Meeting set for Portland council tax talks

Dorset Echo: Meeting set for Portland council tax talks Meeting set for Portland council tax talks

PORTLANDERS are being invited to a public meeting to discuss the island’s huge council tax precept increase.

The meeting is not a consultative event but rather an opportunity for councillors to explain the thinking behind their decision to hike up the precept.

Portland Town Council decided at a meeting on Wednesday night to increase the island precept. It means its share of the bill for a Band D property will rise from around £14 a year to £150 – an increase of almost 1,000 per cent.

The move will generate more than £500,000 for the town council to spend on the island.

It was decided at the council meeting that a public meeting should be held to explain to the public why the decision had been reached and the implications it will have for the island.

Town council clerk Ian Looker said the date and venue for that meeting had now been agreed. It will be at All Saints Church, Easton, at 7pm on Monday, January 27. All are welcome.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:50pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

How very gracious of the council to deign to tell us after the decision has been made

Frankly, there doesn't seem much point going if debate is curtailed as it was on the earlier Echo thread on this subject.

I suspect the only real answer is to remove the councillor's who supported the full increase at the next election and then lower thr precept again. That or simply get rid of the council.

There, I haven't been rude to anyone.
How very gracious of the council to deign to tell us after the decision has been made Frankly, there doesn't seem much point going if debate is curtailed as it was on the earlier Echo thread on this subject. I suspect the only real answer is to remove the councillor's who supported the full increase at the next election and then lower thr precept again. That or simply get rid of the council. There, I haven't been rude to anyone. Rocksalt
  • Score: 13

2:50pm Sat 18 Jan 14

drsymes says...

So they intend to talk AT US and not LISTEN as always
So they intend to talk AT US and not LISTEN as always drsymes
  • Score: 13

3:58pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Tillydog says...

Before I was rudely interrupted Foursite wrote:
Press censorship in a democracy,why were comments by foursite removed? He was at the meeting and told the people what happened for real,. not to be buttered up by an autocratic council..You can usually find Tim Munroe's car near his business Jacks Cafe parked on double yellows
with a disabled parking permit in the windscreen Y7 TBM. allegedly belonging to his elderly mother many photo's available.follow us
on facebook. He is doomed..
Munroe Says...
To correct any misapprehension. The disabled badge that I use is mine.
It has a number, you are at liberty to take the number and check.
I have not complained to the Echo about the comments not have I requested them to remove any comments
nor has anyone else that has been mentioned on here,
I have no idea whom made the complaint. They are your views and
whilst I may disagree with them, unless offensive or threatening, they
should be aired.What I find regretable, is that you all choose to hid away
behind funny little names.

FOURSITE Says
Although Mr Munroe we are able to hide behind our funny little names as far as you're concerned. Like you,thousands of people know who we are.!
Before I was rudely interrupted Foursite wrote: Press censorship in a democracy,why were comments by foursite removed? He was at the meeting and told the people what happened for real,. not to be buttered up by an autocratic council..You can usually find Tim Munroe's car near his business Jacks Cafe parked on double yellows with a disabled parking permit in the windscreen Y7 TBM. allegedly belonging to his elderly mother many photo's available.follow us on facebook. He is doomed.. Munroe Says... To correct any misapprehension. The disabled badge that I use is mine. It has a number, you are at liberty to take the number and check. I have not complained to the Echo about the comments not have I requested them to remove any comments nor has anyone else that has been mentioned on here, I have no idea whom made the complaint. They are your views and whilst I may disagree with them, unless offensive or threatening, they should be aired.What I find regretable, is that you all choose to hid away behind funny little names. FOURSITE Says Although Mr Munroe we are able to hide behind our funny little names as far as you're concerned. Like you,thousands of people know who we are.! Tillydog
  • Score: 6

4:09pm Sat 18 Jan 14

shy talk says...

All Portlander’s attending will be searched for any long lengths of rope on their person, before allowing them in.
All Portlander’s attending will be searched for any long lengths of rope on their person, before allowing them in. shy talk
  • Score: 3

4:10pm Sat 18 Jan 14

drsymes says...

Anyone using the 'C' word at the meeting will be evicted - CONSULTATION is more forbidden than the 'R' word!!
Anyone using the 'C' word at the meeting will be evicted - CONSULTATION is more forbidden than the 'R' word!! drsymes
  • Score: 7

4:27pm Sat 18 Jan 14

drsymes says...

