Portobello Community Council

[Franck]

Can I ask for information relating to this group please?Do they have a website, are they voted in and out of office,how long does their term run,are their names common knowledge, and their jobs within the council?

Considering I've lived in Portobello all my life and been totally indifferent to issues affecting the town, I'm beginning to feel I should maybe contribute a wee bit more, and knowing my community council is a good place to start imo.

thanks in advance

[seanie]

No website, though there are some Community Council pages on Portobello Online (not all that up to date). I think names and a contact e-mail are up somewhere in the library, and there was supposed to be a Community Coucnil noticeboard there as well but I don't think it's up yet. The noticeboards outside the Town Hall are owned by the PCC and notice of meetings, minutes etc. used to be posted there but I can't say I've looked in a while. Minutes do get posted on Portobello Online.

The last 'elections' were last year although theydidn't involve any electing. As long as the number of people putting themselves forward is less than the number of spaces there's no need for an election. I believe an election may've been held at some point in the past but I'm not sure anyone can remember when. I can't remember how long the terms last but you can find more information on the City of Edinburgh Council web site under City Living.

[Franck]

Thanks for the reply Seanie, does anyone have contact details for anyone serving on the council?I' like to contact them asking for information on them.

[seanie]

I'm not sure what e-mail addresses work but the follwoing have been posted before for contacting the PCC;

portobellocc@googlemail.com

portycc@me.com

[Maria]

Can I ask for information relating to this group please?Do they have a website

No website I'm afraid, but the minutes are posted up on http://www.porty.org.uk and paper copies of all minutes, correspondence etc. are available in the library. There is also a plasma screen in the library displaying PCC information.

, are they voted in and out of office

As Seanie said, an election for individual members is only held if there are more folk standing than there are places available. Group representatives are voted on by their own group members.The present Community Council was formed last year and there was no election held.

,how long does their term run

3 years

are their names common knowledge

Probably not, though our names do appear at the top of the minutes of our monthly meetings. Those representing groups have them in brackets after their name. I hope this an up-to-date list. Apologies if I've missed anyone!

Tom Ballantine,
Sandra Blake,
Archie Burns,
Celia Butterworth,
Diana Cairns,
Dawson Currie,
Maria Devoy,
Lilian Graham,
David Hamilton,
Matthew Higson (Portobello Police),
Caroline Hosking,
Nelson Johnstone,
Joe Madden (POD)
Lawrence Marshall (Portobello Older People's Project)
Peter McColl,
Brenda Molony (Portobello Reporter),
Margaret Munro (Portobello History Society),
Andrew Patterson (Portobello Council of Churches),
David Scott (Portobello Community Centre)
John Stewart (PAS),
Nick Stroud,
Ros Sutherland (PPAG)
Leon Thompson,
Anne Ward (PCATS)
Sean Watters (Towerbank Parent Council),
William Wilson.

(In addition, Cllrs Child, Bridgman and Hawkins attend every meeting, though they have no voting rights.)

and their jobs within the council?

Chair - John Stewart
Joint Secretaries - Diana Cairns and Nick Stroud
Treasurer - Leon Thompson
PCC representative to the Neighbourhood Partnership- Peter McColl


Meetings are held on the last Monday of the month (except for July and December) in the Baptist Church Hall, at 7.30 pm.

[Franck]

Seanie & Marya, thanks for the responses, all info requested has been provided, many thanks.

[Maria]

Admin: this and the 5 posts below have been split from Scottish Power Site Re-development thread.

Why not ask Phil to step outside for 10 minutes, draw up a list of points raised and ask him back in to answer them?

10 minutes? You've never been to a PCC meeting, have you Franck?

[Puerto bella]

Why not ask Phil to step outside for 10 minutes, draw up a list of points raised and ask him back in to answer them?

10 minutes? You've never been to a PCC meeting, have you Franck?

Why does it take so long - interested to hear from the horse's mouth as it were. Why are you not each given a specific time slot it you want to say something and keep it succinct.

[seanie]

Because there are no defined procedures on how to handle things, or rather we don't don't follow the suggested procedures.

The PCC used to operate under a very consensual approach; things would be discussed and if there wasn't general agreement no particular position would be taken. A response might still be given but it would be fairly general and non-contentious.

That is one way to operate, that has some merit, but is not the only option.

The other way is to recognise when there is a lack of consensus and fairly reflect that. And votes to decide a postion are legitimate. But no vote can over-ride the duty of the Community Council to represent the broad range of opinion within the community. So if you go down that route a whole host of questions arise.

