Officers ‘cannot be challenged’
Royal Borough: Member of the public raises concerns
A member of the public has expressed concerns over the council’s commitment to openness and transparency after being told he could not ask questions of officers at meetings.
The news comes as questions remain over the drop in land value at the Magnet Leisure Centre site, which has been shrouded in secrecy by the council following a Maidenhead Advertiser front page in September.
In a written response to questions raised by Andrew Hill at a corporate overview and scrutiny panel last month, monitoring officer Emma Duncan said ‘there is no provision under the council’s constitution which allows members of the public to put questions to officers at meetings’.
She added: “In future, in line with public rights to information, any questions asked to officers will be directed towards the appropriate disclosure process to ensure that the council is able to respond appropriately and in line with statutory timelines.”
Council officers, who play a variety of roles including assisting senior councillors with report writing for meetings, are appointed rather than elected.
When questioned on an agenda item, lead members will often pass over to officers to provide further technical details on an issue.
Mr Hill said a section of the council’s constitution had been provided to him, which stated that the question process of overview and scrutiny is an opportunity for councillors to ‘obtain information or explanation about executive decisions on proposals, and not to criticise or comment on judgement exercised or the conduct of the member or officer’.
“In other words, what [the council] is quoting back at me are the rules that apply to members’ (councillors) and officers’ interaction,” said Mr Hill.
“Given that members cannot criticise officers, and given that I’m being told I cannot make a direct question to an officer, that means no one can publicly challenge an officer.”
Mr Hill’s concerns were raised at the September 12 meeting of the corporate overview and scrutiny panel where the press and the public were excluded from a part two debate on the St Cloud Way site which, as reported by the Advertiser last month, has plummeted in land value by up to £20million.
The debate over the site took place behind-closeddoors under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person [including the authority holding that information].
When Mr Hill questioned whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information, he was told by Ms Duncan she thought officers believed that to be the case, although no reasons as to why they thought so were given.
Mr Hill added: “I think the key point is that it’s only the public interest for this to be in part two if [the council] are routinely generating high quality deals that deliver best value.
“If they are routinely losing money, then there is no justification for holding it in secret.”
The Royal Borough has previously said it could not comment on matters of commercial confidentiality. It has been contacted for further comment.