First of all a big thanks to those who came along to the overview and scrutiny meeting tonight; you witnessed possibly the most bizarre demonstration of how our council handles itself.
They all applauded and congratulated themselves for agreeing with what was being asked for, then poured scorn on those who spoke asking for it.
We said – we want the Adonis letter to become part of the decision part of the council minutes then we could support it – they said good to hear that SOCK finally support the academy (shame they never bothered to listen to all the times we said we did), they argued amongst themselves as to if the letter had already been included, agreed that it was, but wasn’t in the decision, but was in the minutes, confused each other about what that meant, and then voted to agree that they didn’t need to do anything – a masterful game of administrative blind mans buff.
This is all despite the fact that at the top of the meeting, in a rare moment of clarity, the officers stated that it didn’t really matter what the letter said since they would not look to enforce it because that would “tether” the new academy into doing something a certain way, which is exactly what Lord Adonis wants and what most of the councillors congratulated themselves on having!.
We heard again, we have to appoint a new principal – so the challenge is SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS WRITTEN, because the DCSF need to look it up as well.
While this was going on we heard one of the most spectacularly inarticulate presentations by a councillor ever, who offered to show us a piece of paper which was apparently a print of a website of a prospective parliamentary candidate, who wasn’t at the meeting, hadn’t been quoted at the meeting and was not in the least bit relevant to anything that was said. 5 minutes of very worthy input there!
The same councillor then sat down and became a heckler in the style of “Statler and Waldorf” (the two old guys in the box on the Muppet show) – how dare she start to tell me what I thought and what I said, how dare she challenge my motivations about the delivery of the petition (note – no reference to what it said or how many people signed it), you want to know what I think (I guess there is always a 1st) – then come to the meetings you were invited to, respond to the mails you were sent, invite voters from your ward to talk to you, instead of sitting down and muttering rubbish to an audience of people too polite and too professional to tell you what an idiot you were making of yourself.
The political speech you made – apparently aimed at some of the committee but in reality a thinly veiled attack on the SOCK campaigners will make an interesting conversation topic when next you hold a surgery for people to come along and talk to you, their elected representative – when exactly is that Cllr Etheridge?
The facts are – we asked Cllr Esterson how to present the 1st part of the petition since we were getting NO response from the people who have a duty to listen to us. – he told us the process and presented for us.
We then deliberately chose one of our own WARD councillors to present the next section for us (a councillor in the same ward and party affiliation as “statler”, who initially declined and the reluctantly agreed to present, then actually at the meeting, found a number of reasons for not doing so including “I might not recognise you (clue look for the people in the SOCK T Shirts) – we approached Cllr Esterson as he walked through the door otherwise it would have never made it to council.
So as to making it political – our hand was forced by the fact that the people who were supposed to represent us failed.
Perhaps it is a deliberate attempt to undermine the campaign – however I do like to believe the in the maxim of Robert Heinlein: "Never assign to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity."
More when we have read the minutes of the meeting and made sense of the double talk.
I close with a reminder, SOCK is business as usual and the next meeting is Tuesday 18th at the school 7:00pm.
Posts
9 comments:
Our first SOCK meeting back in October last year agreed that we would support the proposal of an academy in Strood and that our campaign would be about the transition between two single sex schools into one co-educational academy.
We therefore were dismayed that at last nights overview and scrutiny meeting the Conservative committee members singularly failed to address anything remotely concerned with the extremely important point of transition, but instead, took the opportunity to gain political points over Labour by attacking them over and over again. Just what is important to these councillors? The future of our children or gaining a political point? Shamefully, for the Conservative members of the committee, last night we found out. They are not interested in our children. Just in scoring political points.
We were also disgusted by the inference that SOCK was being used by Labour as puppets in a political game. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have turned to Bill Esterson on the very logical basis that he is the childrens services spokesperson for Labour and we needed help and advice in appealing against a Conservative led ill-informed proposal.
In our opinion, none of the Conservative councillors are fit to hold their posts and should resign forthwith. A naive view I know as there doesn’t seem to be an once of integrity between them.