On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting.

I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.
On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues. drsymes
  • Score: 16

4:45pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Dorset Guy1 says...

What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO
What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO Dorset Guy1
  • Score: -9

5:29pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

Dorset Guy1 wrote:
What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO
Alternatively, why not abolish the Town Council and use the money saved.

That aside, many people do understand that there is some rationale to the proposal. But the key issue for many of the Portlanders I have spoken to is the way this is being handled, with no meaningful consultation whatsoever from a body that has the flimsiest of mandates. The last time most of the PTC councillors stood in a competitive election they were soundly beaten.

There is as secondary question as to why on earth people on Portland should pay more than, for example, a ward in Weymouth. Are you suggesting that Weymouth and Portland Council will be delegating tasks and work to other wards?
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Guy1[/bold] wrote: What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO[/p][/quote]Alternatively, why not abolish the Town Council and use the money saved. That aside, many people do understand that there is some rationale to the proposal. But the key issue for many of the Portlanders I have spoken to is the way this is being handled, with no meaningful consultation whatsoever from a body that has the flimsiest of mandates. The last time most of the PTC councillors stood in a competitive election they were soundly beaten. There is as secondary question as to why on earth people on Portland should pay more than, for example, a ward in Weymouth. Are you suggesting that Weymouth and Portland Council will be delegating tasks and work to other wards? Rocksalt
  • Score: 8

5:50pm Sat 18 Jan 14

common cence says...

It would be intresting to know how many of the p t c officers were voted for to be on the council and how many were co-opted , (2) When were the last elections for portland and when is the next elections due , We the people of portland need to stand for p t c get voted in and then have portland town council disbanded , We have been with weymouth for 40 years its tim to forget p t c it will not be long before we can forget wey/port it will soon be west dorset , And the sooner the better ,,,,,,,,,,,
It would be intresting to know how many of the p t c officers were voted for to be on the council and how many were co-opted , (2) When were the last elections for portland and when is the next elections due , We the people of portland need to stand for p t c get voted in and then have portland town council disbanded , We have been with weymouth for 40 years its tim to forget p t c it will not be long before we can forget wey/port it will soon be west dorset , And the sooner the better ,,,,,,,,,,, common cence
  • Score: 5

6:29pm Sat 18 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

Dorset Guy1 wrote:
What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO
Getting ahead of the game and to be congratulated ? Poppycock, it is an exercise in shafting people who already carry enough of a burden and are struggling already. I resent handing over another chunk of my hard earned to people who only intend to waste it on vanity projects or keep in in a bank account.. I aleady pay council tax and a precept and am seeing diminishing returns on that in recent years. For instance I have read that part of the money raised is to build a pedestrian crossing in Fortuneswell (apparently 2 isn't enough).As it stands it is the 17th higest priority at DCC but this will circumvent the waiting list. This a vanity project in my mind and it is the 17th highest priority for a good reason. Out of the GBP0.5m they have forecasted to raise 60% will be sat in a bank account awaiting other various vanity projects that take their fancy. The point is that money if not clearly earmarked should be in my bank account not theirs, I have no objection to a small raise in the precept if the council could show good reason for asking, but not to this amount and not for the reasons they have thus far outlined.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Guy1[/bold] wrote: What does not seem to have come out in this is that both DCC & WPBC/WDDC are now having their Central Government Funding Cut year on year to get the country out of its current mess The Government are pressurising County & District Councils not to increase the Council tax at all and if they want to raise it by more than 2% there must be a ballot. The current thinking is to pass some services to Town & Parish Councils hence a general need for more funding. DCC are even stopping all funding of Lengthsman Schemes which do minor highway jobs and have already disbanded the Parish Maintenance teams who did the work before. PTC are getting ahead of the game and are to be congratulated IMHO[/p][/quote]Getting ahead of the game and to be congratulated ? Poppycock, it is an exercise in shafting people who already carry enough of a burden and are struggling already. I resent handing over another chunk of my hard earned to people who only intend to waste it on vanity projects or keep in in a bank account.. I aleady pay council tax and a precept and am seeing diminishing returns on that in recent years. For instance I have read that part of the money raised is to build a pedestrian crossing in Fortuneswell (apparently 2 isn't enough).As it stands it is the 17th higest priority at DCC but this will circumvent the waiting list. This a vanity project in my mind and it is the 17th highest priority for a good reason. Out of the GBP0.5m they have forecasted to raise 60% will be sat in a bank account awaiting other various vanity projects that take their fancy. The point is that money if not clearly earmarked should be in my bank account not theirs, I have no objection to a small raise in the precept if the council could show good reason for asking, but not to this amount and not for the reasons they have thus far outlined. 17th Earl of Fortuneswell
  • Score: 15

6:35pm Sat 18 Jan 14

radiator says...

