Hecklers not welcome
Hecklers not welcome
Members of the public who shout out at meetings of West Northamptonshire Council face being banned
By Sarah Ward
Members of the public who heckle or shout out at meetings of West Northamptonshire Council (WNC) face being banned from future meetings, under planned changes to the constitution.
The Conservative-run authority is proposing the move after a review by its democracy and standards committee and comes after a series of contentious meetings in recent months, largely to do with the controversy surrounding the former leader Jonathan Nunn, who stood down after new allegations of domestic abuse made against him.
The authority wants to change its constitution to allow members of the public who shout out to be removed and they could also be banned from attending future meetings, with no specification on how long any ban could last for.
The new protocol, which will be voted on by the full council at a meeting tonight at the Guildhall in Northampton, says:
Members of the public have the right to attend all public meetings of the Council. However, those attending meetings need to recognise that it is a meeting of the Council held in public and it is not a public meeting.
Whilst members of the public are able to speak, they need to notify in advance and they will be provided with the opportunity to address the members on an item on the agenda. Although meetings are held in public, in certain circumstances when documents contain confidential or exempt information in accordance with the Local Government Act members of the public will be asked to leave the room when those items are being discussed.
Under a section titled ‘Responsibilities of the public’, the proposed constitution changes says:
3.1 By attending a public meeting of the Council, Executive Board or any committee or subcommittee, you are agreeing to these guidelines as a whole and in particular the stipulations listed below:
· Members of the public are not able to address the meeting from the audience and shouting out during a meeting is not permitted;
· The Chairman will ask that members of the public who disrupt the meeting through protest; shouting out or other unacceptable behaviour not to do so. If they continue to do so after they have been warned they will be asked to leave;
· The Council reserves the right to remove the right to attend any further Council meetings, to any person who has disrupted previous meetings or whose conduct breaches any law particularly those relating to respect for others particularly in relation to diversity and inclusion;
· In cases where members of the public are suspended they will be notified of the reasons in writing; informed of the period of the suspension and the suspension will be subject to review;
· Recording of meetings should not delay or disturb the conduct of the meeting.
There will also be restrictions on recordings. By law people are allowed to record the meeting, but the authority is intending to bring in new rules which would mean the chair could terminate any recording and also a councillor could raise concerns about recording.
Members of the opposition political groups think the move is heavy handed and unnecessary.
Leader of the Labour opposition group, Cllr Wendy Randall, said her group will be voting against the proposal. However if all the Conservatives voted for the change it will go through.
Cllr Randall, is on the democracy and standard committee which proposed the changes in June and along with leader of the Liberal Democrats Sally Beardsworth had disagreed with the proposal.
She said:
“What we both said is that when someone comes and speaks at a council meeting, they are usually coming because they are upset about something. If they feel they are not being listened to they may shout out. That does not mean that they are going to be disruptive. If they need to be disciplined there are already procedures in place.
“I understand the council is saying that a council meeting is not a public meeting, but it is one of the only opportunities where the public get their say.”
Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Cllr Jonathan Harris said he did not agree with the proposals but understood why they were being suggested.
He said:
“The council meeting is somewhere for people to express a view. I do know that some of the Conservative group have felt at times intimidated and have struggled to hear proceedings.
“But I don’t think it is healthy to stop people from expressing themselves.”
In contrast to North Northamptonshire Council, over the past year the public area within the council chamber at WNC has been busy, with residents concerned about special education needs provisions (which last week had a dreadful Ofsted report) and also air quality problems. There have been a number of peaceful demonstrations outside the meetings and a campaign group staged a mock death at one meeting.
There has not been any incidents in which a councillor has been threatened or assaulted during a meeting.
Earlier this year the authority beefed up security, with extra staff on the door and inside the chamber and also a rope has been erected between the public area and the council chamber where councillors sit.
While tomorrow’s meeting is held the 1000 voices campaign, will be holding a vigil for Daniel Shaw, from Northampton who was one of five found guilty last week of conspiring to block traffic on the M25 as part of Just Stop Oil protests in 2022.
Daniel Shaw, 38, is due to be sentenced today and could face up to three years in prison. The trial, which was held at Southwark Crown Court, was controversial, with members of the accused arrested for contempt of court after speaking when not allowed and refusing to leave the witness box. The trial judge Christopher Hehir, had ruled that they could not use evidence about climate change as part of their defence.
Daniel is a member of the Umbrella climate emergency action hub organisation and in a statement yesterday it said:
“Daniel is a caring, gentle individual who volunteers at Umbrella through growing vegetables in a community garden which are then used to in our cafe or distributed freely to those in need. He also arranges for the planting of 1600 daffodils on the Racecourse every year which has earned him the nickname ‘Daffodil Dave’. His love for the environment is apparent through his commitment to preserving it.”
The 1000 Voices campaign is to gather people together to campaign for council action on air quality in Northampton.
If nothing else, perhaps 'shouting' needs definition. Or at least thinking about. As I read this it came to me that an attendee might 'wail uncontrolably in distress'. For instance about his/her child who has died as a result of air pollution - about which I understand that some think there seems to be rather faint hope of control or reduction. Does shouting refer only to a statement containing word(s)? Does it include shrieks? Belches? Even football rattles? And if ten attendees say, for instance, 'Shame on you' simultaneously the noise might be as loud than a 'shout' by a single person. Would zero or ten individuals be removed and banned?
Only asking....
And if a 'shout' can't be / won't be defined, three more questions arise.
1. The attendees will have insufficient guidance about behaviour. Is this not unfair somehow?
2. Why not change it to a catch-all such as: 'Anyone who annoys us in any fashion whatsoever will be summarally banished.' Then they woudn't need any more rule-making, for instance against outrageous clothing, being glued to the wall, juggling, nudity, .....
3. Who was it said 'this law is a ass'?
The move by the WNC Conservative Group to make yet more constitutional changes, this time concerning the conduct of members of the public at council meetings is a major concern. As though the Conservatives with a 2/3rds majority of councillors don’t have enough control already. What they want they get and most of the time it results in a mess. The OFSTED/CCQ report on the SEND services is the latest example of appalling council failure in relation to the needs of the parents and children affected.
It was the actions of the WNC Tory leadership supported by senior WNC executive officers that prevented Cllr Paul Clark from speaking at April’s council meeting because they decided in advance that they didn’t like what Cllr Clark was going to say and stopped him in his tracks. Only Paul Clark would know what he was going to say on the day. As though the councillors and officers responsible are gifted with the ability to read minds. No wonder that caused an uproar in the chamber and members of the public present were angry. Cause and effect. Preventing an elected representative from speaking was unlawful and the members of the public present including some abuse victims knew this was completely out of order. Behind all this lay the conscious decision by the Conservative leadership to try and stop the story of historic domestic abuse perpetrated by its former leader come into the public domain. Like so many other matters they failed in their efforts and failed badly thanks to the media.
But rather than accept the part their own actions have played in reaching the present situation the disingenuous Tories are now indulging in pointing the finger of blame at members of the public. A couple of senior Tory councillors have claimed in the run up to these proposed changes to the constitution that they have felt threatened and intimidated at council meetings. I think they must have fertile imaginations or, rather, are inventing imaginary fears to suit what looks to be a political manoeuvre to embark down a very dangerous road of intolerance. It should be a simple matter for a council to control its own meetings and if any member of the public is unruly to have him or her removed. Not at WNC it seems.