Co-option stained by party manilpulation

PUBLISHED: 11:18 07 May 2009 | UPDATED: 16:02 11 May 2010

YOUR Crow Comment column last week suggests that a secret ballot over the election of a co-opted member to Royston Town Council seemed undesirable. Quite the opposite is the case. It wasn t the case of councillors having anything to hide, but a way of t

YOUR Crow Comment column last week suggests that a secret ballot over the election of a co-opted member to Royston Town Council seemed undesirable.

Quite the opposite is the case.

It wasn't the case of councillors having anything to hide, but a way of teasing out votes from members to support their choice of candidate rather than simply toe the party line.

The secret ballot gave members of the virtually one-party state we know as the town council to put the community above politics.

As the result shows this was not the case and once again we have a decision which has been stained by party manipulation.

The procedure for voting needs to be questioned, too. The rules outlined to the candidates were actually changed on the evening in a move seemingly designed to prevent any other candidate standing against the one chosen by the Conservatives.

At least some councillors did stand up and be counted in an attempt to keep the integrity of the town council.

The town council needs to adopt a policy to be enshrined in its standing orders over the co-opting of members so that everyone involved is aware of the procedure.

LES BAKER

Kneesworth Street

Royston

Most Read

Latest from the Royston Crow

Hot Jobs

Show Job Lists