Portobello Community Council

[Maria]

Franck,I agree there needs to be a big shake up. Might be worth warning , however, that the Community Council are legally the tenants of the tennis courts, so the Tennis Club's position is slightly different to that of other groups. There may well be a better arrangement, but the present one has taken a (very!) long time to thrash out, to ensure liability lies with the club and not with members of the CC.

[Franck]

Franck,I agree there needs to be a big shake up. Might be worth warning , however, that the Community Council are legally the tenants of the tennis courts, so the Tennis Club's position is slightly different to that of other groups. There may well be a better arrangement, but the present one has taken a (very!) long time to thrash out, to ensure liability lies with the club and not with members of the CC.

The CC are the tenants of the joppa bumpy courts?Who is the owner?...I'm guessing Edinburgh council?

And if PCC are the tenants, why is there a need for them to be represented on the CC when in effect, every community councillor is representing it?

and why doesn't the PCC just put up a sign waiving liability for anyone using it? maybe with the added cover of a waiver letter for users declaring any damage done will be met by the person causing it..

[mr magnolia]

just looking through this thread, and I wonder what happens if/when the local interest groups are reduced to 7, and there needs to be a choice between the 12 registered groups?

Do we have a quiz night? A second election question? Council decides?

[seanie]

Under the rules, all the "elected" individual members and all the registered groups would then vote on which groups get represented. But that's never happened in years.

The composition of Portobello Community Council is completely out of step with the rest of Edinburgh. Almost all Community Councils consist of 2/3 elected members and 1/3 nominated group members; in Portobello the split is 50:50. Also Portobello has far more members than other CCs. If brought into line with the rest of the city, as currently being proposed, Portobello would have 21 members (14 elected, 7 nominated). Instead it has 30 (15 elected, 15 nominated). The following illustrates the practical effects of that.

In August 2009 there was an extraordinary meeting of the Brightons and Rosefield Residents’ Association. The purpose of the meeting was to adopt a constitution so that the organisation could continue to have a nominated representative on Portobello Community Council, the Council having introduced new rules.

Of the ten people in attendance (about par for the course for BRRA AGMs), a grand total of nine had already served on the Community Council at some point. Seven were current members of the Community Council. Two of those were stepping down at the coming election but the remaining five had already put their name forwards as an elected or group representative, or were on the PCC in an ex officio capacity.

So when it came to choosing a new BRRA rep’ there were only three possible candidates in the room, two of whom had already served on the Community Council in the past. The Chair of the residents’ association, who intended to stand as an “elected” member, nominated one of these people to be the Association’s group rep’ and this was agreed.

This demonstrates, in large measure, why the existing structure of Portobello Community Council is unhealthy. Whilst people talk of a large number of groups increasing diversity, the reality is the opposite. The overlap in membership of groups, with some Community Councillors sitting in official capacities several times over, simply ensures like minded people who mix in the same circles end up on the Community Council. And because the sheer number of places greatly reduces the likelihood of elections being contested, the same people can sit on the Community Council as long as they want.

It’s worth pointing out that some of the groups that are represented on the Community Council barely function. There are groups that haven’t had any kind of meeting in years, groups who just about manage an irregular AGM but do absolutely nothing in between. Now some of them have been active in the past, and they may revive at some point on the future, but as things stand we have dormant or even defunct groups that continue to have representation on the Community Council because they have a letterhead and a dusty constitution somewhere.

For example, Brighton and Rosefield Resident's Association used to send out 3 or 4 newsletters a year, organise park clean ups, arrange the occasional social event and an annual barbecue. That's all stopped. Now it can only just manage to arrange an irregular and poorly advertised AGM attended by a handful of people. As an organisation it’s now solely used as a letterhead for one or two individuals to write letters of complaint or objection whilst claiming to represent several hundred local residents.

Another example would be Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore. Certainly it was a very active organisation in the past, but the superstore was thrown out at the public inquiry in 2006. PCATS hasn't had an AGM in years, in disregard of its constitution. It doesn't make available minutes of meetings, which again would be in disregard of its constitution, except that hasn't had a meeting in years. It no longer functions as a genuine community group.