I notice that the meeting is to be held in a church, so no swearing please at Munro and co.You have got to ask why do we need a Portland council any way?as Weymouth calls the shots anyway on most decisions.
I notice that the meeting is to be held in a church, so no swearing please at Munro and co.You have got to ask why do we need a Portland council any way?as Weymouth calls the shots anyway on most decisions. radiator
  • Score: 6

7:17pm Sat 18 Jan 14

PORTLAND ROVER says...

shy talk wrote:
All Portlander’s attending will be searched for any long lengths of rope on their person, before allowing them in.
Ere Neighbour.... Youm Can't take me Ropes away! Theym holdin up me Trousies!
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: All Portlander’s attending will be searched for any long lengths of rope on their person, before allowing them in.[/p][/quote]Ere Neighbour.... Youm Can't take me Ropes away! Theym holdin up me Trousies! PORTLAND ROVER
  • Score: 6

10:01pm Sat 18 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

You are talking about a council who had to ask each other what to reply to a chap from an impact study group who asked what they thought of the impact on the island when building work started on the tesco store. MMM well we could? Oh what shall we do mmm? 10 minutes later ! It had been built for two sodding years!! And they took 10 minutes ! And then Mr Beetroot got redder by the minute as he flustered his way through another hot topic and then another few months later this fella stumbled upon this idea to increase this precept ! The guy should be on TV then i could turn the **** off !
Seriously invite the community now Timmy wonder if you were going to do this before the forum yesterday ? When the comments got taken off and the forum stopped ! Got opened back up for your comments though then shut so we could not counter it just a shame you didnt turn up when everyone was rockin and a rollin all over it wasnt it .
You are talking about a council who had to ask each other what to reply to a chap from an impact study group who asked what they thought of the impact on the island when building work started on the tesco store. MMM well we could? Oh what shall we do mmm? 10 minutes later ! It had been built for two sodding years!! And they took 10 minutes ! And then Mr Beetroot got redder by the minute as he flustered his way through another hot topic and then another few months later this fella stumbled upon this idea to increase this precept ! The guy should be on TV then i could turn the **** off ! Seriously invite the community now Timmy wonder if you were going to do this before the forum yesterday ? When the comments got taken off and the forum stopped ! Got opened back up for your comments though then shut so we could not counter it just a shame you didnt turn up when everyone was rockin and a rollin all over it wasnt it . doyle52
  • Score: 8

9:31am Sun 19 Jan 14

Foursite says...

This is an extract from Tim Munroe's email sent to other Councillors on 23 Dec 2013.
This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. "Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election,May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept.2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding.If it is seen to work, Councillors will be re elected.if not new
Councillors will be elected. and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil".
Now people of Portland,make up your own mind the thinking behind Mr Munroe's proposal and how and why I have a copy of that email for all to see. good luck councilor Munroe and family.
This is an extract from Tim Munroe's email sent to other Councillors on 23 Dec 2013. This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. "Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election,May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept.2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding.If it is seen to work, Councillors will be re elected.if not new Councillors will be elected. and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil". Now people of Portland,make up your own mind the thinking behind Mr Munroe's proposal and how and why I have a copy of that email for all to see. good luck councilor Munroe and family. Foursite
  • Score: 10

10:00am Sun 19 Jan 14

smilealoft44 says...

