My experiences with Dudley Council and the closure of Brierley Hill and Coseley Baths also reflect this 'back handed' 'law cost infected' 'cheating' and 'double crossing' on behalf of the M.P's, and the council reps.
If there's this level of foul play in swimming pool politics imagine what it must be like with the rest of what they get up too!
--Steve fly
Council accused of gagging members
LEGAL officials at Stoke-on-Trent City Council have been accused
of gagging politicians – after they banned a public question on the
Dimensions fiasco.
Independent councillor Lee Wanger formally submitted a question on the long-running pool closure controversy ahead of Thursday's full council meeting.
But council officer Paul Hackney told him the question had been refused because it contravened the authority's constitution.
The row comes months after WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry was paid £21,850 by the council after he threatened legal action over the issue. The council spent a further £22,500 on its own legal bills.
Mr Chaudry has claimed the authority broke a secret deal to shut the Burslem splash pool and pay him £100,000-per-year to offer discounted swimming at WaterWorld.
Mr Wanger had hoped to draw a line under the controversy by persuading somebody within the council to admit a mistake was made, only for his question to be refused.
He said: "I wanted to ask a simple yes or no question to Mark Meredith, who was the elected mayor at the time, on whether he made the offer to Mo Chaudry.
"But Mr Hackney told me it might prejudice the arbitration.
"The deal has never added up. You don't close down a business to save £60,000 and offer a competitor £100,000 to give a discount. If somebody would finally put their hands up and admit to a mistake it could all be resolved but nobody has been willing to do that."
The latest row comes months after Mr Hackney warned councillors against discussing a motion on the aborted Dimensions closure at a full council meeting in October.
He told members the council must keep all further details confidential to avoid breaching the legal agreement with Mr Chaudry.
But fellow independent councillor Dave Conway, leader of the opposition, accused the council of acting like the "Gestapo".
He said: "This shows a complete lack of openness and transparency.
"The council has taken away an elected member's right to ask questions in a democratic chamber."
Mr Hackney today defended his decision to refuse to accept the question.
The assistant director of legal services said: "A question was asked by a councillor which was in breach of the rules councillors must follow when asking a question.
"Questions can only be asked of the council leader, relevant portfolio holder or committee chairman.
"In this case the question was directed to a separate individual and the reason for not allowing the question was given to the councillor.
"To allow the question to go forward would also go against the clear statement on the council's legal position made at the October meeting regarding a confidential mediation settlement and the consequences of any breach of confidentiality."
Independent councillor Lee Wanger formally submitted a question on the long-running pool closure controversy ahead of Thursday's full council meeting.
-
Question: Independent councillor Lee Wanger
The row comes months after WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry was paid £21,850 by the council after he threatened legal action over the issue. The council spent a further £22,500 on its own legal bills.
Mr Chaudry has claimed the authority broke a secret deal to shut the Burslem splash pool and pay him £100,000-per-year to offer discounted swimming at WaterWorld.
Mr Wanger had hoped to draw a line under the controversy by persuading somebody within the council to admit a mistake was made, only for his question to be refused.
He said: "I wanted to ask a simple yes or no question to Mark Meredith, who was the elected mayor at the time, on whether he made the offer to Mo Chaudry.
"But Mr Hackney told me it might prejudice the arbitration.
"The deal has never added up. You don't close down a business to save £60,000 and offer a competitor £100,000 to give a discount. If somebody would finally put their hands up and admit to a mistake it could all be resolved but nobody has been willing to do that."
The latest row comes months after Mr Hackney warned councillors against discussing a motion on the aborted Dimensions closure at a full council meeting in October.
He told members the council must keep all further details confidential to avoid breaching the legal agreement with Mr Chaudry.
But fellow independent councillor Dave Conway, leader of the opposition, accused the council of acting like the "Gestapo".
He said: "This shows a complete lack of openness and transparency.
"The council has taken away an elected member's right to ask questions in a democratic chamber."
Mr Hackney today defended his decision to refuse to accept the question.
The assistant director of legal services said: "A question was asked by a councillor which was in breach of the rules councillors must follow when asking a question.
"Questions can only be asked of the council leader, relevant portfolio holder or committee chairman.
"In this case the question was directed to a separate individual and the reason for not allowing the question was given to the councillor.
"To allow the question to go forward would also go against the clear statement on the council's legal position made at the October meeting regarding a confidential mediation settlement and the consequences of any breach of confidentiality."
