Councillors in each area of Cambridge hold regular “area committee” meetings, and have done since 2003. The events contain an “open forum” for questions and statements from the public.
I attended my first Cambridge Area Committee on the 30th of May 2007 after being made aware of their existence by my local councillor when he was campaigning door-to-door.
At the May 2007 meeting of the North Area Committee I failed to get to use the open forum. I wrote to the council and the meeting’s chair afterwards to explain what happened with a view to it being prevented from happening again. I wrote:
I arrived at 19.30 as the meeting started and while I picked up papers I did not get to the form for requesting to speak until well into the meeting as it had ended up towards the back of the pile of paper I had. I note that at that meeting there were at least two of us who were attending our first meeting; neither of us had managed to work out the system for requesting to speak quickly enough to participate in the open forum
Almost eight years later there have been some patches of improvement but the way the open forum sessions, and the meetings as a whole, are run is very inconsistent and unpredictable both from area to area around the city and from time to time. Some excellent officers did for a time try hard to help people follow councillors’ procedures.
Some area committees invite public contributions on many agenda items, some require them all to be made in the “open forum”. Some require questions to be submitted in advance and some don’t. Sometimes questions are limited to one per person – and on occasion I’ve experienced merely responding to an invitation to comment on a response to a question raised at a previous meeting being counted as a question.
The protocol which is to be followed at a particular meeting typically only become clear when the chair starts making rulings.
There is often more demand for time in the open forum slot than there is time allocated to it. Despite the removal of planning from area committees recently there has not been an increase in the amount of time offered to the public.
At the last few North Area Committees the chair, Cllr Todd-Jones has adopted a policy of taking questions in ascending alphabetical order of the names of those who’ve submitted them.
This has, on occasion, resulted in me, with my surname of starting with “T” not getting an opportunity to use the open forum, or getting a much more rushed question and answer than others. (It appears that often the first question at any event at which questions are asked almost always gets a disproportionate amount of time spent on it – just look at BBC Question Time.)
RT @richard_je: @RTaylorUK W comes before T here it seems! < Chair no good at alphabetical order Cambridge North Area Ctte #live
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) January 31, 2013
In January 2013 the chair of the North Area Ctte, which was Cllr Mike Todd-Jones on that occasion too, again took questions in alphabetical order but moved T to the end of the alphabet after W, a decision which only affected me and leads me to wonder if the policy is specifically intended to reduce my chances of getting to make a contribution.
In an attempt to highlight the unreasonableness of always taking public questions in ascending alphabetical order I decided to go by the name AAARichard AAATaylor for the North Area committee meeting on the 12th of February 2015.
Frm 18.30 I am AAARichard AAATaylor to highlight @CamCitCo North Area Ctte practice of taking public Qs in ASC alphabetical order of name.
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) February 12, 2015
I submitted my question slip to the chair of the meeting before it started under the name of “AAARichard AAATaylor”.
When the “open forum” agenda item was reached the chair announced he was going to take the questions in alphabetical order and called on a Mr Bond.
I heckled to ask how Bond came before “AAATaylor” alphabetically.
The chair responded to say he was going by the names he knew people by and that he knew me as “Richard Taylor”.
I was quite shocked; I expected the chair to respect how I made clear I wished to be known. The chair’s statement also suggested it would be impossible for anyone not known by the chair to get to ask a question.
The chair then announced he had two question slips submitted.
Once a second questioner was called upon, and it wasn’t me, I concluded my request to make a contribution had been rejected I decided to leave the meeting.
I felt the chair was abusing his position of power and I was disappointed that none of the other councillors present challenged him.
Entering public debate is often unfortunately and regrettably pretty unpleasant and this is something we really need to change. I decided on this occasion not to continue putting myself through the unpleasantness and to walk away.
What Next?
If the chair of the meeting is to use the name he knows me as then clearly I have to go in disguise if I want to neutralise the impact of my surname on my opportunity to address my local council meeting.
Maybe an Aardvark costume is the way to get to ask a Q at Cambridge’s North Area Ctte? @moufflon @carinaoreilly pic.twitter.com/1DNZsATXgx
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) February 12, 2015
I could, again, try to go to one of the council’s central committee meetings to make some suggestions for improving the system, but I’ve done that before.
The only real solution is to elect better councillors.
Why Use Public Speaking Slots?
When I first came across public speaking slots at council meetings my first reaction was to wonder why anyone would use them. Surely the right thing to do is to lobby your own councillors and then leave them to weigh up your contribution with others and decide what position to take.
Having experienced them though I think it is useful though to be able to question councillors in public and to make representations to all those who are about to take a decision.
I think it’s much more open and transparent to make a public representation in person at a public meeting (along with tweets, articles, official minutes and other reporting) than it is to just speak to or email a councillor – though both routes have their place.