I have today looked at P.T, C, website. As a few of you have said before no up to date records of meetings that have been held.
I looked to see who had been voted on the P,T,C, by election or co opted but the infomation is not clear. (if any one has that info i would like to see it.)
Seems that when you look at whats been going on on P,T,C, it has been left to the local reprecentitives to have a free hand as in this case. The only way to control the local town council is to attend meetings ,keep an eye whats going on and have some input.
I dont know if this rise for the precept can be reversed, but that would seem the way forward.
I would urge all the local people to attend the meeting on the 27TH JANUARY 2014 AT THE ALL SAINTS CHURCH. Show that this rise is not going to be accepted.
If the results from that meeting do not go the way YOU want vote new people in when May Elections are here.
You can only moan if you get involved!
I have today looked at P.T, C, website. As a few of you have said before no up to date records of meetings that have been held. I looked to see who had been voted on the P,T,C, by election or co opted but the infomation is not clear. (if any one has that info i would like to see it.) Seems that when you look at whats been going on on P,T,C, it has been left to the local reprecentitives to have a free hand as in this case. The only way to control the local town council is to attend meetings ,keep an eye whats going on and have some input. I dont know if this rise for the precept can be reversed, but that would seem the way forward. I would urge all the local people to attend the meeting on the 27TH JANUARY 2014 AT THE ALL SAINTS CHURCH. Show that this rise is not going to be accepted. If the results from that meeting do not go the way YOU want vote new people in when May Elections are here. You can only moan if you get involved! smilealoft44
  • Score: 9

10:16am Sun 19 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

The key issue for the councillors is as follows. They seem to assume that having a budget will mean that PTC can afford to pay for things that might otherwise not be of sufficient priority for the Borough and County Council. From what we hear this might include a pedestrian crossing and/or filling potholes. Nice, but not crucial.

So far, so good. But put yourself in the position of Weymouth and Portland BC. You have very limited funds and have to decide which wards you need to help. You notice PTC is sitting on £500k a year. I think you can work out the rest yourself..

Worst case scenario is that we end up worse off than the other wards, even though we are paying more !
The key issue for the councillors is as follows. They seem to assume that having a budget will mean that PTC can afford to pay for things that might otherwise not be of sufficient priority for the Borough and County Council. From what we hear this might include a pedestrian crossing and/or filling potholes. Nice, but not crucial. So far, so good. But put yourself in the position of Weymouth and Portland BC. You have very limited funds and have to decide which wards you need to help. You notice PTC is sitting on £500k a year. I think you can work out the rest yourself.. Worst case scenario is that we end up worse off than the other wards, even though we are paying more ! Rocksalt
  • Score: 10

12:12pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Munroe Says'
"There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects."

Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.
Munroe Says' "There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects." Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber. Foursite
  • Score: 7

12:41pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

Foursite wrote:
Munroe Says'
"There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects."

Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.
Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website.

Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Munroe Says' "There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects." Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.[/p][/quote]Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website. Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc Rocksalt
  • Score: 6

2:36pm Sun 19 Jan 14

cosmick says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Munroe Says'
"There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects."

Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.
Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website.

Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc
This is right we need to go to the meetings keep an eye whats going on. But on the point of records being recorded and placed on the website that should be done within a few days of the meeting.
I would think that the rise MUST BE REVERSED!
VOTE IN MAY ITS YOUR RIGHT.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Munroe Says' "There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects." Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.[/p][/quote]Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website. Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc[/p][/quote]This is right we need to go to the meetings keep an eye whats going on. But on the point of records being recorded and placed on the website that should be done within a few days of the meeting. I would think that the rise MUST BE REVERSED! VOTE IN MAY ITS YOUR RIGHT. cosmick
  • Score: 4

3:51pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Munroe Says
"Communication,a problem PTC has.To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new"..

Carrier pigeon, Snail mail ??
Munroe Says "Communication,a problem PTC has.To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new".. Carrier pigeon, Snail mail ?? Foursite
  • Score: 2

5:04pm Sun 19 Jan 14

portland rebel says...

Hold on a moment, another point that everyone seems to be missing is that as we all know the boro council has neglected portland for years, and many services we pay for we dont receive, and that those that we do are second rate compared to weymouth, same as services provided by dcc, again lesser than our friends over the water, the olympics what did portland get compared to what was spent on weymouth, now our town council that has no power, no employees apart from a clerk, wants £500k to take on services we already pay for that will now have to go through 4 levels of bureaucracy before we receive them.
Hold on a moment, another point that everyone seems to be missing is that as we all know the boro council has neglected portland for years, and many services we pay for we dont receive, and that those that we do are second rate compared to weymouth, same as services provided by dcc, again lesser than our friends over the water, the olympics what did portland get compared to what was spent on weymouth, now our town council that has no power, no employees apart from a clerk, wants £500k to take on services we already pay for that will now have to go through 4 levels of bureaucracy before we receive them. portland rebel
  • Score: 5

6:55am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

drsymes wrote:
On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.
What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at.
You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.
[quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.[/p][/quote]What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at. You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse. t.munro
  • Score: -4

7:22am Mon 20 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation.
I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date.
Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation. I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date. 17th Earl of Fortuneswell
  • Score: 3

7:26am Mon 20 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.
What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at.
You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.
Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend.

Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts.

Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.[/p][/quote]What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at. You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.[/p][/quote]Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend. Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts. Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent. Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

7:30am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Munroe Says'
"There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects."

Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.
Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website.

Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc
Nobody discussed any housing issues, Foresite made that up.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Munroe Says' "There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC,our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community..PTC should be a commissioning council.supporting community aspirations and "pump prime"projects." Is prime project one the empty houses in disrepair within the Verne? As was the prime or first part of the council meeting on 15th Jan when all estate agents on the council were in the chamber.[/p][/quote]Why on earth were they discussing a house within the Verne?! Oh well, I expect there was a good reason. I know, I can take a look at the minutes. Oh, hang on, they aren't on the website. Incidentally, does anyone suspect that when we bemoan the secrecy surrounding the increase in the precept, we will be told it was discussed in public meetings. True enough, and disingenuous in the extreme given most meetings involve items of very little interest or consequence. Still, I suppose we should have kept an eye on the meeting agendas. Oh, hang on etc[/p][/quote]Nobody discussed any housing issues, Foresite made that up. t.munro
  • Score: -2

7:36am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

17th Earl of Fortuneswell wrote:
Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation.
I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date.
At the December meeting all the councillors voted for the precept increase.
No other proposal was put forward.
you are correct about the website it is a disgrace. Minutes are available in paper form.
[quote][p][bold]17th Earl of Fortuneswell[/bold] wrote: Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation. I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date.[/p][/quote]At the December meeting all the councillors voted for the precept increase. No other proposal was put forward. you are correct about the website it is a disgrace. Minutes are available in paper form. t.munro
  • Score: 0

8:06am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Rocksalt wrote:
t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.
What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at.
You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.
Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend.

Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts.

Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent.
The council does publish its minutes, accounts and agendas, they are in paper form from the council. Dates of meetings are published in the Free Portland News.
With regard the venue, you have more information than I. As far as I know there was only one venue and one date,
I agree entirely that the web information is disgraceful. Not an excuse but a reason, the web site has been under reconstruction , we had a maintenance and hosting contract with WPBC which was terminated earlier in the year. PTC has appointed a new web host.
The whole intention of my proposal was the pass decisions about expenditure as near to the tax payer as possible, hence the suggestion that the bulk of council spending be decided by the communities of Portland.
The irony is that Wyke, Littlemoor,Westham and Melcombe Regis are considering becoming parishes in order to raise a precept to invest in their communities. The one thing that has amazed me is the trust all seem to have in WPBC and DCCs ability to provide services too Portland in the future.
They have no money and no interest in Portland
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.[/p][/quote]What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at. You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.[/p][/quote]Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend. Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts. Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent.[/p][/quote]The council does publish its minutes, accounts and agendas, they are in paper form from the council. Dates of meetings are published in the Free Portland News. With regard the venue, you have more information than I. As far as I know there was only one venue and one date, I agree entirely that the web information is disgraceful. Not an excuse but a reason, the web site has been under reconstruction , we had a maintenance and hosting contract with WPBC which was terminated earlier in the year. PTC has appointed a new web host. The whole intention of my proposal was the pass decisions about expenditure as near to the tax payer as possible, hence the suggestion that the bulk of council spending be decided by the communities of Portland. The irony is that Wyke, Littlemoor,Westham and Melcombe Regis are considering becoming parishes in order to raise a precept to invest in their communities. The one thing that has amazed me is the trust all seem to have in WPBC and DCCs ability to provide services too Portland in the future. They have no money and no interest in Portland t.munro
  • Score: -1

