Portobello Group Membership

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Jun 2010, 19:33

The point of this thread is to identify who is behind the various groups in Portobello. Who is acting on our behalf? And whose views do they represent?

Perhaps we should start with the Community Council? Then we might take a look at groups like PAS, POD, PEDAL, PMAG, PONGS, PCATS, PPAG, BTOTB and maybe even Portobello Online?

Perhaps there could be a prize for the person wearing the most hats? I don't think it would be appropriate to name rank and file members, but certainly post holders should be identifiable and accountable, if they purport to be acting in the best interests of the community.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 17 Jun 2010, 21:03

What about PFANS?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Jun 2010, 21:30

Sure, but I don't think you'll find much crossover from there. They're pretty much a single-issue group.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 18 Jun 2010, 09:44

These groups you listed are single issue groups too Bob. However the points your raised about identification of post holders should not be too difficult. Don't PCC guidelines state something like, "To have group representation, the group must have a constitution, an elected chair etc etc?" Perhaps someone more in the know could enlighten us?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Jun 2010, 10:35

The secretary of PCC should have that information to hand.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Jun 2010, 10:44

Pal of Porty wrote:These groups you listed are single issue groups too Bob. However the points your raised about identification of post holders should not be too difficult. Don't PCC guidelines state something like, "To have group representation, the group must have a constitution, an elected chair etc etc?" Perhaps someone more in the know could enlighten us?

Not all the groups in Bob's post are on the PCC (for example, BTOTB and POD), but you are quite correct PoP - to have a group rep on the community council, you must have a constitution.

To be honest, I don't see the point in creating some sort of huge Venn diagram in order to identify individuals who are in various groups. Not so long ago Bob would have been in a fair number of them himself. Aren't all of these groups open to anyone who is interested in them and those in office bearing roles elected by the rest of the group? Are people who are in several groups power crazed, manipulative people or just decent, community minded individuals? You can view it in different ways according to your own agenda.

I'm in 4 of them (PONGS, PCC , PFANS and Portobello Online) and, honestly, don't harbour despotic tendancies.

I'd be more interested in suggestions as to how the PCC (who are not a single issue group and who ought to reflect the views of the whole community) can best canvas the view of the community on particular issues. For example, at the moment, I don't believe we have the views of young people or ethnic minorities adequately represented on the PCC .

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 18 Jun 2010, 11:56

Surely though if people are THAT concerned about what's going on in the Community they would/should take the time to join say, PCC, or any of the rest of them. Those members of the community who are not in those groups probably don't care one way or the other what goes on.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Jun 2010, 12:25

That's one helluvan assumption.

If you're not in a group you don't care?

Really?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 18 Jun 2010, 16:28

seanie wrote:That's one helluvan assumption.

If you're not in a group you don't care?

Really?

Well, there are lots of assumptions made on this forum, what's one more?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Jun 2010, 18:02

But do you really believe that if people aren't in a group they don't care?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Jun 2010, 18:20

Marya wrote:To be honest, I don't see the point in creating some sort of huge Venn diagram in order to identify individuals who are in various groups.

I think the point of the exercise was to see whether a very small number of people have, as some feel, undue influence in Portobello affairs. So a Venn diagram would be just the thing.

But I think we need to draw a distinction between mere supporters of groups (as Marya and I are of PFANS, for example) and those who are pulling the strings.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 18 Jun 2010, 18:46

I think there are so many factors why people don't engage in community affairs. There are lots of people who think about it but never quite change that to doing it.

Some people just don't have time with family and work commitments. Its very easy for people to make rash assumptions as to why folk don't get involved but that might be another survey for you Bob?

I think its a divisive, unhealthy and a bit strange to try and single out the people who do get involved in lots of things and obviously care and give so much of their time to community causes as somehow having another agenda. Instead of that maybe we should think about thanking them for all of their personal time they have given over the years. Without them would Portobello be the place it is?

Why do some of this forum have it in for others anyhow; would somebody mind telling me what that's all about?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 18 Jun 2010, 21:15

I dont think its about having it in for anybody. I am not for some kind of a witch hunt, what it really is about is representation. If you are not on a group and don't wish to join a group, is your opinion less valid than the rest? I think not. If you are active on all, or most of the groups you have a pretty big say.

