A row has erupted after public questions were skipped at a council meeting but councillors were allowed extra time to ask theirs.
One of those present blamed long-winded answers from councillors giving replies to the public and said that the public had effectively been filibustered.
Fewer than half the questions tabled by the public to Brighton and Hove City Council received a response before the session was abruptly ended.
Public questions are allotted 15 minutes at meetings of the full council which take place just five times a year.
And the new mayor, Councillor Jackie O’Quinn, who chairs meetings of the full council, kept strictly to time at the meeting at Hove Town Hall last Thursday (20 July).
The move caused an upset in the public gallery and cries of “anti-democratic” from the hallway outside the chamber.
The most vocal heckle came from Queen’s Park resident Adrian Hart, who was preparing to ask a question on a neighbour’s behalf.
Only four of the 11 questions listed on the agenda were heard before the five-hour meeting moved on to the next item of business.
Mr Hart, who stood for the Brighton and Hove Independents at the local elections in May, said: “My questions at full council weren’t especially long … This full council should have burnt the midnight oil if it had to.”
Veteran campaigner Nigel Furness was already sitting in the chamber, ready to ask his question, despite being unwell.
Mr Furness, who stood for the Friends of Brighton and Hove Citizens at the local elections in May, wanted to ask the new council leader Bella Sankey if her Labour administration planned to “pause” all of the previous Green council’s projects.
He also wanted to ask a supplementary question to find out whether the Green council had included Labour councillors in its budget-setting process because “much has been made” of the £3 million overspend in last year’s budget and the forecast of an £11.8 million “black hole” this year.
Mr Furness said: “I just couldn’t believe it. I’d sat there and, after the effort I’d made, I was really angry.
“I don’t normally get angry. I have forceful words but I don’t usually get angry like that. I thought this is an anathema. Has democracy been completely blocked out?”
Mr Furness said that in the past, mayors had extended public questions to enable everyone to speak, with former mayor Lizzie Deane once extending questions twice, giving 45 minutes to the public.
A little later, there were gasps when the time allowed for councillors’ own questions was extended to permit the last three questions out of 20. Previously, unasked questions from councillors were “carried over” to the next meeting.
Green deputy convenor Sue Shanks said: “Under previous mayors, public questions were always heard in full. This council should serve the voters – and the public needs to be meaningfully listened to.”
Councillor Shanks added: “It’s worrying that the public weren’t facilitated as fully as they could have been this time under the new Labour mayor. We’re hopeful this changes soon and will push to ensure it.”
Conservative leader Alistair McNair said that the public had a right to be upset as “15 minutes is not enough”. He suggested 30 minutes or more.
Councillor McNair said: “Residents have worked hard on their questions. It’s stressful, exciting, important, it’s a big event – all of those things – and then to be told there’s no time left is really quite wrong.
“What a letdown and disappointment it must be. It gives people a bad impression of the council and politicians. People will feel they have no say.
“We are paid. We should hear residents with full respect and provide proper succinct answers which get to the point.”
He questioned why so many questions were listed for the meeting if councillors would not have time to deal with them.
The meeting on Thursday started at 4.30pm and ended at 10.40pm, with a half-hour break. It was preceded by a special meeting at 3pm when long-serving former councillors were honoured by being made aldermen and alderwomen of Brighton and Hove.
Councillor O’Quinn said: “We didn’t extend the time allocated for public questions on this occasion as, being the first full council of the administration, we had a very long agenda.”
There were seven reports, all of which were going to be called, she said, and six “notices of motion”, four of them with two amendments from other parties, adding: “We also had a special council beforehand.
“So there were major pressures on time and there were also restrictions on the number of councillors that could speak, agreed via the whips.
“With such a long agenda, it wasn’t possible to hear all public questions and I know it will have been disappointing to those who still had questions to ask.
“Everyone who was on the list to ask a question has received or will receive a written response and the opportunity to resubmit an oral question for our next full council meeting. I doubt that we will experience the same situation at the next full council.”
I have sympathy with the public who came to Hove Town Hall to ask their questions. The mayor should have used some discretion in both extending the allotted 15 minutes & to reign in some of her own Labour councillors who spent far too long in their responses.
Labour the new greens. Its not difficult after all you get questions in advance
This really doesn’t surprise me . I serve the residents of Hollingdean and when we go to area panel we are fobbed off with long winded political answers.
We hoped that the new administration would be open and honest with their residents but it seems not.Same old crap with nothing actually being done when they raise relevent questions in behalf of concerned residents.