I always try make concise points and work within the published parameters councillors set out and try to publish what I do online. As an example I regularly suggest councillors seek better information on which to base the police priorities they set:
What Would I Have Asked
I would have asked why meetings on the progress with the new Science Park Station and on the proposed new bridge over the river Cam are not properly publicised public council meetings rather than odd affairs where you have to email the council to let them know if you want to attend.
I’d like to see the meetings better used. They’re staffed by officers but as they’re not on the council’s calendars they’re not well publicised.
The next meetings are:
- Bridge: 25 February, 2015 at Barnwell Baptist Church, Howard Rd, Cambridge CB5 8QS from 6 to 7.30pm. (Details deep on the council website. They recently moved the webpage).
- Station: 9 March 2015 Shirley Centre, Nuffield Road, CB4 1TF. 7-8pm. (Details deep on the council website)
It appears my question was addressed in my absence. Perhaps my walking out prompted the chair to re-consider. Another attendee reported on the response:
Q from @RTaylorUK about making station Local Liaison Forum meetings public. @IanGManning responds they are public.
— Hester (@hesterkw) February 12, 2015
They’re not really public if you have to tell the council you want to attend them and if they’re not properly publicised.
I also sought to question why a Cambridge City Council branded consultation on the central space on the Vie estate invites people to register with the Vie residents forum. I attempted to register to engage with the consultation but was told I could not as I don’t live on the estate. The public space on the estate is not just for its immediate residents.
Cllr Manning responded;
@RTaylorUK @carinaoreilly I had to interpret your question…the answer was that the vie ra forum is for residents of the vie,
— IanManning (@IanGManning) February 12, 2015
I am concerned about the accessibility of the estate, and its associated public space and have recently drawn attention to a new fence blocking one access route from the residential areas to the riverbank
RT Clr @IanGManning: @RTaylorUK better for what?«I suggested gate or gap wld be better;I’ll add “for walking through" pic.twitter.com/CZPBJl7bdx
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) January 30, 2015
Improving Things
I have regularly suggested area committees adopt a mechanism for accepting questions from those who don’t attend in person. I’ve written about that in a separate article.
See also: Cambridge South Area Committee Farce – February 2015
17 responses to “Cllr Mike Todd-Jones and his Alphabet. T Follows W. Bond Comes Before AAATaylor”
As for what others use the public speaking slot for – at one recent North Area Committee a Mr Bond complained about the lack of tea and coffee for members of the public attending the meeting.
Someone has suggested to me that one way around this problem would be for all questions submitted to Cambridge’s area committees to be submitted in the name of “Richard Taylor.
If chairs are going to use the name they know people by I wonder if at some point we’ll get a chair who knows me primarily via Twitter and I wonder where “@” will be deemed to come in the alphabet.
Part 4EE section 7.3 on p232 of the PDF of the Councils Constitution states
The rules are in Appendix 2 to Part 4B on p 197 of the PDF of the Councils Constitution.
The rules require registering an intent to speak prior to the meeting. There is nothing about the order of taking questions.
Further responses:
I’m not entirely sure your way of making the point was constructive, but I do agree that using alphabetical order every time is not a fair way to take questions – not least because I am a Wells and already have school-related trauma over always going last.
Some area committees have recently had too many people wanting to ask questions for the time allotted, so there is a danger of marginalising people by always using the same method. Even if everyone gets to speak, there can be biases based on when your question is taken: you could get more or less time, more or less focus and fluency in an answer. If questions are on related matters the answer to one could affect how it looks to answer the other later.
“Once a second questioner was called upon, and it wasn’t me, I concluded my request to make a contribution had been rejected I decided to leave the meeting.”
I think he said he had received two requests *in advance* but there were also others on the night. Todd-Jones did read your questions out in alphabetical order of questioner, and didn’t prioritise those that had come in before the meeting.
The North Area Committee has no mechanism for accepting questions in advance of the evening of the meeting as far as I’m aware. It’s very difficult to work out what the rules are though. The council’s constitution doesn’t appear to really relate to questions at area committees.
If there’s an unpublished route which is allowing the likes of Mr Bond to get a guaranteed question, and to be called ahead of those who submit questions on the evening, then that’s an even greater scandal.
I think a public route for submitting questions in advance to improve the chances of getting a substantive and accurate response would be excellent.
As for if I took the best approach to tackle the problem – it’s something that’s been going on for a number of years and I did my best to highlight it. I didn’t want to waste a whole question on it – there are important issues of trying to make the roads safer, reduce the harm caused by crime, maintain the trees and green spaces and more in the North Area.
As for what I expected might happen.
I hoped I would prompt a re-think of the policy use for ordering questions. It is clearly unfair – people shouldn’t be disadvantaged on the basis of something they cannot practically and reasonably be expected to change.
I wanted to remain identifiable – hence AAARichard AAATaylor rather than simply “Mr Aardvark”.
I thought perhaps the chair might opt to take questions in reverse alphabetical order in response to my approach – and noted before the meeting I’d consider that a success even if it meant my own chances of contributing were just as bad as they would have been without changing my name.