A lot of people go along to these things, see what happens and walk away because they feel ignored or bored or whatever. Many have other commitments and cannot attend meetings of groups and sub groups.

Here is another less personal question. If the opinions of all are valid and a consultation has taken place within the community, does a Community Council need to formulate an opinion on the said issue, especially if they disagree with the consultation.

If a CC, or any other group, disagree strongly with a local issue, where the community is partially in favour of another option, or the opinion of the community is divided , have the CC (or group) represented the community.

Recently a TESCO Metro was raised as a possibilty, the PCC dead against, the "Porty Shoppers", many of them for. That's the problem with not having the resources to canvas the community.

Feel free to disagree.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 19 Jun 2010, 09:25

It depends how you canvas opinion as well - in the Tesco example above it would be interesting to know how wide you cast your net before you came to your conclusion?

Maybe part of the issue is down to assumptions eg if we speak to 20 people in our network - do we assume that the view of that group is representative of the community. It depends how diverse your network is in terms of ages, ethnicity, socio-economic status, political views, etc etc etc and how you seek to get a cross section without talking to everybody.

Does the community council represent a cross section of our community? Not knowing all the people on it, I don't know and can't answer this. Maybe the ideas about making the CC more identifiable will help answer this.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 19 Jun 2010, 11:21

The PCC doesn't really represent a cross section but then it doesn't really need to as long as everyone keeps in mind it's function; to represent the opinions of the community at large.

As long as everyone on the PCC remembers that their individual views are entirely secondary, it can function reasonably well.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 19 Jun 2010, 12:10

I would be interested to know how the CC canvases the opinion of the community at large that its members represent?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Jun 2010, 12:16

Its a tough ask to keep personal opinions secondary especially as many are brought to the PCC by issues which they feel strongly about. Thats OK when all or most agree i.e. PONGS. When that is not the case the worry is that it gets a bit partisan.

What they should not do is come to a decison on behalf of the community when opinion is divided within the community.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Jun 2010, 12:28

Puerto bella wrote:It depends how you canvas opinion as well - in the Tesco example above it would be interesting to know how wide you cast your net before you came to your conclusion.

Nothing scientific, personal acquaintances.

Family, friends, the young mummy croud and mature Portobello worthies.

Generally it came out, local businesses against, PCC against, many of the above for. Those for wanted a brighter cheaper shop where the tins were not covered in dust.

FYI I am in the against camp. Reasons, reduced diversity and TESCO corporate culture. Will not go further on last point.

ps, first time used quotes hope it worked.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Jun 2010, 12:37

Puerto bella wrote:Does the community council represent a cross section of our community? Not knowing all the people on it, I don't know and can't answer this. Maybe the ideas about making the CC more identifiable will help answer this.

Got the hang of the technology now.

The PCC should represent all. Looking at it, it does not represent a cross section.

I know they were talking about putting pictures and names of members up. Not sure how far that has gone. The older generation are well represented. Eco matters strong. Planning issues and local history preservation strong. Arty crew quite strong. Young people none existent with a few talking up issues for them.

If pictures of PCCdon't go up in Library, just envisage the Meldrew family and you won't go to far wrong. No prospects for a calendar.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Jun 2010, 15:07

Puerto bella wrote:I would be interested to know how the CC canvases the opinion of the community at large that its members represent?

There's nothing to know.

Not only does the current PCC not canvas community opinion it actually ignores representations made by its own members when those representations don't agree with those of Diana Cairns and John Stewart. (sue me if you wish)

Here's how it works: As statutory consultees; PCC are invited to comment on every major planning issue in the area. The views of community council's do carry some weight, are they currency?. I doubt it.

Nowadays, when it comes to making their representations, a letter is written by Diana "whats the point of being a secretary if you are not allowed to write letters" Cairns. She confuses typing with composition. The letter is written purely from her personal perspective, check out the PCC letters and her own views recorded online in various consultations. The letter is then circulated to fellow committee members who are invited to donate their views. Often the letter is not circulated until the day before the PCC's response is due. Most councillors don't bother giving their input, some don't even see the letter until it is too late. ( as an aside these letters are never added to the minutes so that the community can see what has been said on its behalf- why not?) And as I've said previously, when a councillor makes a representation that doesn't agree with her view it rarely, if ever, makes it to the final version of the letter.

I would be very confident in defending the above, if i ever had the need to do so.