Regards
Shane Hadley
Chair – SOCK
I am still dismayed following the Overview and Scrutiny Meeting on Monday. Especially, when I voted for the Tories at the last election!! I can't believe how they can be so blinkered; it can't be stupidity because surely these are all reasonable intelligent people? I object to the fact that they continue to misunderstand SOCK making comments like "We are glad that SOCK have now agreed that the Academy is the best option" SOCK have never been against an Academy. I also object to Councillor Burt, who I may say was very supportive of SOCK at the last O&S but he appeared to take every opportunity (and he had many) to discredit SOCK; even to the point when he was very forthright in his comments about Dean Waller, who today received a 12month custodial sentence by Maidstone Crown Court for having over 4000 indecent images of young children some of which were of the very serious kind. He will never be allowed to work with children again and will be on the Sex Offenders register for 10 years.
I attended the meeting on Mach 17th. The speeches, in the main, were articulate and did not stray from the point. One speaker rightly commented on the DIGNIFIED way that the children have behaved throughout the campaign and that we could be proud of them. This is true because my Stepdaughter was among them. It's a pity that the same could not be said of the CHAIRMAN and other supporters, after the meeting. The way in which they harrangued some of the councillors and the Head of Temple school was nothing short of scandalous. They brought DISCREDIT upon the whole campaign and should, at the very least, offer an apology. We have LOST the campaign, as we knew we would in our hearts, we now must look forward and work with ALL the agencies to ensure that the future of education in Strood is of the highest possible standard
Interesting that you feel that the campaign is lost, since from the beginning the campaign was about a gradual and managed transition to the new academy, something that Lord Adonis has agreed with.
I think that the campaign to date has made real progress, but it is far from over.
As to working with ALL the agencies, that again has been something we have been trying to do from the beginning, and we will continue to do that.
Does it not worry you that the council have now publicly stated that they will not do what the Minister in charge of schools has asked them to do.
I do wonder how anyone can work with them since they appear to believe they can do what they like, and say what they want in the protected environment of the council "chamber".
Immediately following the meeting, I was approached by several councillors to talk more about the outcome of the meeting.
There were too many people and too many conversations going on for me to observe who was talking to one or more of 20 councillors and other interested parties let alone work out what they were saying.
I certainly did not harangue anyone and I never spoke to the Head of Temple - so I cannot comment on your observations.
Well, Chairman, the campaign may well be far from over, but we are not going to get a more gradual transition, we are not going to have Sue as the Principal, unless as a result of open competition. I can't, in all honesty, see what is left to fight for.
Embarrassing as it may seem, but I did see you talking to at least two councillors, and you were wagging and pointing your finger at them. You may not realise that you are doing this, but in my book, that is harranguing. I also saw two or three others also having 'a right go' at the Temple Head. We have to realise and not lose sight that the Temple Head may well be losing his job in exactly the same way as Sue will. The stress that he is under must at least be equivalent to Sue's. Whilst his view may not be our view, we must treat him with the utmost respect, in the same way that our opponents have afforded respect to Sue. Please bear these points in mind, Shane
Alistair
I have been away and so in my absence Paul answered your original post. I am now back and will also respond. You are correct on one point and incorrect on another.
You are correct that after the debacle of once again witnessing Conservative Councillors scandalously ignoring the opportunity given to them to debate the extremely important issue of just what will happen to our children during this crucial time in their education and instead to attack the Labour members of the committee inferring that SOCK are merely a Labour puppet I did indeed as you put it "Harangue them".
I should like to point out that at no time did I resort to the use of foul language nor did I become personal. I was passionate in my point that they were completely wrong to use this meeting as a political point scoring exercise. They are elected officials who by the very nature of their position must expect a rough time from the electorate when they deserve it. In my opinion the only thing that can be described as "Scandelous" on that night was the actions of the Conservative Councillors.
You are incorrect when you state that the campaign has been lost. I am unsure how you are in a position to judge as you are not, as far as I am able to tell, involved with any part of the SOCK campaign and therefore are not in possession of the facts relating to where we are or what actions we still have left to us.
Some people were, as indeed you yourself seem to be, apathetic to the situation and believe that by doing nothing our children’s future would be safe in the hands of a children’s services department who care little for our children and are prepared to use them as collateral damage in their drive to get their hands on the money from central government. The phrase "It's a done deal" has been heard on a number of occasions. Happily most of the parents, staff, governors and pupils do not share this attitude, care passionately about their children’s future and have given us fantastic support to date.