Ian Beck (secretary Hollingdean Residents Association)
I was one of the people whose question was never heard. Ironically, if it had been asked, the question was about how the council interprets rules on public questions! The rule allowing cut off is seldom applied. When submitted to BHCC Democratic Services, public questions are frequently rejected for being vexatious or defamatory. Another irony of this first post-election full council is that the initial question read in the chamber on Thursday (in brief, it raised concerns from parents about a very serious schools child safeguarding matter) was responded to by Cllr Sankey by describing these concerns as ‘baseless smears’. Yet, even I know – as do many parents – that the matter raised in this question is based in legitimate and well argued concerns. How do the rules allow for a council leader to reply with such a slur against a member of the public when our questions are screened for any hint of defamation or vexation? Answer: one rule for us another for the public.
The council could schedule a special supplementary meeting asap in order to allow the public to have their democratic right to be heard.
The public were silenced on 20th July.
I watched this meeting. If Adrian Hart had not spent the best part of ten minutes banging on about how sex education in school is depraved then the other people might have had more time to ask their questions. Maybe “public questions” should include questions asked by members of the public rather than failed independent candidates the process would be more useful.
I need to correct you, mr Hart did not bang on about sex education in schools as you put it, he was very bravely bringing out into the daylight for all to see, the very worrying insidious trend that is taking place in our schools today, encouraging children to adopt a different sex, to begin to take puberty blockers as an example, parents up and down the country are extremely concerned, and if they’re not they most definitely need to be, this is a far deeper agenda and needs to be stopped in its tracks! We are talking about children, vulnerable children who have no idea about life, they are all to easily influenced by peer pressure, especially teachers.. They trust! what else can they do but trust, what else do they know. Generally we have lost (the Village) but as human beings we have not lost our voices, we have not lost the ability to protect our children, whether they are ours or not! They are our future, we must stand up for them, as they cannot stand up for themselves, and we must above all protect them.
I salute you Mr Hart for doing exactly that. Much respect.
How vile.
Hart did ‘bang on’ far too long using this platform to spread transphobia, hate, lies and issues that are not happening.
I heard the exact same issues spouted when I came out as gay in the 80s – insidious – concerned parents – hate – social concerns for vulnerable children.
Instead you cause hate towards trans children, confusion around support and the denigrating of actual support that works.
Trans kids exist just as gay kids exist. That is fact.
You clearly do not understand what is going on….
Or else you are complicit in it….
I hope the former is the case.
Incorrect. Children are legally children until the age of consent at which point they can decide for themselves what they are. No adult lens, influence or labelling required.
Watch it again Reggie – my question and follow-up amounted to only 1.5 minutes yet the replies given by Labour leader Cllr Sankey totaled 3.75 minutes. But in any case, if five minutes is the necessary time needed to hear a question and how its answered then so be it (the 15 minute rule is perniscious – all public questions, once accepted, should be heard). Cllr Sankey used my question to make a political speech. To spend nearly 4 minutes to denegrate the child safeguarding concerns I raised as “baseless smears” and a “baseless attack” without checking with senior officers if there is indeed a basis (there is) certainly soaked up the minutes the Mayor needed to call time three questions later. It may have won her a round of applause from her tribe but Cllr Sankey will rue the day she ever thought that choice of speech was a good idea. She confirmed that all third party prividers are operating within the law, national guidelines and with appropriate qualifications and evidence base (they’e not).
What shameful conduct. If only there’d been a Council Leader with human rights expertise on hand to intervene. One is bound to ask is this “the better Brighton & Hove for all” and “bold new vision for the city” Bella was talking about in recent press releases? 15 minutes is ridiculous and impossible to shoehorn 12 public questions and answers plus supplementaries into in any case so time will always run out – FYI a 12th question was accepted and then rejected prior to the meeting. The public enagagement segment of the meeting should be programmed for at least two hours of the Full Council meeting if the council takes serving us seriously to comfortably accommodate all public deputations petitions and questions. Or do some human beings have more human rights than others? In which case Orwellian territory, here we come. Monthy full Council meetings are clearly called for if time is such a factor that the electorate are an afterthought who can be cancelled from the agenda without a second thought. Meanwhile, don’t cancel your public again. You promised to be an improvement on the Greens.
Well said. I was one of the 12 who didn’t get to ask my question.
I totally agree with you I went to the meeting thinking that we possibly had a genuine caring and truthful council leader in Bella Sankey, I now realise different,
She did a great deal of virtual signalling, ranted about racism which was never mentioned within the question by the way, and like you say quite obviously wanted to put down and smear the person who had asked the question, A very genuine and worrying question about the sexualisation of children in our schools!