When the approach was strictly consensual, the issue of who wrote the letters and circulating it for comment didn't arise. Everyone could be fairly confident that, even if the letter didn't relfect their views, there would be nothing too objectionable.

But now we're trying to write letters expressing the view of the PCC, without deciding what the view sof the PCC are, and with the people drafting them fundamentally at odds. Ideally you'd want a neutral observer summarising points and writing them down as responses, but the PCC aren't likely to agree who's neutral on any particular issue.

We've fundamentally shifted how the PCC approaches issues in general, without recognising that changes how we deal with things in detail.

[Puerto bella]

It is but in my experience a significant number of non CC Porty people that I have spoken to are deterred from becoming more involved or attending the meetings because they do ramble on to a point where they become tedious. A timeframe for discussions would at least give a bit of structure.

In addition every time I have been at meetings the people who are quite vociferous on here don't say a peep at the CC meetings - what's that all about? Bizarre when they seem to have so much to say.

[Puerto bella]

I was answering Marya's point in my last post but it appears to have vanished.

[Maria]

I was answering Marya's point in my last post but it appears to have vanished.

Sorry, I posted (basically said that listening, supporting and questioning others was as important as stating a point of view) then realised Seanie had put quite a full answer up already so deleted my post as I didn't really want to go further off topic.

Perhaps we could take discussions about the way the meetings run and who does or doesn't contribute over to one* of the several threads on the Community Council?

*edit - And we're here! Thanks Wangi.

[Porty]

Because there are no defined procedures on how to handle things, or rather we don't don't follow the suggested procedures.

The PCC used to operate under a very consensual approach; things would be discussed and if there wasn't general agreement no particular position would be taken. A response might still be given but it would be fairly general and non-contentious.

.

When I joined the PCC I failed to appreciate the consensual approach, which was administered well by the then Chair. The main reason I failed to appreciate the approach, indeed I railed against it, was I failed to read
" Guidance Notes for Community Councils", which clearly explain what my duties and responsibilities were.

I didn't know they existed and noone took time to point "newbies" in the right direction. I'm not even sure if senior players on the PCC at that time were fully conversant with the Guidance Notes. For example: the then Chair, who did a pretty good job overall, had not heard of PAN 47, which is pretty pivotal in terms of the planning issues a PCC should and should not be getting involved with.

And this is the root of the problem today. Seanie has identified the letter writing as a source of contention. I presume he means that regardless of what is said or not said at meetings, whomever writes the letters puts forwrad their own views and not much more. The Guidance Notes predict that such behaviour will result in a CC quickly losing credibility with the community it is supposed to serve. I'd say that the PCC's existence is not particularly well known in our community. For those of us that are familiar, their representation on the Bellfield Lane and other issues, indicate that the prediction is correct.

Does anyone disagree?

[seanie]

In addition every time I have been at meetings the people who are quite vociferous on here don't say a peep at the CC meetings - what's that all about? Bizarre when they seem to have so much to say.

Really? Well you have to appreciate the very different nature of the two 'forums' so to speak.

On Talk Porty, most of the time at least, people will be expressing their own opinions. But a Community Councilor, at a Community Council meeting, should be putting their owns opinions second. They are explicitly told to do just that in the Code of Conduct for Community Councilors.

So, if they're doing what there supposed to, there may be times when they bite their tounge over there own opinions, and may even put forward views that they don't personally agree with.

[wangi]

I appreciate that those who participate on this forum are not necessarily representative of the community; much like you do not get a representative sample turning up at CC meetings. And also true that if you talk to 10 people of the High St then you've got built in systematic bias.

Anyway...

Perhaps a good way to get a representative sample of local opinion is through a random poll? A simple program could be devised to output 10 random addresses (+5 backups). Knock on the doors, get the household opinion on the matter...

If this of interest I'd be happy to assist.

L

[Porty]

A pertinent development re PCC.

I emailed several PCC members today, having lifted their emails from a list that may have been circulated in err. I've had a few responses and at least two appear to be miffed (or worse) that their private Emails are public knowledge. I find this very strange.

When one becomes a Community Councillor one has to complete a form that includes ones name and address and some other details, these "private" details then become public knowledge. So, if, as a member of the public, I decide I want to write to each CC member in my area. All I need do is request the list from either the Chair, Secretary or the City Council.

In what way is writing to someone's private Email address different to writing to someone's private home?

I can't imagine Community Councillors have two homes, a private and a public one do they?

In any case, I know that several people have volunteered to set up specific Email addresses for each CC member. Did they ever take you up on that Bob or Wangi?

(

[seanie]

I have to make a confession of sorts.

