FROM SLICED BREAD TO SHARK

And so it came to pass after 9 months that the Undercliff Enquiry- after the expenditure of at least £1.5 million of our money - caught its first real shark. The former Deputy Chief Executive had already resigned last week after an allegedly condemning independent report, but the Show Trial on Monday decided to retrospectively sack him. Interestingly the independent report this time hasn't been published as it was with the cleared Finance Director.

The main question that springs to mind is: could the alleged misdemeanours of this officer have been uncovered without the massive legal expenditure of nearly £1 million?

What also springs to mind is how the Deputy Chief Executive was just about the greatest thing since sliced bread for the Tory administration between the elections of 2005 and the arrival of the new Chief Executive one year later....................

BORDERING ON THE BIZARRE

The Boundary Review of the Island's Council wards has just issued its draft report, and has essentially sat back and accepted the Council's submission for 40 councillors. A reduction by just one-sixth, when the Tory election manifesto pledged to seek a reduction by one-third. Labour proposed a reduction by a third to 33, the Liberals 30, and neither of us were asked by the Review - as the Council was - to provide further justification for our suggested numbers.

Additionally we asked the Review to get rid of some of the ridiculous boundaries in the centre of Island towns. They have done that, but by accepting the Council's submission have just moved the ridiculous boundary problem to other residential streets, especially in Newport.

Finally, after my complaint, they have upheld the Council's projections that just 116 extra adults will live in the Pan development after nearly 3 years of building. Clearly this is going to be the slowest built development in modern times ! Other than that the ward I am lucky to represent would be re-named Newport East and will basically be Pan plus 350 extra voters in the Shide area.

The draft report is open for comment until late January, and I will now be busy preparing further submissions to the Review with party colleagues from around the Island.

TOWN CENTRE CON

I learnt at the end of last week that the ten new Town Centre Managers - at a cost of £700k per annum - will be covering very small parts of their designated towns indeed. The two Newport ones will cover just one and a half of the eight Newport wards.

Therefore, if two cover just 1.5 wards, thats less than 20% of the public expectation in the towns........

£900k SPEND ON LEGAL BILLS & FIRST HEAD ROLLS

And so the Undercliff enquiry dispatches its first victim. One out of 4. Three more to go. I fear for them.

The day after we learnt that the enquiry's legal expenses limit is to be increased to £900,000 next Monday (from its last increase to £700k, which in itself was an increase from £500k, which.......you get the pattern), an email appeared in my Inbox. Telling me that the Head of Highways has been dismissed ------ in his absence ------ and that the most junior of the seven suspended staff will be back at work shortly after a warning.

So to recap - the boss of the Highways head was too ill to appear before the Investigatory and Disciplinary Committee and left quietly, but even though he is also ill his junior - the Highways boss - carries the can even though he is too ill to attend. Cowardly is what I think. No matter if he has done something wrong they should have done it in his presence. There is no suggestion that he was given an ultimatum to turn up or else.

YOU WOULDN'T MAKE IT UP !

The Agenda for the next Undercliff Show Trial - aka the Investigatory & Disciplinary Committee - on 29 October is out today. This is the one that will deal with the 3rd of the three suspended chief officers.

Top of the agenda before they go into secret session is,

"To consider the report from the Interim Director of Legal and Democratic Services on the approval of cost limits to Wragge & Co. (Paper B) (To Follow)"

I'll say no more on the matter of legal costs spiralling out of control. And to whose benefit ?

A VERY SHORT ODDS BET ?

Given the Standards Board of England's investigation into five IW Councillors, what's the betting that there will soon be a new chair of the Audit & Performance Committee and a new vice-chair of the Scrutiny Committee ?

AS NYE BEVAN SAID OF SOME TORIES...........

Last April when the Tories threw my colleague Deborah Gardiner off the Scrutiny Committee one of their professional liars wrote to me,

"because the remit of the Scrutiny Committee has changed significantly, we are taking up our full allocation on the new-look committee, (and)we are no longer able to offer a seat "on loan" to any other groups."

Today I have learnt that this only applies to councillors from the Labour Party as the new Chair of Scrutiny will not be displacing her independent colleague Cllr Humby, but will be given a vacant Tory place on the committee.

IT'S MILLER TIME.........

Tonight was Full Council, with more notable Tory absentees than I could count. Apparently being in Kent sharing your coup defeats is now a note worthy excuse....Anyway the agenda was short, but I still left the meeting as popular as ever.

Firstly we had a long debate on saving Post Offices, which we all voted for; though some pointed out that a few positive actions from the Council to help local Post Offices wouldn't go amiss.

We then turned to the election of the next Chair of Scrutiny. No surprise there as 'independent' Muriel Miller was elected by 31 votes to one (me - Deborah wasn't there), with 4 abstentions (including the 3 other ex-Cabinet members and the LibDem member of the Scrutiny Committee). I detailed my opposition to this appointment at some length and said I would not vote for or support a 'poodle' as an opposition Chair. It sounds harsh when you say it, but the facts stack up that way. (Later she even tried to suggest that Committee's were subject to some sort of 'collective responsibility' just by virtue of joint committee membership. Beyond belief.)