The question that I did not get the chance to ask at the council meeting on Thursday the 20th is.
We all recently had a shock with the proposal to quadruple city parking charges, so how will Brighton & Hove city council ensure a fair parking policy for all going forward?
My subsequent question
To help ease the parking shortage in Brighton and Hove and help plug the gaping hole in the council’s budget, will the council consider reinstating the parking and two lane traffic both ways along the seafront on the A259. Also will the council consider getting rid of the cycle lane on Maderia drive which is hardly used, and holding events down there again bringing in much needed revenue into the city?
Would it have been so much more effort for our local democracy reporter to produce the list of questions so that readers can judge the decision for themselves? Given the questions that are identified (“are all projects going to be paused?” and “whose fault is the budget?” which are clearly too broad to have a succinct true answer) I can’t really fault the council for moving on.
The questions submitted are published (see link), though there is the troubling matter of one being removed after the first publication. But you’re right, the report would have contributed to local democracy had it listed them (or offered the link) and, crucially, listed the supplementary questions asked (or those unasked that the reporter has since learned of). But very glad SBL wrote this piece nontheless.
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/b38825/Addendum%20-%20Public%20Engagement%2020th-Jul-2023%2016.30%20Council.pdf?T=9
Thanks Adrian. This (and the subsequent comments below) is the real content people need to understand the story. I must confess I’m not particularly impressed by the majority of the questions, though.
I was one of those attending the meeting who did not get a chance to ask my question despite it having been approved beforehand. My question, and supplementary question are as follows:
QUESTION
In light of the recent road collapse in East Street exposing tunnels below (reported in the Argus a few weeks ago), has the council yet concluded the cause of the collapse, and was it related to the city’s Victorian sewer system?
SUPPLEMENTARY
Does the damage to this road and the Western Road diversions around Montpellier have anything to do with the weight of hybrid buses which are up to 18 tons plus passengers, and was any structural risk assessment undertake prior to the Western Road improvement works?
As a caver with knowledge of underground spaces, I know the importance of properly maintaining these spaces. Southern Water are the custodians of the Brighton sewers, and it is quite clear that they have not been doing their job properly. This is clearly evident from the recent sink holes that have been appearing around the City. I’m sure Southern Water and the Council will be quick to blame the Victorians, but the truth of the matter is, that had the sewers been maintained properly in the first place, these collapses should never have happened.
However, the additional weight of the electric cars and buses, and the impact it is having to roads is of grave concern.
Returning to the disgraceful decision of the Mayor who cut public questions short, she should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. So too should the Council who raised no objections to this decision. Its almost as if they have something to hide.
Absolutely disgraceful. Shame on them all!
As someone who works in local government (not BHCC) I’m acutely aware that these meetings have an overwhelming burden of issues to get through and seek some resolution. There does need to be robust screening of questions, given there are literally hundreds of burning issues in residents minds at any given time. Raising the majority of these questions at full council isn’t the best approach, these meetings could obviously go on for days, and answers given by councils in this kind of forum are not usually detailed enough or satisfactory for the enquirer. Personally I raise questions to my local councillors, and only if the response was wholly inadequate would I consider standing up and pitching to a full council meeting.
You’d have point if this first Full Council had been deluged with public questions but there were just 13 that had been accepted with invites sent out. My question had previously been submitted to CFS committee and rejected and it was discussed face to face with my ward councillors who were indifferent and said they wouldn’t be taking the matter forward.
I was allowed to ask my question but here it is anyway (hoping Julia Basnett will post hers on here):
“In recent years, Council officers recommended third party providers to schools. Some conducted classroom lessons and staff training. Groups such as Allsorts and Race Matters advised on procedure and future strategies.
Criticism has been made of certain groups that the materials delivered in schools are contrary to or misrepresent the law, national standards, guidelines, policy and evidence. It seems these groups are not regulated to ensure materials provided appropriately reflect law and national standards. (1)
Can Council reassure parents that it will stop recommending such providers and implement quality assurance measures to ensure compliance with national policy, law, regulation and guidance?”
Supplementary:
To be clear – parents require reassurance that third party providers are suitably qualified, that these organisations have the in-house expertise to operate within the boundaries of government guidance and the law for example safeguarding and recognise the limitations of their proficiency.
For example, parents have described charity organisations in the city (who have no staff clinically qualified in gender dysphoria) affirming a child’s gender, which according to the NHS is not a neutral act, and facilitating referrals to GPs who are known to prescribe cross sex hormones to children without specialist diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Indeed one charity organisation, present in most schools in B&H, are listed as an official partner of Gender GP, who have previously been subject to investigation by the General Medical Council and medical tribunals processes.
