Council Hearing Match Thread (21 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

And Dongo. I think we all preferred it when you didn't post. You're entitled to make and have an opinion but you ignore facts and make it up as you go along.

What have I made up?

 

---

[SkyBlueZack]

How long had he been a councillor for with the Coventry City Council? How long had the code been in place? It wasn't his first day at work. Mistakes happen, part of life. If you unintentionally don't declare a job you done on your tax return because you been that busy with work, what do you think would happen? Swept under the carpet? People rushing to defend you? Trying every which way to make it look like you hadn't done anything wrong? There seems to be different rules for different people in this case and the world in general, unfortunately.

 

[dongonzalos]

How long had he been a councillor for with the Coventry City Council? How long had the code been in place? It wasn't his first day at work. Mistakes happen, part of life. If you unintentionally don't declare a job you done on your tax return because you been that busy with work, what do you think would happen? Swept under the carpet? People rushing to defend you? Trying every which way to make it look like you hadn't done anything wrong? There seems to be different rules for different people in this case and the world in general, unfortunately.

There certainly are

So are the codes of ethics for councils treated in the same manor as tax evasion?

A man states he didn't declare as he didn't think he had to as he had no financial interest anymore. He was declaring up until that point. In other councils you don't declare if you have no financial interest.

You do the maths do you think he intentionally broke the rules or not.

In these circumstances is he guilty or not.

There are some rules in life where intent doesn't come Into it. I don't see the codes of ethics as one of them.

Now back to you making it up as you go along and suggesting I have made stuff up. Please redeem yourself and point out what I have made up?

 

[chiefdave]

A man states he didn't declare as he didn't think he had to as he had no financial interest anymore. He was declaring up until that point. In other councils you don't declare if you have no financial interest.

You do the maths do you think he intentionally broke the rules or not.

In these circumstances is he guilty or not.

Intention doesn't come into it. He broke the rules - that's it plain and simple.

Where intention comes in is with what punishment he gets. You could say, and I would agree, it was unintentional, doesn't really impact on anything and has since been corrected so there will be no further punishment.

That's fine, no problem with that at all. The problem is when he admits he didn't do something, the independent report confirm he didn't do it and that is a breach of the code and the committee then turn round and say he didn't breach the code. They are wrong, there's no grey area in it.

 

[Sick Boy]

And Dongo. I think we all preferred it when you didn't post. You're entitled to make and have an opinion but you ignore facts and make it up as you go along.

He continually embarrasses himself; his finest moments have been 'Nuneaton Sky Blues' and West Ham would have secured CL football had they had Thorn as manager.

 

[Calista]

Perhaps I can be of assistance here. Goacher’s report quotes at tedious length the relevant parts of the code of conduct:

5.1 I will:
a. register and, where appropriate, disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests that I am obliged to declare under the Localism Act and associated regulations; and
b. register details of my membership of any organisation or body whose rules or requirements of membership could be regarded as suggesting a degree of loyalty to that organisation or body. I acknowledge that this could arise by reason of an organisation having an obligation of secrecy about its rules, its membership or conduct and/or a commitment of allegiance or support to that organisation or body. I understand that such organisations or bodies mayor may not be charitable concerns and they may also have a local, regional, national or international aspect.

8.1. I understand that I have an Other Relevant Interest (which is not a disclosable pecuniary interest) in any matter to be considered or being considered at the meeting) where:
a. a decision in relation to that matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of me or a member of my family or a person with whom I have a close association, or an organisation or body under paragraph 5.1.b or 5.1.c above, to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward or electoral area for which I have been elected or otherwise of the authority's administrative area; and
b. the interest is one that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice my judgement of the public interest

There’s quite a bit of room for interpretation there, including a distinction between pecuniary and interests and other matters. The ethics committee said “We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”. So presumably it was decided that there may have been understandable technical mistakes in interpretation, but no failure to carry out his duty under the code?

None of us know all the minor details of how the decision was made, but to say that they came out and pronounced “black is white” seems daft to me.

 

[Nick]

There certainly are

So are the codes of ethics for councils treated in the same manor as tax evasion?

A man states he didn't declare as he didn't think he had to as he had no financial interest anymore. He was declaring up until that point. In other councils you don't declare if you have no financial interest.

You do the maths do you think he intentionally broke the rules or not.

In these circumstances is he guilty or not.

There are some rules in life where intent doesn't come Into it. I don't see the codes of ethics as one of them.

Now back to you making it up as you go along and suggesting I have made stuff up. Please redeem yourself and point out what I have made up?

So what is the point in having rules then if you don't need to bother to adhere to them?

If I forget to renew my Car Insurance I am driving with no insurance, it may well be very accidental but I still have no car insurance. It is totally different to if I was driving without insurance because I refused to pay for it, the end game is still the same in that I haven't done something I am supposed to.