Another thing I thought might happen was simply the chair acknowledging his policy of taking questions in alphabetical order was wrong and just shuffling the questions – or coming up with some other mechanism.
I actually really like the approach of looking at all the questions and saying something like: “We’ve got lots of questions on Milton Rd here tonight – I’ll take question x first as it appears to cover most of the matters raised”, then after that taking any other contributions from those who’d submitted similar points.
I am still hopeful that while I didn’t get the question taking policy changed at the meeting councillors, including Cllr Todd-Jones will reflect on it and perhaps they will change it for next time.
“I actually really like the approach of looking at all the questions and saying something like: “We’ve got lots of questions on Milton Rd here tonight – I’ll take question x first as it appears to cover most of the matters raised”, then after that taking any other contributions from those who’d submitted similar points. ”
The point I was trying to make is that if, for example, you have one person complaining about people parking on their street, and another person complaining they can’t park at a local amenity on the same street, the order in which you take those questions is likely to affect how councillors respond. They may be sympathetic to both problems, but the solution to one, say residents’ parking, may exacerbate the other.
The guidance on using the open forum slot currently linked from the North Area Committee’s webpage stated:
In my experience invariably submitted questions are taken before others; and often there is no time for others.
I note there is no alternative route, other than filling in a “Question form” or raising your hand mentioned.
The guidance document is at odds with the constitution when it states:
Section 8.2 of part 4EE on p232 of the PDF of the Cambridge City Council constitution states:
Perhaps meeting chairs restricting the time for the public are doing so based on the guidance and not the constitution?
I have thought carefully about when it is appropriate to heckle a meeting. I think it is appropriate when due process has broken down as in the case of the North Area Committee when the chair announced he was taking questions in alphabetical order but then asked Mr Bond to ask his question ahead of my question submitted with the surname “AAATaylor”. I think it was right and reasonable to question the chair’s ruling in that context.
That this was the open forum section of an area committee where public contributions were being taken was also a relevant factor as this I thought made heckling more reasonable.
I timed my contribution as taking 23.5 seconds. I always try to make concise, considered, contributions.
I think it is worth noting this comes after a series of rather hostile apparent responses to my attempts to observe, report, and use the open forum slot, at area committee meetings including:
As for why councillors don’t like what they’re doing being filmed, made available online, and reported on – I’ll leave to readers’ imagination.
I do keep going to the meetings because I think otherwise councillors would just claim no-one is interested in things like trying to reduce burglary and violent crime in the area, trying to make the area’s roads safer, getting failed trees replaced, maintaining our green spaces, all the kinds of things I’ve used the open forum slot to bring to the fore. I think its right to use the opportunities made available by those in power to try and make a more pleasant place to live in and a place that fulfils its potential to contribute to the country and the world.
I think engaging in public debate is always going to be challenging, and robust responses to actions and ideas are to be expected and welcomed, but I don’t think the current behaviour of councillors, especially the chair, at the North Area Committee is appropriate and acceptable.
I’ve had a further thought on this: Cllr Todd-Jones’ actions are coming close to denying me a “service” from the council, apparently on the grounds, that I’m trying to report on what he and his fellow councillors are doing, ask questions about what they are doing, and make suggestions to them about the way they run Cambridge.
In this case – being able to observe, and use the public speaking slot at, meetings isn’t very important but imagine if someone was denied housing because they were critical of the council’s maintenance regime, or refused a bin collection because they’d made a suggestion for improving that service. We’re a long way from that here but I think it’s worth acting at this point so we don’t go further along that slippery slope.
On occasion I have e-mailed questions and/or my intention to ask a question to the committee manager and have found that to be effective for getting a prompt speaking slot at EAC and SAC open forums.
I’ve suspected people emailing in advance might be happening. It’s not clear if that’s an official and publicised route to getting a question in though and I personally don’t want to be too pushy and want to follow the rules and guidance councillors have set out.
It’s not clear if submitting questions in advance is encouraged or if it’s a permitted route to getting to ask a question. The references to sending in questions in advance in the constitution and guidance appear to me to relate to public speaking slots at central committees and not area committees. I think clarification would be useful.
Richard, I was always under the impression that notifying one’s intention to speak in advance was preferred, although perhaps I had on occasion been getting confused with the rules for speaking on planning applications. It seems like simple a more organised way than handing a scrap of paper over just before the start – easier for the committee manager to collate requests and hand to the chairman. The odd occasion I have done it has been either because I thought I might be late and/or because I felt like being generous and helping the committee to be prepared to answer (e.g. on Cherry Hinton High Street traffic calming). I think it would be a shame if people could no longer turn up and ask questions with no notice though.
Keep up the fight for our rights. Note the letter drawn up by Bidwells in alliance with Brookgate asserting their right to the Community Infrastructure Levy
and also http://cambridge.jdi-consult.net/localplan/viewrepfull.php?repid=28583 Brookgate asserting that they cannot provide affordable housing and make the profits they think they are entitled to.