Does the Chair agree that any individual or organisation working in local authority schools (or funded in any way by the council) who promotes gender ideology and affirms the gender of individual children must be suitably clinically qualified to do so or otherwise risk a catastrophic failure in this council’s safeguarding duty?”
This was my question and supplementary that I was unable to ask:
“Will Council review how it interprets rules on public questions, deputations and petitions? For some years, I’ve been aware of public attempts to assert scrutiny arbitrarily blocked by council officials and/or leaders. There’s a good reason why the efficient running of committees requires a defence against persistent submissions on exact same issues when satisfactory answers were already given. Rejecting a submission because a Chair feels, with democratic principles in mind, it will cause undue irritation, worry or clearly damage the good reputation of someone can also be reasonable. However, some feel rejections are too often unreasonable – that is to say they do NOT correspond to the eligibility criteria I’ve just outlined and are themselves vexatious – in short, these kinds of rejections are essentially undemocratic”
Follow-up:
“Councillors will be aware that the initial publication of questions for today’s meeting included a question which was subsequently removed by the Mayor or Chief Executive, supposedly on the grounds of individual privacy.
This question did not seek any detail of any individual, and no answer to that question could have identified any individual. The reason given for the removal of that question would therefore appear to be false.
Many of us assumed Labour would want to do better than the Green administration on child protection and safeguarding.
I have been informed of multiple legitimate and very serious concerns in the community about the promotion of gender identity theory by this council, and the teaching of it in our schools.
I am aware that these concerns have been raised by parents to Headteachers and council officials, including concerns around the social transition of children by teachers and council staff, and even the medical transition of children without the knowledge of parents. Either this council do not know of these concerns; or alternatively they do know of these concerns but do not want us to know of them. Which is it?”
END
As you can see, there’s more than a hint of council in breach of its own rules.
Small comfort I know, but the Mayor assures us that those of us ‘bumped’ from asking their questions will be invited to do so at Full Council on Oct 19th. Or will she be given a new reason by Cllr Sankey/lawyers to disallow again?
Labour have been a complete downgrade from Green in every way imaginable, I knew they’d rule from an ivory tower but I never expected it to be this blatant.
Maybe it should be the public are actually given the full 15 minutes to ask their questions and the replies made by councillors are ‘Council time’. Many of the replies from the councillors were long winded and unfairly ate into the public time allocated and typical of politics, did not actually address the points raised but just regurgitated the original information given supporting their decisions. Others were truly squirm worthy using it as political platform and I still don’t know if something does or does not meet national guidance.
I too recently attended a Council run meeting where slights were made against the public with no opportunity of redress. This is not democratic and allows the demonising of individuals and the public unable to raise concern or correct where misrepresentation of their point/information/question has occurred.
No doubt, most of the questions were dumb and unrelated to council control or stuff that’s readily available public information. The questions should be screened to root out time wasters
Maybe before making generalisations and ill informed comment you could read the questions for yourself on link provided by Adrian Hart. I think you will find questions are screened prior to meeting and have been allocated to a councillor for response. Whether they are dumb or not that is down to the individual to decide.
11 questions in 15 minutes seems ambitious.
I bet they could have done it if they really tried. Here’s my best guesses.
1. No. We don’t think CRT is a bad thing.
2. Requires facts, but I’ll bet it’s “we put the brakes on everything when the parking price hike was unearthed”
3. Same as 2
4. You’d have to identify what the 99% is and how it could be affected. You might be able to cut transport carbon by shutting down the train lines, severing the A270 and draining the Marina, but it wouldn’t be a good idea. Committing blindly at a public meeting would make no sense.
5. Listing all the projects the council has going would take longer than 15 minutes. They also aren’t listed by “was this a Green idea at some point or not?” Some are on, some are off.
6. No. A report will be published when we have. We probably won’t admit to it being our fault off the cuff either.
7. We’re looking into it. This didn’t really need to be asked in public because it doesn’t require us to take any visible action or say anything much on the topic.
8. You keep getting dropped because you’re being critical of trans people/issues. We don’t consider education about those issues in schools to be a problem.
9. Requires facts, but I’ll bet on “We’re looking at it, but running offices is expensive and we’re broke.”
10. Should every Blue Badge holder in the city be on the committee?
11. No change for the moment, and when we have an idea it’ll go through the usual channels.
12. Requires facts, but probably something like “The cost has gone up and/or we don’t have part of the funding we need any more because we’re going bust.”
