(i) To answer questions from members of the public pursuant to Procedure Rule No. 10.
(ii) To answer questions from members of the Council pursuant to Procedure Rule No. 11
Minutes:
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.1
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor John Faulkner asked the Leader, the following question:-
"When will we have a public apology from Councillor Michelle Thurgood for the inappropriate comments which she made at the Aspire & Prosper Scrutiny Meeting held on 29 August 2012 when she called into question the professionalism of a senior officer of this Council."
(Note: This question will be withdrawn if there is a sufficient public apology before the time for this question arrives)
The Leader of the Council gave the following reply:
Thank you Madam Mayor.
Firstly, I can confirm Councillor Thurgood has already apologised to the officer. This was also followed up by an email confirming the apology. All this took place within a week of the meeting. The officer requested time from Councillor Thurgood to consider the apology. To date, as far as I am aware Councillor Thurgood has had no response.
The interesting thing here is how would Councillor Faulkner be sure the officer in question is seeking a full public apology on the matter. I could never accept that any officer of this Council would discuss a matter of one member of one of the political parties conduct with a member of another political party. This would surely be unethical and possibly in breach of the protocols of an officer. If that was the case myself and the Chief Executive will be having a conversation.
However, I refuse to believe that is the case at present and thus can only assume either Councillor Faulkner is trying to score political points or he genuinely believes an apology is the right thing to offer in a public sphere.
Accepting Councillor Faulkner believes it is the right thing to do and I offer no reason to imply otherwise, I can confirm I have had conversations with Councillor Thurgood, they were very easy conversations as Councillor Thurgood has already apologised both verbally and in writing.
When Councillor Faulkner submitted this question at 15:53 on the 6th December, he did state in his email the question would be withdrawn if a public apology was made before tonight. Was it just unfortunate timing that the only public place to offer such an apology between the 6th December and the 13th December, well tonight, was a planning meeting on 11th December and surely we can all agree planning committees are not the correct environment for non planning related announcements. Tonight Councillor Thurgood is abroad at the instruction of her employer thus can not facilitate this request this evening.
However, I can confirm to this chamber this evening emails have been exchanged this week between Councillor Faulkner and Councillor Thurgood on this matter and I suspect they have not quite seen eye to eye on the matter. Certainly not on biblical statements, concerning sermons on the mount. But the matter in question was confirmed.
Councillor Thurgood will apologise in a public meeting, but I suspect Councillor Faulkner is not happy with how the apology may be worded. May I suggest the nature of the apology should be agreed between the officer in question and Councillor Thurgood?
There was no supplementary question.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.2
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor M Couchman asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing, the following question:-
"At the State of Tamworth Debate I raised the anomaly between the quality and specification between reactive repairs and planned repairs to Kitchens and Bathrooms. I would like to thank Councillor Greatorex for looking into this matter and telling me there should not be any differences between the two. Will he please tell me what measures have been put in place to ensure this no longer continues?"
The Portfolio Holder for Housing gave the following response:
“Thank you Madam Mayor. May I thank Councillor Couchman for her question and for this opportunity to clarify the position regarding planned repairs and responsive repairs to kitchens and bathrooms. There is a difference between the two and I apologise if my earlier response to Councillor Couchman may have led to a misunderstanding.
There are currently two specifications used by Mears our contractor one for planned repairs and a second for responsive repairs. These National Federation for Housing specifications have different pricing schedules.
A responsive repair is because an item or items have failed. In these circumstances repairs are appropriate to repair/replace with a component which matches as far as possible with what has failed and with existing units and sizes etc. Tenants are and should be consulted in this situation. By their nature responsive repairs will not afford the same opportunities for general upgrading which are offered by planned repairs. However, where a responsive repair inspection identifies that eg a complete new kitchen/bathroom is more cost effective than a responsive repair, then once this is approved such a job is passed to the planned works section for completion and the tenant will and should be consulted about preferences etc and the work completed as a planned repair.
Repairs to void properties are completed by the responsive repairs team and prospective tenants are not involved.
We are working with Mears to ensure, as far as we can, that the same specification is used for responsive and planned repairs where appropriate and that tenants are involved accordingly. We want to ensure also that whether it be a responsive or a planned repair that the same level of service is delivered by both teams.”
Supplementary Question
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate that if it is a cupboard door etc then only a repair is required. If a complete kitchen /bathroom is required how are you going to monitor Mears complete them to the same standard?
The Portfolio Holder for Housing gave the following response:
Where appropriate the Council Officers will check. I can’t guarantee all will be checked but checks will be made.