I don't know what exactly has happened but as I understand the Community Council, as individuals, have started to receive e-mails from members of the public regarding the BL proposals.

As I understand it the only PCC member not to receive such e-mails is me.

That suggests that the e-mail list being used has been taken from an e-mail sent by me to the PCC but copied to a third party or vice-versa. So in that respect I might well be the person ultimately responsible for PCC members e-mail addresses being disseminated, even though the PCC distribution list is supposed to be confidential.

But I'd never quite realised that it was quite so confidential. Wearing various different hats I must've sent, forwarded or copied, all sorts of e-mails to various people that include the e-mails of others, including the PCC. I even did so earlier today by copying in a Council Official to an e-mail to PCC members, thereby revealing their e-mail addresses.

If I am the ultimate cause of such distress and upset I can only apologise and promise to be more dilligent in future about revealing such personal data.

[Porty]

That's two mistakes in two days Seanie. Are you happy being a lowly Community Councillor, you could be officer material


There are 43 Community Councils in Edinburgh. I chose one at random and here's their website http://www.morningside.org.uk/who

A place for Porty to get to. It is quite easy to see who wants Email contact and who doesn't.

Why would someone who is prepared to put themselves forward for public office and who has Email not want to be contacted by their public?

[wangi]

I fail to grasp what the problem is. Isn't it good for community councillors to get representation from the people they are meant to represent?

Not sure I buy your rational seanie - if you were the root cause as it were then you'd be getting the emails too (as the sender). More likely somebody looking at planning related documents on citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk and/or cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk; whatever source Porty is referring to; mis-sent emails (Cc rather than Bcc) from Councillors & M(S)Ps...

[Makaveli]

As Wangi says as a member of a Community Council you must surely be contactable by the community that you serve?

Not everyone can come along to the PCC meetings so have no other way of communicating with their community council.

[Franck]

Oh dear, looks like I've started a stooshie

I've been in touch with the pcc asking them to make my opinions known at the next meeting.One person asked who 'furnished' me with their email address, and I declined to supply the name of the accused.I explained the person ( who I dont actually know) would prefer to keep anonymous.

I also suggested that pcc members emails should be readily available, as a suggestion I put forward the library as a source.

And to be totally transparent, I used my email albertkidd@###, not my real name, and one which might raise the hackles of any pcc or talkporty jambos, which is why I've never used that name here...I did register the name a couple of days ago incase pcc members felt there should be consistency.I also gave my home address as requested.

Anyway, as I said on the email, I have no set agenda against the pcc or for any clique that may or may not be prevelent on talkporty, I'd jsut like my local reps to represent my pov.

Apologies if I've caused anyone undue hastle.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Why would someone who is prepared to put themselves forward for public office and who has Email not want to be contacted by their public?

Obvious, someone who wants to canvas you when they want your support and ignore you when you wish to offer an opinion.

[Puerto bella]

Somebody had better call back the Mediators then....

Sounds like a real mess.

[seanie]

Not sure I buy your rational seanie - if you were the root cause as it were then you'd be getting the emails too (as the sender). More likely somebody looking at planning related documents on citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk and/or cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk; whatever source Porty is referring to; mis-sent emails (Cc rather than Bcc) from Councillors & M(S)Ps...

It sounds to me as if someone has copy and pasted the addresses from an e-mail, but they've only copied the cc: or to: and missed me because I'm the sender.

Either they didn't realise I was on the PCC or they overlooked me.

[Porty]

Why would someone who is prepared to put themselves forward for public office and who has Email not want to be contacted by their public?

Obvious, someone who wants to canvas you when they want your support and ignore you when you wish to offer an opinion.

Yeah I guess it is obvious and lends support to the theory that the reason you can only contact Portobello's Community Councillors via a central Email address, is so that Emails can be filtered. If you Email the secretary and he/she like what you say then your Email MAY be circulated. Email representations from the Public can be filtered to produce a distorted picture. Yet again; the lack of transparency allows opportunity for abuse.

I mean, if the people writing the representations are prepared to leave out views that are stated at meetings, they are capabale of any sort of manipulation.

[Porty]

Either they didn't realise I was on the PCC or they overlooked me.

I overlooked you. Initially I wrote to the "group" Email addresses.Then after I was contacted by several CC members to say that my views had not been forwarded to them; I then wrote to PCC members personally and individually.

My Email may not have been passed on to other Councillors simply because the Secretary was too busy to do so, or didn't have time. Which is why i question the need for a "filter" between us (the Community) and them (Community Councillors)? If the filter breaks down the views don't get aired.