Whilst it’s true that groups have to meet eligibility criteria to register with the Council, it would be an all but impossible task for officials to assess how active or inactive multiple groups across the city are. But that isn’t such a difficult assessment for local people to make; which is again why we need to reduce the number of places. We need contested elections for group places, just as much as we do for elected places, so that genuinely active community groups can be favoured over groups that exist in little more than name.

Elections aren’t a panacea and will bring their own difficulties, but preserving a structure and balance to the Community Council that discourages elections, resulting in an entirely self-selecting membership, is not healthy.

[Franck]

I like that post Sean, thanks.

[Sceptic]

Note letter from DC in tonight's EEN. She actually states that reduction will result in "the community council will be taken over by a cabal, leading to a danger of group thinking and becoming less representative of the community it serves." Ye Gods and little fishes! The PCC is not exactly representative just now! Anything would be an improvement!

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-eveni ... -1-2915558

City decision not to have Porty elections

As a member of Portobello Community Council I write to clarify some points made in the letter by Sean Watters (Numbers on Porty council must change, April 26).

The proposal by the City Of Edinburgh Council is to reduce the number of group positions by more than 50 per cent, from 15 to seven, and group positions from 15 to 14.

Mr Watters claims that: “on occasions, candidates standing as individuals have been found groups to represent instead, specifically to avoid having an election”. I am not aware of this occurring more than once but it happened at the change of community council in 2009, at the insistence of the City of Edinburgh Council, as they wanted to avoid the hassle and expense of an election. There were no community council elections anywhere in the city.

Blame is being laid at the door of PCC for not having an election, which lies fairly and squarely with the council itself. The reduction of group numbers on the community council will lead to a decrease in diversity of views and representation, one of the key tenets of the Scheme for Community Councils. If the reduction of nominated groups goes through, then the community council is likely to be taken over by a cabal, leading to a danger of group thinking and becoming less representative of the 
community it serves.

Diana Cairns, Portobello

[seanie]

"The proposal by the City Of Edinburgh Council is to reduce the number of group positions by more than 50 per cent, from 15 to seven, and group positions from 15 to 14."

So the Council are proposing to reduce group positions from 15 to 7, as well as reducing group positions from 15 to 14?

Maybe best proof-read letters before sending them to the newspapers, surely?

[seanie]

I seem to recall saying that the proposals involved a 30% reduction, which would be 30 down to 21.

Whatever the merits of the proposal, at least my description of it was factually accurate. In marked contrast to the subsequent "clarification".

[fresian]

Read the article in the EEN on 20/4/13 regarding the PCC. Not sure who the forum poster GNR is, but seems to be someone on PCC, and to suggest that the community has gone down the sewer really highlights the contempt that these people have against anyone who disagrees with them.

[Sceptic]

Did not see a post by "GNR" in article mentioned

[Mark Cameron]

It was a reply to one of the comments:

"GNR
5:35 PM on 21/04/2013

Why should the PCC support the school proposals? It wouldn't make one single bit of difference to the outcome if they supported it or not. It's way, way past that. This is personal for PFANS. They want to destroy certain members of the community any way they can. This is just another way they think they can do it. At least just be honest about your motives."

[seanie]

From responses to the second consultation on amending the Community Council Scheme.

Proposal for online voting

I understand that the Facebook campaign is also pushing for online voting. This should be avoided at all costs as it would be very easy to manipulate. Many people have multiple IP addresses and devices (PCs, laptops, mobile phones, tablets) and could easily take names off the electoral register and vote numerous times. Also, online voting would exclude a significant number of people who do not have internet access. If paper voting is still seen as appropriate for political elections why should the CC elections be any different? Just because it would be easier for the council doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

CAN YOU PLEASE REPLY TO ME ON THIS POINT?

Please take on board my comments and look forward to seeing the amended scheme.

NURSE!!! The medication! QUICKLY!!!

[seanie]

And more...

With reference to the above paragraph PLEASE insert the word "or orchestrate" before "make personal attacks", as there are many examples of CC members making the bullets for others to fire by misrepresenting what has been said or done at CC meetings. The orchestration of attacks on PCC by certain members has done a great deal of damage to its reputation, as you well know and have been told on several occasions by a number of members. I have asked now on three occasions fro this to be included.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE NOT PUT THIS WORD IN?

I have useD Caps Lock SO YOU MUST DO WHAT I SAAAAAAAAY!!!!