It doesn't matter what they have to do in other councils does it, surely it only matters in the council he is the leader of?

 

[Nick]

Perhaps I can be of assistance here. Goacher’s report quotes at tedious length the relevant parts of the code of conduct:

5.1 I will:
a. register and, where appropriate, disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests that I am obliged to declare under the Localism Act and associated regulations; and
b. register details of my membership of any organisation or body whose rules or requirements of membership could be regarded as suggesting a degree of loyalty to that organisation or body. I acknowledge that this could arise by reason of an organisation having an obligation of secrecy about its rules, its membership or conduct and/or a commitment of allegiance or support to that organisation or body. I understand that such organisations or bodies mayor may not be charitable concerns and they may also have a local, regional, national or international aspect.

8.1. I understand that I have an Other Relevant Interest (which is not a disclosable pecuniary interest) in any matter to be considered or being considered at the meeting) where:
a. a decision in relation to that matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of me or a member of my family or a person with whom I have a close association, or an organisation or body under paragraph 5.1.b or 5.1.c above, to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward or electoral area for which I have been elected or otherwise of the authority's administrative area; and
b. the interest is one that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice my judgement of the public interest

There’s quite a bit of room for interpretation there, including a distinction between pecuniary and interests and other matters. The ethics committee said “We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”. So presumably it was decided that there may have been understandable technical mistakes in interpretation, but no failure to carry out his duty under the code?

None of us know all the minor details of how the decision was made, but to say that they came out and pronounced “black is white” seems daft to me.

Failing to declare something due to forgetting, or a technical mistake is different to "didn't fail to declare". You would think they would say "It wasn't declared because he didn't think it was necessary" or the reason rather than "he didn't fail to declare it".

If it didn't need to be declared, then why has it since been declared?

 

[dongonzalos]

He continually embarrasses himself; his finest moments have been 'Nuneaton Sky Blues' and West Ham would have secured CL football had they had Thorn as manager.

You remind me of a symbiotic relationship. Where lions allow the birds to pick insects of their backs.

Only CL football was it now, surely I said they would win the Win the Club World Cup?

 

[dongonzalos]

Perhaps I can be of assistance here. Goacher’s report quotes at tedious length the relevant parts of the code of conduct:

5.1 I will:
a. register and, where appropriate, disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests that I am obliged to declare under the Localism Act and associated regulations; and
b. register details of my membership of any organisation or body whose rules or requirements of membership could be regarded as suggesting a degree of loyalty to that organisation or body. I acknowledge that this could arise by reason of an organisation having an obligation of secrecy about its rules, its membership or conduct and/or a commitment of allegiance or support to that organisation or body. I understand that such organisations or bodies mayor may not be charitable concerns and they may also have a local, regional, national or international aspect.

8.1. I understand that I have an Other Relevant Interest (which is not a disclosable pecuniary interest) in any matter to be considered or being considered at the meeting) where:
a. a decision in relation to that matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of me or a member of my family or a person with whom I have a close association, or an organisation or body under paragraph 5.1.b or 5.1.c above, to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward or electoral area for which I have been elected or otherwise of the authority's administrative area; and
b. the interest is one that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice my judgement of the public interest

There’s quite a bit of room for interpretation there, including a distinction between pecuniary and interests and other matters. The ethics committee said “We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”. So presumably it was decided that there may have been understandable technical mistakes in interpretation, but no failure to carry out his duty under the code?

None of us know all the minor details of how the decision was made, but to say that they came out and pronounced “black is white” seems daft to me.

Nothing is ever black and white with something like that it would be impossible.

 

[Nick]

Nothing is ever black and white with something like that it would be impossible.

It is black or white isn't it? Either you do have to declare something or you don't?

It was said he DID have to declare it as part of CCC but not in other councils. He DIDN'T declare it.

They said he did not fail to disclose his interests...

Why did he disclose it a month after the complaint went in if he didn't need to?

Whether it was a technical mistake, he genuinely forgot is neither here or there is it? The reason why he didn't declare it doesn't matter.

 

[dongonzalos]

So what is the point in having rules then if you don't need to bother to adhere to them?

If I forget to renew my Car Insurance I am driving with no insurance, it may well be very accidental but I still have no car insurance. It is totally different to if I was driving without insurance because I refused to pay for it, the end game is still the same in that I haven't done something I am supposed to.

It doesn't matter what they have to do in other councils does it, surely it only matters in the council he is the leader of?

You must agree that there are rules where it is black and white and you don't get an opportunity to explain. Then there are others where the whole circumstances are looked at and it is taken into consideration.

I would say codes of ethics get looked at within the context of the whole situation.

Someone has been declaring
There circumstances change they now no longer declare. They have an honest held belief that they are correctly following the rules. As they would be in lots of other identical organisations.