I shall be at Chapter School on Tuesday evening representing SOCK and talking to other parents who will be there for the year 8 options evening. If you would like to make yourself known to me I will gladly bring you up to date with what we have achieved to date along with what we believe we can still achieve.
Shane Hadley
Chair - SOCK
Dear Shane,
This thread is getting a bit elongated, but thank you for your reply.
I have not been as active I the campaign as I, perhaps, would have wished. Travels with my work for ACAS takes me to many parts of the country. I have have, however, followed it with interest, attending many of the meetings. i am also kept upto dateby my partners daughter.
There are a number of issues surrounding the campaign that are causing me concern. I accept that you are acting with a passion and that the 'harranguing' is not personal. I am sure that the councillors on the receiving end of your passion accept this as part of the rough and tumble of politics.
Nevertheless, a number of the correspondents to this blog have raised the issue of Dean Waller. Whatever this poor man has done, or not done, I am sure that you will agree that it has precious little to do with the SOCK campaign. I look to you to rein these in.
Secondly, as far as I can ascertain, the Conservative councillors will probably have debated the issue long and hard. You shouldn't say that they are unfit to hold posts simply because they hold a view different to ours. They will, presumably, be disinterested in the outcome, and have come to a decision that we may not like. That is a fact of life, Shane. We cannot always have want we want.
Another fact of life is that, in politics, one party will attack another, no matter who is in power. This is the dversarable nature of the beast. I have seen no evidence of SOCK campaign being refered to as "merely a labour puppet".
It seems to me that you have won some concessions from the council. My advice now would be to celebrate this, wind up the campaign and move on. The uncertainty that further delays will engender in both Staff and Pupils of both schools makes anything else counterproductive.
I was unaware of the Parents evening on Tuesday. I would, under normal circumstances, be delighted to meet with you, but as I am involved in a case in Milton Keynes on Tuesday thru Thursday, I may well have to pass on this occassion. I am sure there will be another opportunity shortly
As you have said - this thread is elongated, but a quick couple of points - during the meeting Cllr Etheridge reffered to SOCK being used by the Labour group for political gain on several occasions - unsolicited, out of turn on not through the chair. Several others referred to the campaign and the due process (call in etc.) as being used for political means (see Cllr Ward's BLOG if you would like confirmation)
Not sure where the concerns over delays are - from the very beginning, change was due to happen from Sept 2009 and nothing has changed, many people at the meeting referred to delays - I think the call in has introduced a 2 week stall in a 2 year schedule that is still on target. There was never going to be any action until after the cabinet meeting, since that was when then decision to procede was going to be made, irrespective of any campaign or consultation.
Did you know that the timeline in the agenda for the call in meeting was only produced approx 2 days ahead of that meeting? - if anything the call-in gave the council a chance to do some of the work that the campaigners had been asking for since Sept last year!
We felt it was appropriate to mention the style,actions and behaviour of the council and it's officers (note - we didn't name anyone in the meeting) to emphasize that point.
As to the issue of Dean Waller - that wasn't in the scope of this particular discussion (there are other postings on the blog) but - the whole point around this was that the councillors chose to focus on the debate being personalised (their words not ours) rather than the fact that the parents were telling them they had lost faith in their inentiontions and honesty, and asking them to take some simple steps to restore it.
It is this kind of behaviour that makes them appear unfit.
You may well disagree, and as we have stated on this blog a number of times you are entitled to your opinion, but personally there is no way I could ever describe a CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE as "that poor man"
Paul
Shane, Very sorry not to be able to meet you - our meetings here went on until the evening last night. I think we'll terminate this thread as it isn't really moving us forward. What I will say, finally, about Dean Waller is that by describing him as 'poor' I merely meant to say that he must clearly be a very sick man. He has problems that, thankully, you and I do not share. There are connections within his brain that haven't been made up yet and he really is, obviously, in need of professional help which he may, or may not receive whilst in prison. However, whilst not condoning, in any way, what he has done, (you cannot defend the indefencible) I would reserve my strongest criticism and condemnation for those who actually molest young children. I don't think Waller is in that class
Post a Comment