Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[first mate]

.

[Andrew1011]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still cannot understand why someone didn't

> obtain the Committee Secretary's version of what

> had happened. She after all was taking the

> minutes.

>

> I was a Monitoring Officer until the late 1990s.

> The suggestion that a Councillor, or indeed any

> member of the public, would not have then been

> able to obtain chapter and verse of a

> controversial Committee decision would have been

> beyond belief.

That includes our favourite EDF using councillor. You know, the one who was pushing and reinforcing - and possibly the source of - the misinformation being promulgated by Melbourne Grove Traffic Action.

[rch]

The committee clerk did take draft minutes, but they only reflected the presentation of the action group and the sympathetic discussion of councillors afterwards (and I was told that there was no audio recording). I think the formal allocation of funding happened at the end of the meeting (which is usual practice), and we couldn't get the formal wording of this until the chair approved the minutes to be published a week before the Sept 9th meeting as per community council protocol.

Catch-22.

[Zebedee Tring]

But surely the text of the draft minutes could have been revealed at any time after the June meeting, particularly as there was so much doubt as to what had been agreed on what was turning out to be a very controversial subject. This could have happened on the basis that the draft minutes were subject to the Chair's approval at the September meeting. Otherwise how could officers take action on any of the other items agreed at the June meeting? Surely they wouldn't have had to wait until the approval of the minutes at the next meeting?

Catch 22? Alice In Wonderland would be a better literary analogy.

[James Barber]

Lesson learnt.

If anyone feels the DDC has taken a daft decision prod me and I will get the minutes for that item expedited as draft minutes so we're all clear about what we're discussing. I apologise for any information I failed to relate. Being a councillor is an extremely busy voluntary role for most of us as I'm sure Robin will attest to - hence the South Camberwell councillor just resigning - and sometimes I need to take a deep breath before commenting. Sorry.

[rch]

It would be useful to know what formal wording of the DCC decision is, because I'm now alarmed at the quotes in the Southwark News article that was published this morning, which looks as if the study could be misdirected into humps and "pinch points" now, which would be a nightmare for reasons that we have already discussed here on the forum.

Southwark's highway engineers understand exactly what the issues on Melbourne Grove are and could probably suggest far better measures to address them, which is precisely what the bottom line of our deputation on Sept 9th was stressing.

I also find it misleading that the action group and councillors are being quoted in the article as "bemused" at the anti-barrier campaign, when just two weeks ago our houses were leafletted claiming that "we've received some funding for a feasibility study into a barrier across Melbourne Grove."

[spider69]

Just as confusing as Cllr Barbers please forgive me message.

[rch]

In a nutshell, we're still trying to confirm exactly what the DCC have decided to spend up to ?10,000 of public money on, as all the claims on the forum and in the media are going around in circles and are contradictory.

To be clear, what our petition presented to the DCC on Sept 9th asked for:-

"We believe the best way to get safer shared streets for everyone is to call on Southwark Council to produce a comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road triangle."

[first mate]

Hmmm so lesson obviously not learnt.

[rch]

If I had been able to speak at the DCC meeting we could have sorted all this out in real time. Now we're all having to communicate on a forum and through the media.

Welcome to democracy in Dulwich!

[Zebedee Tring]

Can't someone get hold of the draft minutes of the 9 September meeting and find out what was decided? How about that Councillor for the East Dulwich Ward (can't remember his name)? Can't he do this? Indeed can't any member of the great unwashed ring up the Committee Clerk and check?

[James Barber]

I've asked ZT but the clerk is on holiday until Monday.

[Newton]

So, I see that the pro-barrier group has signally failed to actually engage local residents again, but has found time to get another article in the Southwark News which basically decides to attack the player rather than the ball. This all while they've been "too busy" to meet with EDAus or anyone else from the resident's delegation.

Seriously, the councillors wonder why everyone is so upset while Melbourne Traffic Action are publishing hit pieces aimed at members of the resident's delegation.

You'll note that half of the article uses wording that comes _directly_ from MTA, a group that has repeatedly misrepresented what's going on. They also manage to completely omit to mention that Robin is a Melbourne Grove resident herself. I think it's fairly clear Southwark News can't be trusted to report on this issue.

[intexasatthe moment]

What a terrible misrepresentation of the facts in the Southwark News today http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/ex-councillor-campaigns-against-dulwich-road-safety-study/

I feel really angry that one group of residents are being depicted as the sweet voice of reason and another group as " campaigning against a study taking place."

And never mind the repeated twisting about traffic speeds .

Robin who worked so hard to sort things out in the face of bizarre CC actions ( a petition with no wording ? ) and a huge lack of information ,gets rudely gagged at the meeting ,and patronised on here - now gets lumped in with some fantasy campaign against a traffic study !