Turns out in this particular organisation they are wrong

So you either say tough shit it's up to you to read the rules. (Well within their rights)

Or they look at the whole picture.

Did he gain anything by not declaring -no
On the balance of probabilities is it likely he is telling the truth -

He was declaring up till that point, he has nothing to gain so - yes

So looking at the whole picture do we find him guilty or not guilty.

I can quite as many rules where intent plays a major part as you can quote rules where there is no defence it's as you say black or white.

Codes of ethics can't be that simple

 

[Nick]

You must agree that there are rules where it is black and white and you don't get an opportunity to explain. Then there are others where the whole circumstances are looked at and it is taken into consideration.

I would say codes of ethics get looked at within the context of the whole situation.

Someone has been declaring
There circumstances change they now no longer declare. They have an honest held belief that they are correctly following the rules. As they would be in lots of other identical organisations.

Turns out in this particular organisation they are wrong

So you either say tough shit it's up to you to read the rules. (Well within their rights)

Or they look at the whole picture.

Did he gain anything by not declaring -no
On the balance of probabilities is it likely he is telling the truth -

He was declaring up till that point, he has nothing to gain so - yes

So looking at the whole picture do we find him guilty or not guilty.

I can quite as many rules where intent plays a major part as you can quote rules where there is no defence it's as you say black or white.

Codes of ethics can't be that simple

So why has it been declared again now? Just after the letter of complaint.

Whether there is intent or not, I am not disputing that. The fact is he didn't declare it, the fact is he should have.

To me that is failing to declare is interests.

I am not saying put him on death row, I am saying they have come out and said he didn't fail to declare them. Which he quite clearly did, nobody is saying he did on purpose or the reason behind it.

If they investigate and see it was an honest mistake, the ethics committee say "Mutton didn't declare them, it was a genuine mistake / paperwork issue etc etc. The council will be educating it's councillors so this never happens again". Instead, they straight up say he didn't fail to declare anything, which is not factually correct is it?

 

[Calista]

Maybe if they had said something like "Coun Mutton is not guilty of failing in his duties under the code when declaring his interests" we might all have had a more productive day today?

If the Ethics Committee has issued a perverse decision, no doubt we can look forward to yet another round of pointless proceedings. Ethics Committee breaks ethics code and all that.

 

[dongonzalos]

Not relevant on this thread but this is something that has really pissed off about the Council.
I would have preferred if Les Reid for example spent his time digging into why the people of Coventry, were not allowed to vote on whether we become part of Greater Birmingham or Greater Warwickshire!!

Far more important than this crap

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/concerns-raised-after-council-chief-10979893

 

[Nick]

Maybe if they had said something like "Coun Mutton is not guilty of failing in his duties under the code when declaring his interests" we might all have had a more productive day today?

If the Ethics Committee has issued a perverse decision, no doubt we can look forward to yet another round of pointless proceedings. Ethics Committee breaks ethics code and all that.

If they had just said "He didn't declare them, it was a genuine mistake" then it is a totally different scenario then totally denying it ever happened...

 

[Nick]

Not relevant on this thread but this is something that has really pissed off about the Council.
I would have preferred if Les Reid for example spent his time digging into why the people of Coventry, were not allowed to vote on whether we become part of Greater Birmingham or Greater Warwickshire!!

Far more important than this crap

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/concerns-raised-after-council-chief-10979893

Because the councillors can do whatever they want and get away with it? Their ethics committee is made up of people who work for them.

 

[dongonzalos]

Maybe if they had said something like "Coun Mutton is not guilty of failing in his duties under the code when declaring his interests" we might all have had a more productive day today?

If the Ethics Committee has issued a perverse decision, no doubt we can look forward to yet another round of pointless proceedings. Ethics Committee breaks ethics code and all that.

Too right, which is what I said at the beginning they have just badly explained their decision. Or not really explained it at all to be fair.

 

[dongonzalos]

Because the councillors can do whatever they want and get away with it? Their ethics committee is made up of people who work for them.

I won't argue with you on this one.
It was an absolute disgrace not to have a referendum on this.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Couldn't care if we go round in circles. Just firmly believe elected representatives shouldn't be given free reign to do what they want. Rules are rules. Simple as that. Bare in mind if you're late paying your council tax tgey send a letter threatening court action. Black and White when it suits them. Mistake or not. Intentional or not. Need a new brush yet? Must do after all that sweeping.

 

[Nick]

To put it into perspective, Ann Lucas has declared she is a member of a Working Men's Club.

It is a bit different to being a trustee of a charity alongside other people PWKH which could be seen as a conflict of interest.

