St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries

[thunder 10]

Thanks beer and Speckled Hen.

[wolfstalin 10]

This may have been asked already but is the policy available to view online and does it say who formulated it, dates etc?

 

Interestingly no its not, nor does anyone ever remember how it came into being other than a statement by Viv Nicholson in a letter where she says that the council have had this policy for some considerable time.

 

When question on the matter by a member of the DLP, Viv said that it had been voted on at the DLP but couldn't remember when, by whom it was proposed or find it in the minutes:suspect:

[DIVA 10]

try this

 

http://www.missingstrings.co.uk/books/viv.jpg

 

That's unbelievable!

 

I know people have asked about this before, but how long is this "policy" expected to run? Until 10% of the original parks and green spaces have gone? Or 10% every year? - Thus creating the possibility of eventually having a postage stamp left? How much has already gone since this "policy" was first formulated?

[cgksheff 44]

try this

 

http://www.missingstrings.co.uk/books/viv.jpg

 

Can you give us the date of that letter?

 

Does anyone have access to a full copy of the "Parks Regeneration Strategy" produced in 1993?

[Longcol 602]

Does anyone have access to a full copy of the "Parks Regeneration Strategy" produced in 1993?

 

Nearest I can find is this.

 

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/all-about-us/parks-regeneration-strategy

 

Which appears to have been superceded by this;

 

http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=41

[jbagley 10]

I've been reading this thread and I'm trying to understand why the candidates for the local elections don't seem to be able to tell me whether they support the proposal or not.

 

It sounds as if they have been given legal advice not to comment, but it's a bit difficult to choose between them if they can't tell me what they stand for! Is this legal advice available publicly or anyone know anything about it or the consequences for them if they did tell me?

 

Is it a requirement of being a trustee (i.e. a Charity Commission "rule", so I can find the regulations via them), or some kind of rule governing all council business (I can't think it would be that, because councilors wouldn't be able to speak about anything at all until they had received the "necessary advice"!), or is it something else?

 

Thanks in advance.

[cgksheff 44]

......... Is this legal advice available publicly or anyone know anything about it or the consequences for them if they did tell me?

 

.....

 

 

I'm not sure if we have had a full copy of the 'advice' posted on here, but:

 

 

.........

 

The city solicitor didn't advise councillors not to discuss this issue in public. All councillors were given the same legal advice during a council debate, which was that if they spoke in relation to this issue, then they should keep an open mind on this issue until all the facts were known.

.........

 

I would interpret this as permitting any Councillor to indicate their 'leanings' based on the information that they had recieved to date and that this could be subject to change if further information were recieved.

[DIVA 10]

Ok, cgksheff, but keeping that in mind, surely, this "gagging" should not apply to candidates who are NOT already elected councillors, as they do not have trustee status yet, so are not governed by this? The earlier post, if I'm not mistaken, referred to a candidate who was not already a councillor (hence not a trustee) and a councillor was with him/her, so the candidate legally, COULD say where he stood without fear of any repurcussions, couldn't he/she?

 

Couldn't this be an important point, as many people want to be clear in their minds that the candidate they vote for is going to protect our parks, and if the seat is held, for instance, by a Labour Councillor, (and Labour have made their position clear) and a candidate of another party, contesting the seat, thinks they are not allowed to speak on the matter, it is in theory, protecting the Labour candidate, isn't it?

[wolfstalin 10]

I've been reading this thread and I'm trying to understand why the candidates for the local elections don't seem to be able to tell me whether they support the proposal or not.

 

It sounds as if they have been given legal advice not to comment, but it's a bit difficult to choose between them if they can't tell me what they stand for! Is this legal advice available publicly or anyone know anything about it or the consequences for them if they did tell me?

 

Is it a requirement of being a trustee (i.e. a Charity Commission "rule", so I can find the regulations via them), or some kind of rule governing all council business (I can't think it would be that, because councilors wouldn't be able to speak about anything at all until they had received the "necessary advice"!), or is it something else?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Legal advice has been given to trustees of the charity, NOT CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION.

 

It would be illegal to interfere with the elections process to do so!!!!!

[The Chavs 10]

Ok, cgksheff, but keeping that in mind, surely, this "gagging" should not apply to candidates who are NOT already elected councillors, as they do not have trustee status yet, so are not governed by this? The earlier post, if I'm not mistaken, referred to a candidate who was not already a councillor (hence not a trustee) and a councillor was with him/her, so the candidate legally, COULD say where he stood without fear of any repurcussions, couldn't he/she?

 

Couldn't this be an important point, as many people want to be clear in their minds that the candidate they vote for is going to protect our parks, and if the seat is held, for instance, by a Labour Councillor, (and Labour have made their position clear) and a candidate of another party, contesting the seat, thinks they are not allowed to speak on the matter, it is in theory, protecting the Labour candidate, isn't it?

 

 

Couldnt agree more. Candidates who are not yet councillors CANNOT be subject to this "legal advise" as they are not trustee's as yet.

 

Dont forget, all trustee's will be voting on an individual basis and will not be uder the party whip.

[cgksheff 44]

Ok, cgksheff, but keeping that in mind, surely, this "gagging" should not apply to candidates who are NOT already elected councillors, as they do not have trustee status yet, so are not governed by this? The earlier post, if I'm not mistaken, referred to a candidate who was not already a councillor (hence not a trustee) and a councillor was with him/her, so the candidate legally, COULD say where he stood without fear of any repurcussions, couldn't he/she?

 

............

 

They can say what they want ... as can any Councillor, but they should be aware of it possibly invalidating them from any future vote as a trustee.

 

It would be rash for any candidate to say that they, if a trustee, would vote a certain way regardless.

They would be well advised to always include a caveat such as:

"based on what they know to date"

"unless further information changes the situation"

"what would be in the best interest of Graves Park" etc.

[cptntacredi 10]

I have discovered the advise was not not to comment at all, butif they commented publically to keep an open mind etc., which is a little different.