13. Minutes aren’t supposed to be a complete transcription of every word said at a meeting. “Deliberate obfuscation” is exactly the kind of thing nobody in their right mind would confess to in public, so this question appears to be picking a fight but doing a really poor job.
Of course, the problem with them rattling off the answers like this is that almost all the questioners will be incensed with what they’re hearing. Note that these are just my guesses as a member of the public, but it does all seem very obvious.
“Give the peasants who voted us in a few crumbs and fob them off based on our personal opinions and prejudices” is the current approach continued by Labour following the Greens. You seem to agree with it.
You saw the bit where these are my guesses about someone else’s thoughts, right? That being said, the “personal opinions and prejudices” are definitely in evidence in the questions as much as the (non) answers.
Common sense answers. Have you thought of running for office?
I haven’t, actually. According to the commenters here the council officers hold all the power. Maybe I should become one of those instead?
11 answers in 15 minutes definitely achievable. 11 questions, usually speeches, with answers in 15 minutes, is ambitious though, right, my guy?
When Labour were in power at the front end of the new millenium I felt they were a brutish lot with a few downright abusive cllrs. Black propaganda from its activists routinely smeared opposition from the public or Green and Tory Party cllrs. I dreaded their return to power.
Bella’s contemptuous “baseless smear” comment (as read here) struck me as being grounds for a Standards Complaint from one of those comnenting here.
It is important to recognise it is OFFICERS who prepare replies that cllrs parrot off. THEY want the public GONE. Too, it is the non-notified Supplementary question that is often the best bit! And there is no officer scripted reply. Cllrs have to know their stuff!
As for prioritisings? Notices of Motion are politicking hobby horse grandstanding PR devices that usually get dumped into future mtgs if time is short at the end of the session – NOT public questions in advance. Jackie ought to feel ashamed.
Agree: (it seems the Mayor – who previous to this ‘gagged’ ceremonious role, was a councillor with good sense on these matters – may be subject to party whips? thats a new one on me!). The complaints process will be activated, but given (as of yesterday) Annaliese Dodds and the Labour Party National Policy Forum takes a different view to Labour in B&H, you have to wonder if Cllr Sankey will be required to withdraw the ‘baseless smears’ comment? (a comment both contemptuous of the questioning public and factually incorrect give there is a base and BHCC execs know it). Does Cllr Sankey know for sure this isn’t a child safeguarding scandal very close to exploding in the national media? Will labour stay blinkered or listen (as they have with ULEZ)? Or will Labour in B&H stick with Lloyd RMs activist beliefs on this matter:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705
Not a very good start for the Labour Mayor. If democracy is still relevant under this new labour government, then time should not be the governing part of hearing the people who elected them in. Waiting another 5 years to have your voice heard is despicable.
When I used to ask Public Questions, I realised that the most effective way in which to do so. Takes practice.
The point is that the Question should achieve something – rather than be a matter of sounding off, a moment in the sun, which is soon occluded.
As such, the Supplementary is the thing. The Council does not have this in advance because, by its very nature, it should be asked after hearing the Reply to the initial Question and pitched/riffed accordingly on the spot. Councillors spend some time in anticipating what the Supplementary might be, and they are on their nerve ends.This brings a few minutes’ drama to the topic.
Work back from what the potentially killer Supplementary asks for, and have the prelude of a blandish Question.
As I say, the aim is to achieve something, and this is generally part of a wider campaign. A Public Question is not a miracle worker on its own.
On looking through the Questions and prepared Supplementaries cited in the article and the comments here, I am struck by their being so long. This gives the opportunity for the Replies to be as long. And that soon fills the fifteen minutes allotted.
Also, it is vital to rehearse the Questions orally. That makes such a difference. Some of these here simply do not read aloud. They are verbal, not oral. Headings are best for a Supplementary and indeed any speech.
It is also worth considering that Questions can have greater effect when addressed to the Chair of the Committee best suited to whatever the subject might be.
Well, enough of me! Do keep the Questions brief. A first rule of stagecraft is: keep ’em wantin’ more.
I think the public asking questions could be resolved by making them written questions , so no need to attend in real time or remotely. All the responses are perceived to be scripted from officers anyway, only a few of the supplementary questions are answered are live. So any questions by members or public that dont have a supplementary can be dealt with by a written response using e mail.
I like this suggestion Mr. W. It’s done this way at the panels for the most part.
I think it is necessary to keep the democratic right to speak out in public.