 

[Calista]

Why are people so intent on aleviating the council of any wrongdoing? He didn't declare his interests in line with the code. Guilty. He quoted/reaffirmed BA's comments. Is this professional or respectful? No. Again, guilty. I worked in the civil service for 5 years and we were not allowed to display or speak of political persuasion. We were not allowed to give our opinion on Government matters even though we were still tax payers. Now if a normal civil servant has to be careful what they say and do in public. Why on earth doesn't the council leader have to?!

He’s a politician, not a Civil Servant!

In the radio transcript, he expresses a very negative opinion of SISU. He then immediately goes on to give specific and clear reasons - saying that only one side is making any concessions in the talks, that SISU are moving the goalposts etc. He makes further similar points later in the interview. If Mutton was exhibiting a blind prejudice / bias against the owners of CCFC, SISU would have a valid point. But he isn’t, he’s basing what he says entirely on his experience of working with them.

 

[chiefdave]

Not relevant on this thread but this is something that has really pissed off about the Council.
I would have preferred if Les Reid for example spent his time digging into why the people of Coventry, were not allowed to vote on whether we become part of Greater Birmingham or Greater Warwickshire!!

Far more important than this crap

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/concerns-raised-after-council-chief-10979893

How has that idiot got another high paying job without having to give up his existing one? If Lucas is to be believed he is one of the two council representatives at ACL who were so incompetent at their jobs they believed ACL to be breaking even when it was making a loss.

 

[dongonzalos]

How has that idiot got another high paying job without having to give up his existing one? If Lucas is to be believed he is one of the two council representatives at ACL who were so incompetent at their jobs they believed ACL to be breaking even when it was making a loss.

Best clarify, who has got the job isn't what really wound me up. It is the fact that decision to join greater Birmingham affects every citizen of Coventry yet we didn't get a referendum!!!

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Not relevant on this thread but this is something that has really pissed off about the Council.
I would have preferred if Les Reid for example spent his time digging into why the people of Coventry, were not allowed to vote on whether we become part of Greater Birmingham or Greater Warwickshire!!

Far more important than this crap

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/concerns-raised-after-council-chief-10979893

18 hours days can't be taxing work then if he can work a ninety hour week plus I thought there were working hours limits or is it a slight exaggeration by Lucas

 

[Nick]

Best clarify, who has got the job isn't what really wound me up. It is the fact that decision to join greater Birmingham affects every citizen of Coventry yet we didn't get a referendum!!!

It follows the pattern that they can probably get away with doing what they want without any comeuppance.

 

[Nick]

18 hours days can't be taxing work then if he can work a ninety hour week plus I thought there were working hours limits or is it a slight exaggeration by Lucas

I'd say the latter.

If it is going to be like when he was at ACL, maybe he will do a great job of misadvising the council leader of the financial status of the council's investment.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

I'd say the latter.

If it is going to be like when he was at ACL, maybe he will do a great job of misadvising the council leader of the financial status of the council's investment.

I would think it's the latter also if not he needs to talk to his union rep, he must be good though he earns more than the prime minister who runs the country probably nearer to an 18 hour week

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It follows the pattern that they can probably get away with doing what they want without any comeuppance.

Well you can blame the wankers who voted then in, and no doubt will vote them in again next time.

 

[chiefdave]

Well you can blame the wankers who voted then in, and no doubt will vote them in again next time.

Anyone know what % of eligible voters picked Labour last time? Council elections get some really low turnouts.

Found some stats for 2012. 26% turnout and Labour got 54% of the vote. That would mean Labour being in power after being voted for by 14% of the electorate!

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Didn't say he was a civil servant. My point was you have to be careful what you say so not to bring the department or government into disrepute. I'm not saying mutton should be hung drawn and quartered. He has though brought the council into disrepute as a complaint has been made about him. Whether or not you agree with the complaint it doesn't reflect well on his professionalism. Or do we only expect that of football players and businesses?

 

[Astute]

Anyone know what % of eligible voters picked Labour last time? Council elections get some really low turnouts.

Found some stats for 2012. 26% turnout and Labour got 54% of the vote. That would mean Labour being in power after being voted for by 14% of the electorate!

And only about 12% of the electorate voted for someone other than Labour

 

[chiefdave]

And only about 12% of the electorate voted for someone other than Labour

Indeed but the point is we are now ruled by someone 86% of the electorate didn't vote for. To me that says we need to take a look at the system we have in place.

 

[Astute]

Indeed but the point is we are now ruled by someone 86% of the electorate didn't vote for. To me that says we need to take a look at the system we have in place.

And ruled by someone that 88% of the electorate didn't vote against.

How about hang those that can't be bothered to vote?

 

[dongonzalos]

Indeed but the point is we are now ruled by someone 86% of the electorate didn't vote for. To me that says we need to take a look at the system we have in place.

Fingerprint recognition voting in the house.
If only we could afford it. And it was damage proof.