And JB who helped the situation not one jot and declared that if he were living in Melbourne Grove he'd want a barrier doesn't miss the opportunity to stir things by highlighting "the fact that many, if not the majority, of the signatories on the new petition were not in fact residents of Melbourne Grove, unlike the initial pro-study group." and then has the cheek to try and appear conciliatory with his pat comment " ?I think both groups essentially want to same thing, which is safer roads in Dulwich.?

Of course as usual JB will be blameless in this latest episode - it will all be down to misreporting by the reporter .

[spider69]

Lesson learnt.

If anyone feels the DDC has taken a daft decision prod me and I will get the minutes for that item expedited as draft minutes so we're all clear about what we're discussing. I apologise for any information I failed to relate. Being a councillor is an extremely busy voluntary role for most of us as I'm sure Robin will attest to - hence the South Camberwell councillor just resigning - and sometimes I need to take a deep breath before commenting. Sorry.

--------------------

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

All ready laying the ground.

[rch]

The reporter told me that he had been following the discussion here on the forum, so I assumed that he grasped the bigger picture, otherwise I would have gone back to basics.

On the second point, bear in mind that James is indeed the only councillor that we have regular contact with on local issues... we just need to figure out how to communicate more effectively so that these misunderstandings don't happen.

As I've said repeatedly, I think the councillor system needs drastically overhauling... having three different people doing the job part time is insane ,there is no joined-up thinking. But we should have a separate discussion on this, as the ward boundaries are about to get reviewed before the next election and I think Southwark's representation is flawed.

Or, better still, I genuinely think we need to start thinking of ways to set up our own network and community facilities down here in the Black Hole of Dulwich.

[Abe_froeman]

Such as a campaign for independence from the rest of Southwark?!

[rch]

Well, why not?

Both Herne Hill and Dulwich Village are having discussions about creating devolved Neighbourhood Forums... it might be something that we should consider in the fullness of time.

But, in the meantime, I think the best we can do is stick together to fight for the interests of our community.

[James Barber]

"...in the fullness of time..." is straight from Yes, Minster.

Recently people were celebrating the 50th anniversary of merging London's previous 110 or whatever councils into 32 super councils - one of which is Southwark. I would wholeheartedly support smaller more focused councils OR devolving significantly more power to community councils.

Robin is right in that vast majority of councillors have full-time jobs/ commitments and we are councillors as effectively a hobby. So whichever party/person you support do try and help them, practically with ideas, delivering leaflets, etc.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'd rather support someone like Robin who doesn't seem politically motivated and doesn't indulge in all the antics that go with that .

And of course this whole voluntary councillor thing doesn't work . It should be a full time salaried job . Of course at the moment it is voluntary ...no one has insisted for instance that JB with his busy life ,job ( even if legally councillors are entitled to reasonable time off work to perform ) and family should be a councillor .

[Penguin68]

I am entirely happy that local elected councilors should live in a real world, with real demands, rather than being professional politicians. It is the professional political class that has also helped ruin Westminster. But the Southwark apparat does now appear to have lost any real contact with the needs and desires of those living in this southern tip of the borough - not entirely helped by some of those for whom some of us may have misguidedly voted. Media manipulation and spin (be it in the ED forum or of the local press) has become the main toolkit of some of those wishing to see change and alteration - getting down and talking face-to-face with people can be belittled and the people doing it ignored or patronised, whilst secret cabals and their spin doctors rule, OK?.

At times we do seem to be suffering a democratic deficit locally.

[Jenny1]

I believe that the position of councillor is not highly remunerated - but isn't quite 'voluntary'. My understanding was that there was a salary of ?10,000 a year - unless that's changed in recent years due to cuts.

[spider69]

Plus expenses. Full breakdown in last weeks Southwark News I believe

[Abe_froeman]

And many of them have aspirations of promotion to a job in SW1, using their position as a councillor purely as a springboard rather than it being a hobby.

[rch]

Actually the ?10K (almost ?11K now) is an allowance to cover expenses (bus fares and computers to answer emails, etc) but, if you do the job properly, it's not nearly enough. I was going backwards at a rate of noughts, working 60 hours a week for ?10K, which is another reason I had to stop.

However, the party in power gets top-up allowances of over ?30K each per annum for cabinet positions and between ?8-20K on top of the ?10K for committee chairs and deputy cabinet posts.

At this point it becomes a viable remuneration, while the opposition councillors struggle to survive, or end up not being able to cover the expected councillor duties as well as expected because they're working on top of having a family life.

So, it's really unfair... if everyone got an equally basic income at minimum, with smaller cabinet and chair top-ups, then the residents would almost certainly get a better service and representation from elected members.

I would reduce the number of cllrs per ward to two, or maybe even one, and split the ?33K per ward total so that it became a full time position with administrative back up.