There are lots of good people give their time to Portobello community Council but there's some at the core who appear to believe it is an "us" and "them" situation.

[seashell]

Looking at the posts on here there seem to be two problems:
the ordinary people do not appear to be able to contact the PCC. SOme members of the PCC are annoyed when contacted in their official capacity by email. If they are not willing to be contacted, perhaps they should reconsider their membership, as this seem to indicate they do not wish to hear the views of the people they purposrt to represent.
the PCC would appear to wilfully ignore the views of the people of Portobello, with some members putting forward their own views on issues such as the planning application - even when these views directly contradict those of the majority of people who posted in support of the same application on the council website. Some members appear to use the PCC to suppport their own agenda, rather than the views of the community.
The PCC, in these aspects, would not appear to be fit for purpose and some members to be discredited by their actions.

[Franck]

From my understanding, some members felt I was misleading them using an email address that bore no relation to my name and were therefore suspicious of my motives, an understandable accusation, recently there was the case of the good guy on here that raised a few eye brows.But I've clarified that situation and provided my name and EH15 address and suggested I'm on the electoral role for double checking.

Another member of PCC felt I had been given the e-mails illegally and insisted to be told who had provided them, for what end I'm not sure, possibly to attempt legal action?I'm not convinced any laws have been broken, anyone know?

One PCC'er has suggested I have a duty to tell them who that person is. Then maybe they would be more disposed to represent my views.I responded that it sounded like blackmail and did not sit comfortably with at all.

Maybe the pcc is representative of the porty I know, some polite people who know how to ask for things, some lunatics that bark at the moon and some that just walk past you in the street.

[Bob Jefferson]

Members of the CC should be actively seeking out the views of those they purport to represent, particularly when it comes to big, controversial issues like the BL development. They should be pleased that someone in the community has taken the time to write to them to express their view on a local matter that is of concern to them. What does it matter how they got their email address? If people want to lobby the CEC Planning Committee on a particular issue they very often send emails to each of the members. Why should it be any different for the Community Council?

And if it's such a big deal, all the CC has to do is to set up one email address that is automatically forwarded to all CC members without revealing individual email addresses. It would take a matter of minutes. If they wanted, they could set one up specifically for comments relating to the Scottish Power site development. That way, we could be confident that all members had the opportunity to read our comments and we might be more likely to have our views accurately represented.

[Maria]

I was a bit surprised to receive direct email from a couple of folk on here, but I'd only be really miffed if they were in some way abusive and they were very polite.

I can understand , however, that some people might feel that their privacy had been somehow invaded. I mean, if you want to contact your local CEC councillor you use their work email address, not their personal one, so I don't think we should assume that it is somehow dodging one's civic duty by wanting a bit of privacy.

[wangi]

Best course of action in that case would be to have "work" (or rather dedicated) emails setup for the community councillors. Trivial easy to do on Google or what ever; and I'd also offer to host email accounts here, as would Portobello Online I'm sure.

L/

[Makaveli]

Most of the e-mail address's are freely available on the internet so I do not see how there could be cause for legal action!!!

As someone said earlier they have to give these e-mail address's as part and parcel of being on the committee - if this was going to be an issue for any of the committee then why did they not set up a separate e-mail address different to their personal one so as to keep a certain degree of privacy.

[Bob Jefferson]

Most of the e-mail address's are freely available on the internet so I do not see how there could be cause for legal action!!!

Most of the people on the CC are involved in a number of local groups so there are distribution lists flying around everywhere. Not everyone uses the 'bcc' option and sometimes people just genuinely forget. I can understand why members might not want unsolicited phone calls but email addresses are pretty much public property.

I think it's important for people to know that both talkporty and Portobello Online have offered their services to the community council on a number of occasions over the years in efforts to improve their means of communication with the community and between themselves. To date, none of these offers have been taken up. They remain open.

[seanie]

Can I suggest a way forward?

Anyone not on the PCC who has a list, or received an e-mail, containing the e-mail addresses of PCC members could you please delete it. If you've stored the addresses in your contact lists could you delete them also. That may we might avoid a repeat.

Regardless of whether people should be contactable the list was not put together for wider distribution, and some people are extremely unhappy to have been contacted via e-mail.

In return, I promise, that I will arrange some sort of web page or site, somewhere, that has up to date contact details for the office bearers as well as those Community Councillors who are willing to be contacted by e-mail. I'm sure a number will be OK with that including myself.

[Bob Jefferson]

What about the ones who don't want to be identified or contacted in any way? Wouldn't they be better going the whole hog and wearing some sort of disguise? White cloaks with pointy hats perhaps?