (who I think the Shetland Times previously described as having a vendetta against Mr Clark) has been most vociferous in his wish for this for a couple of months now; it would surely have been unusual if he had found no one at all to agree with his suggestion. As for the report on the Shetland Times website that "Dr Wills has tabled 15 questions to Mr Riise about allegations that Mr Clark spent the afternoon of 9th September drinking in his office with former business associate Andrew Laidler". Fifteen questions??? Words fail me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Cluness is a lawyer, Shannon is a lawyer, Riise is a lawyer, most of this has plodded along at "lawyer speed" and in "lawyer procedure", and we have what we have. The nation has been run by sundry lawyers for two decades, and you see what state its in. Lawyers do not make great leaders, end of.Cue old but favourite lawyer jokes: A lawyer is standing in a pit up to their neck in concrete.Q: What do you have?A: Not enough concrete. Q: What is the difference between a dead rat on a road and a dead lawyer on a road?A: Skid marks around the dead rat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 As for the report on the Shetland Times website that "Dr Wills has tabled 15 questions to Mr Riise about allegations that Mr Clark spent the afternoon of 9th September drinking in his office with former business associate Andrew Laidler". Fifteen questions??? Words fail me! I didn't mention this as it would no doubt have been labelled by some as my having "issues" with Cllr Wills - but it is such a perfect example of what needs to be sorted within the members aspect of the council. How much time must be being wasted that should be being used to tackle genuine problems affecting people such as housing shortages, social issues (alcohol and drug abuse especially), assisting in crime prevention, more care places for the elderly etc - then we also have debates and decisions over major projects such as the AHS (its still a long way from over) and the VE/Windfarm not to mention ongoing issues regarding transport etc. Please please do continue asking the hard and awkward questions - but make them bloody relevant! (and don't forget, they also need hard and awkward decisions on the back of them) If it is decided that things can only move on after a major reshuffle, I suggest that this should also include a re-election of members as a starting point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 All I say for the present, is that I feel uncomfortable and terribly disappointed about certain individuals who have acted either singly or whether part of a cabal and which has now brought our Island's Administration into such obvious disrepute. It applies to both the Convener, the Vice-Convener, but also a few other Senior Council Members . Even some Department Heads should hang their heads in shame for their idiotic actions involving Wills and Shannon.They are paid employees and should act as such, but they crossed the line. The Chief Executive's Office has now been so denigrated by its present incumbant, that there is only one thing left for him to do and that is to resign forthwith.If he is not willing to do this, he has to be made to go and go, just as quickly as he came. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 i agree spinner theres more wrong than a man drinking with his pal. now paying twice the quoted price for a service is an issue. is there any reason that the entire council cant be made to step down and explain themselves at the poll box. the scottish goverment has given them another year to begger thing up even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainlander Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 That the Chief Executive's Office has been denigrated is indisputable. However, following the matter carefully through the local press and separating fact from excited repetition of personal opinion indicates that it is not the Chief Executive who has denigrated it. Rather, those who continually regurgitate old news in a tabloid fashion are responsible for that. In contrast, Mr Clark seems to be concentrating on getting on with his job and resisting the temptation to become mired in arguments which will never be productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 mainlander what would you do if you knew there were folks out to get you. ducking down and keeping a low profile is very sensible. it does not make him a saint. as its been said something has to be done the easiest thou it may well not be the best is for him to go. those on both sides should think hard about their conduct and remember what they are meant to be there for. maybe those council members who have complaints proven against them should step down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainlander Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I certainly wouldn't ever make Mr Clark out to be a saint. Obviously he has made mistakes in the way he has gone about things and hopefully will have learned from his mistakes. But he has maintained a professional attitude throughout all the processes which have been gone through so far, and so far seems committed to continuing to do so, which is my point. Whereas others have singularly failed to demonstrate a professional attitude at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 That the Chief Executive's Office has been denigrated is indisputable. In contrast, Mr Clark seems to be concentrating on getting on with his job and resisting the temptation to become mired in arguments which will never be productive.You mean, not productive for him?After collecting about 50K in salary for the time spent in Office so far, I would think he might feel compelled to keep his head down and try a little work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.