Anyway I was roundly condemned by all and sundry for my 'tirade', 'attack', etc etc, and I will now await the referral to the Standards Committee, since that is the new game in town.

A WELL DESERVED NOBEL WINNER

Turning away from the parochial to the world of literature, how delighted I was last Friday to learn that DORIS LESSING had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature at the age of 88.

Of course it was about 20 years later than it should have been, but Ms Lessing is in my opinon the supreme post-war novelist. Her 'Children of Violence' series was an important part of my reading in my 20s and when I return to the real world with perhaps time on my hands I will sit down with them again - and perhaps the other twenty-odd books of her's that are on my book shelves.

AN INAPPROPRIATE PERSON

In February 2006 the following was said by my colleague, Cllr Gardiner, to the prospective new Chair of Scrutiny the last time she had expressed interest in the role . It was after that year's Budget Council meeting:

"As your emails to me have said, you probably won't like this... I'm sorry but we could not support you as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee. We would have been entirely neutral on this matter until last night when I walked into the Council Chamber to hear you supporting a move to the vote without the Opposition having had the chance to speak. You then spoke and indicated that if Opposition members were not there (including members of your own group who had, unlike you, chosen to attend the briefing from the Assistant Chief Executive) then they have lost their rights.

It comes to something when the Leader of the Council (whatever his motives might have been for doing so…) stands up for the rights of Opposition members to be fairly treated more vigorously than a Member of the Opposition, indeed an Opposition Group Leader.

The Chair of Scrutiny must, in my opinion, believe that opposition members have a fundamental right to scrutinise, have access to information, the tools to the do the job well and, at time, criticise. After last night where you tried to marginalise the Opposition, including your own group members, and take away their opportunity (always previously exercised) to have a break to consider what has been presented and then make a response; we do not feel you would have the mind-set to provide what the Administration and we want – an effective, robust Opposition Chair of Scrutiny."

This is why we will make a fuss if the appointment is proposed next Wednesday.

NB The Scrutiny meeting planned for 25 October has been cancelled due to the unavailablity of a certain Cabinet member and his chief officer. Next one will be 12 weeks after the last one......

"ALWAYS UP THERE"

I am informed that the next Scrutiny Chair - someone who has shown no interest whatsoever in the scrutiny function in this Council - spends a lot of time in the Chief Execs office. "Always up there" was the phrase that was used.

A poodle indeed.

ON THE OTHER SIDE..........

I saw how another councillor operates tonight in my private capacity as resident. It was quite startling.

I went along to a meeting for my area called to finalise plans to close off a residential road to the rear of my house that has become an illegal rat-run. How this will be done is a little contentious to say the least and I take a minority view. Nonetheless I went to the meeting to say my piece and hopefully be listened to, but without much hope.

Sadly not only was I constantly interupted by my local councillor when trying to speak, but so were neighbours of mine who share my view. After a few attempts at speaking I just gave in and went home before the meeting ended.

I would be ashamed if I did that to a constituent at one of the meetings I have held, even more so if they held a minority view.

NEXT SCRUTINY CHAIR.....hMM

Looks like someone is going to get their reward for being a good poodle at next week's Full Council !

A proven poodle in a revised role for a poodle will be very appropriate !

SO THEY CAUGHT A SPRAT

So the Undercliff fishing trip - set up to catch dreadful sharks - yesterday succeeded in catching a couple of sprats, one of which still managed to bite them back.

The report on the Chief Financial Officer by an Independent Person - not one being paid £700k to string out an investigation - found that he was guilty of just one of the three charges against him in that he had made a 'serious error of judgment' for which he should receive a written warning and return to work.

However, the members of the Committee - 4 Tories (Anne Bishop was kicked off), LibDem David Knowles, and 'independent' Muriel Miller - did not accept this report as they did not want him back at work. AND THERE WILL NOT BE A MINORITY REPORT............

So 6 months after it could probably have been arranged they agreed to release his pension a couple of years early. Spitefully they then decided to release all of the personal details to the media. Unprecedented. Bad losers !

Additionally another of the seven suspended officers was allowed to resign without any payoff as he is deemed - by their own medical adviser - to be too ill to face their disciplinary charges.

Sadly the fishing trip will now get increasingly desperate.

Two asides:

1. If the Undercliff contract (that is the root of all this) was illegally let, isn't it still illegal as it has not been terminated ? Shouldn't someone be disciplined ??????

2. Only just learnt that the lead man for the increasingly successful advising Solicitors was a leader of Tory Bucks County Council in the early part of this decade.............

ALONE

When the 'Undercliff fishing trip' went to St Lawrence recently to seek public input, there was precisely one person for them to deal with !

ARROGANCE !

The arrogance of this Council seemingly knows no bounds.

Council Cabinet Member's can make policy decisions provided they firstly offer ordinary members - like me - the chance to comment on their proposals. Such a decision - about Wightcare's future - was yesterday published, giving me a week to comment.

Before I could even open the document we then received a Press Release from the Council telling us of the decision that was going to be made !!!!!!!! So much for the chance to comment.......

Of course when I checked on the constitutionality of this I received the usual, predictable exonerations of all things from the administration.

So I won't make any representations about the new policy for Wightcare even if I wanted to, because there is no point - the decision has effectively been made.