8:48am Mon 20 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

t.munro wrote:
17th Earl of Fortuneswell wrote: Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation. I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date.
At the December meeting all the councillors voted for the precept increase. No other proposal was put forward. you are correct about the website it is a disgrace. Minutes are available in paper form.
Thanks for the part reply. I have noticed that in what is currently the top story on this page that 2 of your fellow Cllrs contradict you ( 1 in whole 1 in part). Somebody is being mendacious. Who is it ?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]17th Earl of Fortuneswell[/bold] wrote: Although I obviously cannot speak for Dr Symes perhaps he arrived at the same conclusion I and possibly others did. You have after all admitted to being a blue badge holder and that would logically suggest a disability of some sort. If your disability were to preclude you from attending the meeting on access grounds that would be a shame wouldn't it ? Dr Symes seemingly has your best interests at heart rather than "personal abuse" is my interpretation. I also see you continue to assert that 12 councillors voted it through when some have come forward to say they didn't. Maybe if the minutes were kept up to date on the website we may be able to draw our own conclusions or (as has been suggested) this is a matter of semantics on the yeas part. Confirm/deny if could you be so kind as the 19th Earl may inherit before the PTC website is brought up to date.[/p][/quote]At the December meeting all the councillors voted for the precept increase. No other proposal was put forward. you are correct about the website it is a disgrace. Minutes are available in paper form.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the part reply. I have noticed that in what is currently the top story on this page that 2 of your fellow Cllrs contradict you ( 1 in whole 1 in part). Somebody is being mendacious. Who is it ? 17th Earl of Fortuneswell
  • Score: 3

10:53am Mon 20 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

t.munro wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.
What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at.
You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.
Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend.

Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts.

Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent.
The council does publish its minutes, accounts and agendas, they are in paper form from the council. Dates of meetings are published in the Free Portland News.
With regard the venue, you have more information than I. As far as I know there was only one venue and one date,
I agree entirely that the web information is disgraceful. Not an excuse but a reason, the web site has been under reconstruction , we had a maintenance and hosting contract with WPBC which was terminated earlier in the year. PTC has appointed a new web host.
The whole intention of my proposal was the pass decisions about expenditure as near to the tax payer as possible, hence the suggestion that the bulk of council spending be decided by the communities of Portland.
The irony is that Wyke, Littlemoor,Westham and Melcombe Regis are considering becoming parishes in order to raise a precept to invest in their communities. The one thing that has amazed me is the trust all seem to have in WPBC and DCCs ability to provide services too Portland in the future.
They have no money and no interest in Portland
Thank you very much for your reply.

For what it is worth, I don't dispute that there is merit in considering an increase in the precept. What is at issue is the lack of transparency. Saying there are paper records simply won't wash in this day and age, particularly when the council normally only discusses relatively trivial matters.
I would also dispute your notion that "the bulk of council spending (will) be decided by the communities of Portland. My assumption was that bulk of local authority spending went on education, adult and children's services and the like. If, however, you are correct in your assertion, I do wonder what on earth the Borough and County Council's are spending the rest on.

One final point. if you are so dissatisfied with the way WPBC allocates and administers its spending, why have you waited until 2013 before supporting the increase? This is hardly a new issue. A cynic might wonder if the issue was deliberately delayed until after last year's DCC election results in which more than one of the PTC councillors stood (and lost).
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: On many other forums there have been some discontent at the changing of dates and venues for this meeting. I for one support the changes. There were issues over accessibility. it would be counter productive for the Island if the very councillor (T Munro), who forced through the 1000% increase was unable to attend because of disability issues.[/p][/quote]What has that comment got to do with the decsion 12 councillors arrived at. You do a disservice to yourself in resorting to personal abuse.[/p][/quote]Mr Munro. I think this demonstrates your lack of insight. The original comment is not abusive. If accurate, it simply points out that other suggested venues were unsuitable and whilst people had moaning at proposed change of location, they will moan even more one or more key players are unable to attend. Incidentally, having taken the trouble to contribute to the thread, I am disappointed that you have not commented on the accusations of a complete lack of consultation. Nor have you bothered to explain why the council has not bothered to publish its minutes, agendas or accounts. Quite why you think we should entrust you with our money when you can't maintain a website is something of a mystery. And your individual and/ or collective contempt for transparency thus far undermines completely any claim that residents will influence how the money is spent.[/p][/quote]The council does publish its minutes, accounts and agendas, they are in paper form from the council. Dates of meetings are published in the Free Portland News. With regard the venue, you have more information than I. As far as I know there was only one venue and one date, I agree entirely that the web information is disgraceful. Not an excuse but a reason, the web site has been under reconstruction , we had a maintenance and hosting contract with WPBC which was terminated earlier in the year. PTC has appointed a new web host. The whole intention of my proposal was the pass decisions about expenditure as near to the tax payer as possible, hence the suggestion that the bulk of council spending be decided by the communities of Portland. The irony is that Wyke, Littlemoor,Westham and Melcombe Regis are considering becoming parishes in order to raise a precept to invest in their communities. The one thing that has amazed me is the trust all seem to have in WPBC and DCCs ability to provide services too Portland in the future. They have no money and no interest in Portland[/p][/quote]Thank you very much for your reply. For what it is worth, I don't dispute that there is merit in considering an increase in the precept. What is at issue is the lack of transparency. Saying there are paper records simply won't wash in this day and age, particularly when the council normally only discusses relatively trivial matters. I would also dispute your notion that "the bulk of council spending (will) be decided by the communities of Portland. My assumption was that bulk of local authority spending went on education, adult and children's services and the like. If, however, you are correct in your assertion, I do wonder what on earth the Borough and County Council's are spending the rest on. One final point. if you are so dissatisfied with the way WPBC allocates and administers its spending, why have you waited until 2013 before supporting the increase? This is hardly a new issue. A cynic might wonder if the issue was deliberately delayed until after last year's DCC election results in which more than one of the PTC councillors stood (and lost). Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

