‘Re­spect public’s ex­pec­ta­tion’

Kent Messenger Maidstone - - COMMENT -

In its edi­tion of July 5 the KM was kind enough to print my let­ter con­cern­ing the waste of tax pay­ers’ money in a dis­pute be­tween Maid­stone Bor­ough and Kent County Coun­cil.

The same edi­tion in­cluded an ar­ti­cle, at­trib­uted to the Leader of Maid­stone Bor­ough Coun­cil, Martin Cox, which sought to jus­tify the de­ci­sion to re­fer that dis­pute to the courts.

In that jus­ti­fi­ca­tion I found one re­mark par­tic­u­larly note­wor­thy - “it is im­por­tant that the public’s ex­pec­ta­tion is re­spected”.

I am not aware that “the public’s ex­pec­ta­tion” was ever tested over the de­ci­sion to chal­lenge Kent County Coun­cil.

In­deed, if the re­ports are to be be­lieved, nei­ther was the ex­pec­ta­tion of the Maid­stone Bor­ough Coun­cil­lors since the de­ci­sion was taken in an emer­gency meet­ing made up only of party lead­ers and from which the coun­cil­lors were ex­cluded.

Nev­er­the­less, I too think that it is very im­por­tant that “the public’s ex­pec­ta­tion is re­spected”. How about mea­sur­ing ex­pec­ta­tions on car park­ing charges, or how about the charges made for the Park and Ride ser­vice, or per­haps bet­ter still, mea­sur­ing the public’s views on our own coun­cil­lors’ al­lowances.

Pa­trick Thomas

Abing­don Road, Barm­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.