Think about this: When the PCC respond to a consultation on the school, they are suppposed to refelct the wide range of views amongst the community. Who do they get to write the letters? Probably the most dogged anti-school activist in the community- doesn't seem right or sensible does it? At best It is poor judgment by the Chair, at worst he condones it because he shares her views.

I will be happy to retract some of the above if an alternative author fesses up to writing the letter complaning about the pre-planning consultation)

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Jun 2010, 15:50

Trying to avoid controversy, but there is a strong case for what you have said. Impartiality is often elusive and difficult to achieve and it takes a very special type of person to lead such a group from a neutral perspective.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Jun 2010, 16:34

I thought Robert Gatliff did a pretty decent job in that respect, under a lot of pressure. Nick Stroud does his best too, but I noticed that a recent set of minutes I put up was the fifth draft. What does that tell you about what is going on behind the scenes?

Essentially, the CC is an unelected group of middle-aged, middle class local people, dominated by a much smaller group whose views on all matters prevail, largely unchallenged, and who appear take little account of their own members' views, let alone those of the community they purport to represent.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Jun 2010, 17:16

Porty wrote:as an aside these letters are never added to the minutes so that the community can see what has been said on its behalf- why not

I agree that they should be. And I don't think it's good enough that a copy is in a dusty file on a forgotten shelf of the library (if indeed it is). All correspondence written on behalf of the community should be available for all to view, and for posterity, online. And where better than the local community website? All they have to do is email us a copy and we are happy to do the rest.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Jun 2010, 17:44

It should be easy to prove me wrong. All John Stewart has to demonstrate is:

If ir wasn't DC who did wrote/composed the draft letter complaining about the pre-planning consultation for the school, who was it?

Show us the feedback from the community councillors who did opine and demonstrate how that feedback was incorporated into the final letter? Along with an explanation of why any views were omitted?

Show us an audit trail of the distribution of the draft letter, telling us how long the rest of the community council members were given to respond?

i'ts not up to me to prove there' is unscrupulous people in control of PCC. They should be able to demonstrate their fairness and how they fulfill their obligations to represent the diversie views in our community.- it is the very least we can expect from them . No, more than that. it is our entitlement.

Note: my use of the word unscrupulous is not meant to imply dishonesty. More that the powers at be in the PCC have either not read the guidelines for CC and the conduct of councillors or they choose to ignore those guidelines to fulfill their personal objectives or they don't understand the guidelines,. Whatever option applies its a travesty for our community.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Jun 2010, 17:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:I thought Robert Gatliff did a pretty decent job in that respect, under a lot of pressure. Nick Stroud does his best too, but I noticed that a recent set of minutes I put up was the fifth draft. What does that tell you about what is going on behind the scenes?
t.

I had a number of clashes with Robert, I thought he wasn't doing a good job. In hindsight, i can't think of many other instances where I've been so wrong. He is/was a fair person and led the PCC exactly how it should be led I regret the way I behaved some of the time served as a CC..

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 20 Jun 2010, 12:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:I thought Robert Gatliff did a pretty decent job in that respect, under a lot of pressure. Nick Stroud does his best too, but I noticed that a recent set of minutes I put up was the fifth draft. What does that tell you about what is going on behind the scenes?

Essentially, the CC is an unelected group of middle-aged, middle class local people, dominated by a much smaller group whose views on all matters prevail, largely unchallenged, and who appear take little account of their own members' views, let alone those of the community they purport to represent.

I thought Robert Gatliff did a good job under what is now proven to be difficult circumstances. He at least tried to allow all to represent the communities views. Not representing one view as the communities.

As for the CC in general, the composition of the group cannot be denied. When certain points are not fully agreed with, I don't think the full info discussed is always communicated to the powers that be.

I think this may be changing soon......!

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 20 Jun 2010, 13:09

Porty wrote:It should be easy to prove me wrong. All John Stewart has to demonstrate is:

If ir wasn't DC who did wrote/composed the draft letter complaining about the pre-planning consultation for the school, who was it?

Show us the feedback from the community councillors who did opine and demonstrate how that feedback was incorporated into the final letter? Along with an explanation of why any views were omitted.

Porty, have you noticed how the composition of the letter is very close to the urgent update posted by PPAG. I am sure the CoEC has.

As for objecting to the draft of any letters it seems that objections, to maintain an air of democracy, have to be made at the meeting.

Perhaps in future all letters should be drafted and approved at full open meetings? I think they will have to be very careful in future as it is not only about what is said at meetings. It is also about the interpretation of what is said and about representing the views of the whole community.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jun 2010, 13:40

Bob Jefferson wrote:I thought Robert Gatliff did a pretty decent job in that respect, under a lot of pressure. Nick Stroud does his best too, but I noticed that a recent set of minutes I put up was the fifth draft. What does that tell you about what is going on behind the scenes?

5 Drafts of PCC minutes?

Bob. I wonder if you recall the meeting where I asked for the minutes to accurately reflect a request by a fellow councillor that PCATS was never to be discussed again by PCC. My request wes resisted and a fellow member of the CC (think it may have been a Margaret) informed the meeting that the minutes are not supposed to be a verbatim account of who said what, more a loose record of what transpired.

Then at the next meeting the very same lady asked for the minutes to be rewritten as something she'd said wasn't properly recorded!!!

it sounds like things have deteriorated since. Why do you think all these drafts are happening, it must be a PITA for Nick Stroud, who does a pretty good job.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jun 2010, 17:39

allaboardtheskylark wrote:
Porty, have you noticed how the composition of the letter is very close to the urgent update posted by PPAG. I am sure the CoEC has.

I haven't looked but I'm sure you are correct and it doesnt even reach 1 on my personal surpriseometer.

[quote="="Community Council Guidance Notes"]
As a member of your Community Council it is important you recognise your role from the outset. This means not simply offering your own views and opinions on local issues or taking decisions in your own self interest.

The role of the Community Councillor is one that requires you to represent the views of your community, or your section of the community. In practice this will involve discussing issues with people in the community to clarify their views and assess the the strength of feeling on different topics.
[/quote]

Using the new school as an example of a topic where there is diversity of feelings amongst the community, not to mention the sensitiviity of the issue. As Chair of the Community Council you would be extra careful to ensure that all feelings are represented. Robert Gatliff was meticulous about it. There's about 30 people who serve on the Council and I guess it makes sense for one person to write a draft letter.

Was it wise to choose/let the lady who:

On Feb 18th 2008 had a letter published in the Evening News that stated in response to the Council's desire to invest £41.5M in our new school:

""The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss".

A lady that may or may not be the author but certainly condones the following false statement fom PPAG , a group with a rep on the CC:

"We do not claim to represent the whole of the community but we do represent a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY"

The lady that sat in the council chamber and read out a statement claiming building a new school in the park would increase crime, along with increased drug and alchohol abuse amongst young people.

Call me Mr Silly but if one is really interested in broad representation, why would you opt for someone with such perverse and polarised views to compose your community's response to such an important, sensitised consultation?

It is far from sensible and is almost guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite of the intended role of a Community Council.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 21 Jun 2010, 21:05

They are not that stupid in the City Chambers. If they receive a response for and on behalf of the Community which does not reflect the views represented at the consultation, they will know the PCC is not representing the full range of views within the community.

This is where the request for public meetings was a major tactical error on behalf of PPAG which blew up in their faces.

At the end of the public meeting we had three mini speeches, one from a Head Teacher, one from the Chair of the PHS Parent Council and one from the PCC.

The first two are obviously for, no surprise, but they have in the past stated they did not wish to be part of any controversary and regret having to use Portobello Park (in their opinion). The last should represent a range of views, but no! Yes a new school ta very much, but, but, but.

Has there been no comments at the PCC complaining about the state of the school? Have there been letters written by the PCC to the CoEC about the state of the school asking for this issue to finally be resolved?

When they visited the school was there a sense of indignation about the state of the building 1,400 school pupils were being educated in, the school that carries the name Portobello foir goodness sake?

No, not really. Why?

Draw your own conclusions.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:33

allaboardtheskylark wrote:They are not that stupid in the City Chambers. If they receive a response for and on behalf of the Community which does not reflect the views represented at the consultation, they will know the PCC is not representing the full range of views within the community..

Spot on. I don't have the rest of the guidance notes here but they do cover a situation where Community Councils fail in their duty to garner the wide range of views of the the people they serve.

The Council are totally up to speed on potential manipulation of these voluntary bodies.

Let's face it, it would be quite easy to dominate and manipulate things to suit ones self interest, particulalry if one had the secretary on board:They can be delegated to draft written responses, they are also responsible for circulating these drafts to other members, and may well be the only person who has all the email addresses. They could choose to circulate the drafts, allowing plenty of time to respond for "friendly" felllow councillors, who they know broadly agree with their own views, And with the councillors who are likely to have an opposite view? Well they can wait until the last minute for their circulated copy. If the Chair turns a blind eye or delegates full responsibilty to the secretary, they could well be the only eyes that see all responses and can cherry pick what they want represented. It would be ideal if the final letters are never circulated or handed out at meetings, one would then have to go out ones way to find out what's actually been said. And it wouldn't do any harm to airbrush the minutes in an attempt to cover ones tracks. For example; a councillor objects or disagrees with what is being proposed, donates his or her views at a meeting and hey presto when the minutes are published, its as if they never made comment. I guess that rewriting minutes to fit the overall story could result in the publishing of numerous drafts and behind the scenes haggling, as to what was actually said. Cloak and Dagger perhaps but it could be achieved by one or two detrmined individuals. It happens in all sorts or organisations and groups.

allaboardtheskylark wrote:Has there been no comments at the PCC complaining about the state of the school? Have there been letters written by the PCC to the CoEC about the state of the school asking for this issue to finally be resolved?

When they visited the school was there a sense of indignation about the state of the building 1,400 school pupils were being educated in, the school that carries the name Portobello foir goodness sake?.

They may as well have just asked PPAG to respond on behalf of the entire community. The hat may change but the ingredients don't.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jun 2010, 15:06

Porty wrote:I will be happy to retract some of the above if an alternative author fesses up to writing the letter complaning about the pre-planning consultation)

admin: I have received a comment from the CC clarifying a few matters.

1. John Stewart (not Diana Cairns) wrote the letter from the CC to the council regarding the planning application notice for the new school.

2. Letters are circulated for comment (presumably by email to CC members?) and agreement prior to being sent.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Jun 2010, 15:44

wangi wrote:
1. John Stewart (not Diana Cairns) wrote the letter from the CC to the council regarding the planning application notice for the new school.

2. Letters are circulated for comment (presumably by email to CC members?) and agreement prior to being sent.[/color]

1. I was referring to the draft letter circulated to CC members for comment, NOT the final letter sent to the council.(have many people laid eyes on this letter?) And by "alternative author" I was referring to someone other than the two already mentioned.

2. I believe I did mention that letters are circulated for comment. However, I was unaware that the amended letters (incorporating the comments) were also circulated for agreement. I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps you could get clarification?

StarVanMan · Post by **StarVanMan** » 24 Jun 2010, 23:50

This thread is dreadful. It hasnt revealed any of the very valid information called for in the opening post and has re-hashed views I've read elsewhere (if I've followed them correctly, which is pretty hard).

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 25 Jun 2010, 00:30

Not read all previous posts on this matter (which may involve other threads), so not sure how dreadful it is.

Perhaps it has gone of at a tangent and it has got a bit combatitive. Not all who read it will understand what it is about now as it may be only those in the know will understand all that is going on., so lets get back to basics.

The Community Councils have a certain rights within local politics. They are consulted on a number of local issues and they hold much more power than local constituted groups or "ordinary" individuals. The line they take on local issues is very important and influential.

Within Portobello in the last few years those on the PCC when acting as the PCC, or as individuals, or as members of the numerous campaign groups have affected Portobello and how we live. This includes new houses at the funfair, the kilns, new housing at Scottish Power site, waste compactor at rail line, the superstore application, the next superstore application (Big W site) the new school, new housing at Newcraighall, the hovercraft, individual planning applications and so on.

So, since I started this, no discussing individual performances as PCC members. Lets just have some questions answered by the PCC as they are obviously reading these posts.

1. Who is on the PCC (easy to find out)
2. Why did they join the PCC
3. What other groups are individual members of the PCC on.
4. What are their views on the main issues of the day in Portobello
Then when and if we get answers can we all start to make our own judgements as to how representative the PCC actually is and maybe even be inspired enough to go and join and ensure it is a body which represents all in Portobello and that it is not, or never shall become, a group which represents a narrow range of views.

Any other questions to ask? Age? Ethnicity? Any others you may suggest?

Is that more like it SVM