11:10am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it.
The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland.
The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never.
Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size.
Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out.
Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council.
That for me was why it was now and that amount
Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it. The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland. The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never. Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size. Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out. Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council. That for me was why it was now and that amount t.munro
  • Score: -1

12:26pm Mon 20 Jan 14

drsymes says...

This is not ‘personal abuse’ or directed predominantly at Cllr Tim Munro, who as proposer for this initiative has already received a high number of remarks and comments across all media platforms in recent times. I am merely trying to raise public awareness and create a layer of information that should according to their own best practice guidance, clearly already exist.

The Dorset for you web site states about minutes;

"Committees have meetings to make decisions on local matters. Each committee has terms of reference which set out responsibilities. The publication of committee info on the web including minutes, council meetings, agendas and reports is part of our commitment to open government".
This is not ‘personal abuse’ or directed predominantly at Cllr Tim Munro, who as proposer for this initiative has already received a high number of remarks and comments across all media platforms in recent times. I am merely trying to raise public awareness and create a layer of information that should according to their own best practice guidance, clearly already exist. The Dorset for you web site states about minutes; "Committees have meetings to make decisions on local matters. Each committee has terms of reference which set out responsibilities. The publication of committee info on the web including minutes, council meetings, agendas and reports is part of our commitment to open government". drsymes
  • Score: 7

7:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Tillydog says...

t.munro wrote:
Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it.
The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland.
The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never.
Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size.
Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out.
Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council.
That for me was why it was now and that amount
Portland has one road on and off, Dorchester our county town, Bridport or Blandford forum all have many roads serving them.It is unrealistic to compare when there is no comparison.You as a council should have been beating your fists on a few desks for years for Portland people.You have let us down big time,and you cant run any longer.You quit simply have been shafting us for years and wish to carry on.I think a referendum would make sense. Dog Bless real Portlanders not pretend ones.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it. The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland. The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never. Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size. Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out. Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council. That for me was why it was now and that amount[/p][/quote]Portland has one road on and off, Dorchester our county town, Bridport or Blandford forum all have many roads serving them.It is unrealistic to compare when there is no comparison.You as a council should have been beating your fists on a few desks for years for Portland people.You have let us down big time,and you cant run any longer.You quit simply have been shafting us for years and wish to carry on.I think a referendum would make sense. Dog Bless real Portlanders not pretend ones. Tillydog
  • Score: 2

10:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Tillydog wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it.
The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland.
The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never.
Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size.
Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out.
Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council.
That for me was why it was now and that amount
Portland has one road on and off, Dorchester our county town, Bridport or Blandford forum all have many roads serving them.It is unrealistic to compare when there is no comparison.You as a council should have been beating your fists on a few desks for years for Portland people.You have let us down big time,and you cant run any longer.You quit simply have been shafting us for years and wish to carry on.I think a referendum would make sense. Dog Bless real Portlanders not pretend ones.
Whatever your dog wants to do. Me a pretend Portlander, best ask my mother about that.
[quote][p][bold]Tillydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: Three reasons prompted my proposal, I have no idea what the motivations where of the councillors that supported it. The ever declining level of services being supplied to Portland. The threat by Eric Pickles to cap parish councils, now or never. Without that threat, one big jump would not have been necessary, it brings Portland in line with Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford towns of similar size. Elections next year, so if it really is the view that WPBC and DCC are trusted to deliver what is needed by Portland communities and Portland residents don't to determine how and where the precept should be spent, vote us out. Those coming in can reduce the precept to nothing, pay a small dividend from the modest reserve PTC holds and disband the council. That for me was why it was now and that amount[/p][/quote]Portland has one road on and off, Dorchester our county town, Bridport or Blandford forum all have many roads serving them.It is unrealistic to compare when there is no comparison.You as a council should have been beating your fists on a few desks for years for Portland people.You have let us down big time,and you cant run any longer.You quit simply have been shafting us for years and wish to carry on.I think a referendum would make sense. Dog Bless real Portlanders not pretend ones.[/p][/quote]Whatever your dog wants to do. Me a pretend Portlander, best ask my mother about that. t.munro
  • Score: 0

8:09am Tue 21 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Munro's proposal Portland people, was seconded by a bloke who had been on the council a few weeks.He is partially sighted
so therefore assumed disabled.He only had to be living on Portland a year to be eligible for council. He fit the criteria,whether he
was a resident @ the Verne or not is not clear. He speaks with a strong northern accent,I don't have a problem with that, but how can
he second such an important proposal? he has not connected with the Portland People Portland people do not know who he is
let alone take part in such a decision.He is a rich man who recently purchased St Peters church at the Grove.Not sure if it was through RedHouse cant remember his name and it cant seen on PTC website.
Munro's proposal Portland people, was seconded by a bloke who had been on the council a few weeks.He is partially sighted so therefore assumed disabled.He only had to be living on Portland a year to be eligible for council. He fit the criteria,whether he was a resident @ the Verne or not is not clear. He speaks with a strong northern accent,I don't have a problem with that, but how can he second such an important proposal? he has not connected with the Portland People Portland people do not know who he is let alone take part in such a decision.He is a rich man who recently purchased St Peters church at the Grove.Not sure if it was through RedHouse cant remember his name and it cant seen on PTC website. Foursite
  • Score: 1

9:44am Tue 21 Jan 14

chisweller says...

Cllr Les Ames Elected
Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted
Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected
Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted
Cllr Rob Hughes Elected
Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted
Cllr Amanda Munro Elected
Cllr Tim Munro Elected
Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted
Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted
Cllr Rod Wild Elected

Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then?
I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.
Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train. chisweller
  • Score: 0

10:21am Tue 21 Jan 14

t.munro says...

chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.
The " other bloke" called an election, nobody stood against him.
He was elected. There have been several opportunities to stand for election or apply for co option, co option happens when no one calls an election to fill a vacancy. Any one on the electoral role could have stood for election or apply for co option.
As for allowances from other councils, those councils publish on the Dorset For You web site. No PTC member is on DCC. PTC members receive nothing
in common with parish councillors throughout the country.
[quote][p][bold]chisweller[/bold] wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.[/p][/quote]The " other bloke" called an election, nobody stood against him. He was elected. There have been several opportunities to stand for election or apply for co option, co option happens when no one calls an election to fill a vacancy. Any one on the electoral role could have stood for election or apply for co option. As for allowances from other councils, those councils publish on the Dorset For You web site. No PTC member is on DCC. PTC members receive nothing in common with parish councillors throughout the country. t.munro
  • Score: 1

10:55am Tue 21 Jan 14

Foursite says...

chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.
Sandra did not vote,She is a Portland girl standing up for the Portland people,she was as disgusted as the rest of us.The co opted members are the ones that stand up for the Portland people apart from ,Denton White who fell for the line that we Portland folk have as many services as Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford.and should pay accordingly The others voted in" principle" not for the amount set.
[quote][p][bold]chisweller[/bold] wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.[/p][/quote]Sandra did not vote,She is a Portland girl standing up for the Portland people,she was as disgusted as the rest of us.The co opted members are the ones that stand up for the Portland people apart from ,Denton White who fell for the line that we Portland folk have as many services as Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford.and should pay accordingly The others voted in" principle" not for the amount set. Foursite
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree