New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[wangi]

Yet the month before (September), at very short notice and without approaching the City Council he granted PPAG a slot on the agenda to put forward their rationale for taking legal action. Its one rule for some and the opposite for others in the neutral environment at PCC.

Wasn't quite granted easy-o. There was a lot of discussion on the night about it and it was eventually allow on the agreement there'd be no discussion; which there then was (I know having asked a couple of the questions of PPAG). The minutes do not capture the reality of the situation or the discussion which transpired.

[rathbone]

The letter was not circulated amongst PCC members which would have allowed them to decide whether to debate the matter. The chairman refused to circulate on the basis the council thought it inappropriate to have the item on the agenda. The majority of PCC members are likely still in the dark about the integrity of PPAGs fund raising claims.

The answer to that, surely, is to then circulate the letter yourselves to all members of the PCC with an explanation as to why you see the need to do so, given that the Chairman appears to be, himself, misrepresenting the situation to the Council.

[Maria]

The letter was not circulated amongst PCC members which would have allowed them to decide whether to debate the matter. The chairman refused to circulate on the basis the council thought it inappropriate to have the item on the agenda. The majority of PCC members are likely still in the dark about the integrity of PPAGs fund raising claims.

The Towerbank/PHS letter was circulated to CC members via email by Nick Stroud (PCC secretary) on Nov 26th prior to the Nov meeting. Unfortunately, not all CC members have email, but most do.

[Porty]

(The PPAG Agenda Item) Wasn't quite granted easy-o. There was a lot of discussion on the night about it and it was eventually allow on the agreement there'd be no discussion; which there then was (I know having asked a couple of the questions of PPAG). The minutes do not capture the reality of the situation or the discussion which transpired.

Agreed.

PPAG didn't get things the way they wanted on September 26th but the fact is, they were accomodated at the first time of asking, at short notice and John Stewart didn't see the need to ask the Council if it was appropriate. Then just a few weeks later here is his response to a formal request to discuss PPAG's refusal to remove misrepresentations from their website.

From: John Stewart
Sent: 24 October 2011 16:49
To:

Subject: Fw: letter from PFANS, Portobello and Towerbank Parent Councils

Dear

In anticipation that the 3 groups mentioned above would wish this letter to be raised at the next PCC meeting, I sought advice from Eileen Hewitt, the Council's community council liaison officer. My email to her, and her reply to me are given below in full.

In the light of her reply, I therefore feel that it would be completely inappropriate for the item or motion you suggest to be included in next Monday's agenda.

I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to circulate the email you have just sent me to community council members although I will circulate it to the office bearers mentioned above.

I realise that this is not the outcome you would wish but I hope you will appreciate that I have sought the appropriate advice from the Council as to how this situation should be approached and intend to act upon the advice that has been given.

Best wishes,

John.

You will note that John did not allow input or avail the content of his letter to Eileen Hewitt to the "complainants" prior to her consideration and response. Had he done so, I'm sure the writers would have put him straight in that he had entirely misrepresented their purpose. "John- you are asking the wrong question."

Point being; When a group, PPAG, who are using deliberate misrepresentations to fund raise, ask for a hearing at PCC it is instantly accomodated by the Chair. After all he has the power to do so. But when, a few weeks later, it comes to a request to discuss PPAG's misrepresentations, from three groups, whose integrity is beyond question. The Chair does everything he can to prevent it. Eventually enduring a minor mutiny when the request letter is belatedly circulated and the matter is included on the November agenda against his and the Council's wishes.

[wangi]

So what are Portobello High School Parent Council, Towerbank Parents Council and PFANs going to do about it? Next meeting of Portobello Community Council isn't until 30 Jan 2012. And that's a good bit after the 5/6 Jan date for the petition being heard at the court.

[Maria]

[ Eventually enduring a minor mutiny when the request letter is belatedly circulated and the matter is included on the November agenda against his and the Council's wishes.

Unless I dozed off at the last CC meeting, the item wasn't included on the Nov. agenda Porty.

The agreement, made prior to the meeting, was that PPAG were to issue a formal response to the letter within 14 days of their meeting on Tue 29 Nov. and would 'review' their website. PPAG's formal response is to be circulated round all CC members. I haven't received anything yet.

[Pal of Porty]

So what are Portobello High School Parent Council, Towerbank Parents Council and PFANs going to do about it? Next meeting of Portobello Community Council isn't until 30 Jan 2012. And that's a good bit after the 5/6 Jan date for the petition being heard at the court.

The letter did not question PPAG’s right to take legal action but instead challenged the cost of the legal process being met by donations gained with the use of known misrepresentations. Given the distinct possibility that the issue could be legally resolved by the time the next PPC meeting takes place, the lies being pedalled by PPAG may be nothing more than an annoying irrelevance. Time will tell and any further action by PFAN’s etc on this issue may be deemed redundant.

Question marks about the modus operandi of the PCC however, will still remain irrespective of the legal outcome. Whatever the processes and discussions that took place amongst the PCC, the reality is that;

• PPAG were granted the space to make a statement to the PCC despite their position of declared
neutrality.

• The letter from PFAN’s etc has not been granted space for discussion at the PCC.

• The Chair’s request to the Council for advice on whether the issue should be discussed is a total red herring. His summation of the issue bears absolutely no relevance to the actual request for discussion at the PCC.

• It appears to me that the Chair simply abdicated any responsibility for facing up to a legitimate request.

• The PCC condone groups represented on the PCC raising money for their cause through misrepresentations and even take steps to actively avoid confronting the issue.

The above gives concerns as to how some other future issues may be handled.

[Porty]

Thanks Marya..

Ok not actually on the Agenda but the fact it was mentioned at all is an achievement. One can see above how hard John Stewart tried to prevent the subject ever reariing its head.

Wangi, asks "So what are Portobello High School Parent Council, Towerbank Parents Council and PFANs going to do about it?"

Based on Marya's comments a positive outcome has already been achieved.

Lets face it there was really very little that could be done and had PPAG not been represented on PCC it would be nothing. The connection with PCC provides a formal opportunity to catalogue PPAG's misrepresentations and to record their response. Can they justify the claims they made?

There is a court hearing coming up, the character, integrity and representative nature of the group bringing the action (PPAG) will be examined. Now that PCC are involved, PPAG's response, or lack of, will become de facto. It is a lose:lose situation for them, unless they can substantiate the "significant majority" and other claims.

The three groups want the misrepresentations removed from the PPAG website and that may happen. Whether they stay or go it is now a matter of public record they agrred to justify or remove them. When taken along with all the other media where misrepresentations have been made, it makes for a fairly weighty dossier.

[Porty]

The answer to that, surely, is to then circulate the letter yourselves to all members of the PCC with an explanation as to why you see the need to do so, given that the Chairman appears to be, himself, misrepresenting the situation to the Council.

The Chairman played it quite cute and set the Council up to say the item was inappropriate. How?

There is guidance discouraging CC from revisiting previously taken decisions. Probably to prevent to and fro when new faces join. All he needed to do was portray the matter as a revisiting of the unanimous "siting" decision, thereby providing the Council with a good reason to say no.

One has to get that his objective was not to seek guidance from the Council, it was to prevent the item being on the agenda. He needed a "no" and succeeded.

Had PFANS etc circulated the letter directly to CC members it would merely have provided an opportunity for him to play "the council says it inappropriate" card.

At the end of the day three well-respected groups were requesting an item of undoubted signifigance to the wider community, be added to the CC agenda. Seems very reasonable, doesn't it?

I'm fairly sure they did not anticipate having a battle on their hands to make that happen. They followed protocol, but in the end it took one PCC office bearer who decided the request was reasonable and ought to be discussed. He circulated the letter at very short notice.

PCC have not done themselves any favours.

[rmolehusband]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that some elements within PCC have abused their positions of trust to further the goals of PPAG, though even I'm a little shocked by just how corrupt and blatant their self interested behaviour has been. I sincerely hope they can be held to account for this and other abuses, though I will not be holding my breath.

The future of the new High School now rests with the courts. I very much doubt that their pages of lies will bring in any more significant cash now, so why worry about it? PPAG will be irrelevant by the next PCC meeting anyway.

[Brenda]

For the information of those seeking to discredit Portobello Community Council and its Chairman regarding the issue of the PPAG website, and for the record :-

The letter from PFANS, Portobello High School Parent Council and Towerbank School Council suggested that PCC might censure PPAG for statements made on its website. As this was not something PCC had been faced with before, the Chairman requested advice from the Council's community council liaison officer on how to proceed.

I have been copied into all the email correspondence.

The Chairman gave the background to the issue, then wrote: "Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment.)" That attachment was a copy of the PFANS/PPC/TBC letter which explained EXACTLY why the suggestion of censure was being made, so the liaison officer could have been in no doubt about it.

The reply he received was: "It wouldn't be appropriate for the CC to censure PPAG as they are acting on their own behalf and haven't misrepresented the community council". Having asked for, and received advice, the PCC Chair felt obliged to follow it.

The PCC member who is representing PFANS/PPC/TBC in this matter (who was also copied into the email correspondence, so can confirm these facts) was not happy with that advice and contacted the community council liaison officer himself.

The reply he received was the same as that given to the Chairman of PCC, except for the addition of one important sentence: "The local authority offers procedural advice to community councils but ultimately it is up to the CC to decide whether to take this advice."

As there was by then a very full agenda for the PCC meeting of 28th November, it was agreed with the PFANS/PPC/TBC representative to carry the matter over to the next meeting and PPAG have been requested to amend their website.

Brenda Molony
Vice-chair, Portobello Community Council

[Porty]

Let's take this one at at time:

The Chairman gave the background to the issue, then wrote: "Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment.)" That attachment was a copy of the PFANS/PPC/TBC letter which explained EXACTLY why the suggestion of censure was being made, so the liaison officer could have been in no doubt about it.

Her response:

Hi John

In my view it would not be appropriate to include an item on 'PPAG court action' on the CC agenda as this would mean overturning a decision made by the community council to remain neutral on the issue of the siting of the new school. It wouldn't be appropriate for the CC to censure PPAG as they are acting on their own behalf and haven't misrepresented the community council.

The lady clearly thought the issue was about the siting of the school and that the intended item was "PPAG court action". Her advice was based accordingly.

She had clearly been misled, how do you explain that?

[Porty]

It is not like John's mis-representation wasn't pointed out to him, it was made crystal clear:

Hi John, thanks for the quick reply. I will take up the matter direct with **** her response is directed to the issue of the siting of the school which I specifically do not seek to raise. The issue is not at all the position of the school; it is the question of appropriate behaviour by community council member organisations when communicating on community issues. I find it difficult to understand why that would not be a matter for the community council to consider.
I appreciate in the mean time the matter will not go on the community council agenda but trust that if on clarification the matter is deemed appropriate for the council it will be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

The agenda was busy in November but PCC had ample notice, about 5 weeks.

In September, another busy month, PPAG gave less than 24 hours notice requesting an item be added to the Agenda- their request was immediately granted without defering to the liasion officer. How do you explain that Brenda? After all the item PPAg wanted discussed was..............................the siting of the school. and the ahem! court action.

[Mark Cameron]

I attended my first PCC meeting on 28th November and trying to remain as neutral as possible having not been involved in any of this my observation would be that had a significant amount of time not been dedicated to a couple of items(*) unrelated to Portobello which were within the 2 major planning applications being discussed there may have been time to discuss this matter that directly affects Portobello.

* the items related to how land at Leith Port should be used and what the PCC stance was on whether Edinburgh City needed more offices. Must admit I was somewhat surprised to find time being dedicated to that when there are significant issues affecting our community that appear to deserve more pressing attention.

[wangi]

I have been copied into all the email correspondence.

For anyone else wishing to see the emails; here they are:

317604.pdf

(2.29 MiB) Downloaded 151 times

The Chairman gave the background to the issue, then wrote: "Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment.)" That attachment was a copy of the PFANS/PPC/TBC letter which explained EXACTLY why the suggestion of censure was being made, so the liaison officer could have been in no doubt about it.

Unfortunately the request about the website content was preceded with "PFANS supporters wish the PPAG court action to be an agenda item on next month's PCC agenda and I, as Chair, have said no as that I feel is not a PCC issue but a matter between PPAG and the Council." No surprise that was the request picked up by the Council.

L/

[Porty]

The lady clearly thought the issue was about the siting of the school and that the intended item was "PPAG court action". Her advice was based accordingly.

She had clearly been misled, how do you explain that? (Brenda)

Don't bother- we have the explanation:

"PFANS supporters wish the PPAG court action to be an agenda item on next month's PCC agenda and I, as Chair, have said no as that I feel is not a PCC issue but a matter between PPAG and the Council."
L/

A deliberate misrepresentation by the Chair.

Discredit where discredit's due.

[Pal of Porty]

The Chairman gave the background to the issue, then wrote: "Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment.)" That attachment was a copy of the PFANS/PPC/TBC letter which explained EXACTLY why the suggestion of censure was being made, so the liaison officer could have been in no doubt about it.

Unfortunately the request about the website content was preceded with "PFANS supporters wish the PPAG court action to be an agenda item on next month's PCC agenda and I, as Chair, have said no as that I feel is not a PCC issue but a matter between PPAG and the Council." No surprise that was the request picked up by the Council.

Brenda - Many thanks for taking the time to contribute and putting forward a PCC perspective on the discussion. Unfortunately your post also misses the point and merely confirms what many posters here believe to be the case, that the request of the PCC Chair to the Council bore no resemblance to what had actually been asked for, as Wangi has just pointed out.

[rmolehusband]

Given that PPAG have only just decided that some sort of formal membership is required, do they even qualify as a properly constituted organisation in terms of qualifying to be a nominated member of the CC? Has anyone seen their constitution or, more interestingly, accounts?

At the very least it has to be inclusive, could we all join, have an EGM, and force a change of direction? We could help them go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

[Bob Jefferson]

PPAG have been requested to amend their website.

If PPAG wished to amend their website, they could do so immediately. But the lies about representing the majority, the golf course being lost and housing going on the park are still there right now. Many of us are, understandably, angry that they are soliciting funds by deliberately misleading people. I'm happy to defend the right of informed adults to squander their own money on a hopeless cause, but I would hate to think that elderly and/or vulnerable residents may be wasting money they can ill afford, based on the lies and distortions that PPAG are pedalling.

So, the Community Council has quite rightly requested that PPAG should amend their website. What action will the CC now take, given that PPAG have clearly not complied with this request?

[Porty]

Thing is; both John and Brenda are fully aware that those three claims are lies. And they know they are lies from a group that is represented on PCC. And they know the lies are being used to raise funds from the community- none of that is in dispute. They also know that "acting honestly" is a key element of the Community Council scheme. It is is inconcievable that an open and fair community council would block a debate.

They got a reasonable request from three well respected groups, who asked for a debate with the POSSIBILITY of censure. John and now it seems Brenda opted to protect the liars from the debate. According to John's email above, he said no even before he got the council's advice. He told the council what he wanted and they backed him. I'm guessing he refrained from advising the council he had allowed PPAG to speak on "siting and court action" at the previous PCC meeting.

I don't know whether the PCC secretary, Diana Cairns is on record making any of those claims but there is a strong possibility she is the author of the lies. Perhaps that is why PCC would not accomodate PFANS, PHS parent council and Towerbank parent council. Doesn't look good having to censure your pal.

As Bob says above, its been almost two weeks since PPAG agreed to review their website, maybe thay are content with the way it is?

[seashell]

Re the website: surely in this case actions (or the lack thereof) speak louder that words?
The facts presented here are quite shocking and it seems untenable that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Is there a possibility of convening an extra-ordinary meeting of PCC to discuss *all* of the above issues, including the correspondance with the council?
Are there provisions for a motion to censure?
How about a vote of no confidence or to dissolve the current PCC - what are the relevant procedures, or if there be no such provisions, can the council be petitioned directly?
With the Court of Session hearing set for less than 4 weeks away, it would appear that swift action is required.

[Porty]

The agreement, made prior to the meeting, was that PPAG were to issue a formal response to the letter within 14 days of their meeting on Tue 29 Nov. and would 'review' their website. PPAG's formal response is to be circulated round all CC members.

I'm assuming you got it,what does the formal response say?

[Pal of Porty]

The agreement, made prior to the meeting, was that PPAG were to issue a formal response to the letter within 14 days of their meeting on Tue 29 Nov. and would 'review' their website. PPAG's formal response is to be circulated round all CC members.

I'm assuming you got it,what does the formal response say?

That must have been marked on your calendar!

[Porty]

That must have been marked on your calendar!

Are they doing a calendar this year? Not heard.

[seanie]

The PPAG response...

PCC_letter.pdf

(36.61 KiB) Downloaded 183 times

Portobello Park Action Group
c/o 13 Park Avenue
Edinburgh
12 December 2011

To Whom It May Concern:

Portobello Park Action Group has reviewed and updated the web site. The updated site will be operational by midnight on Tuesday 13 December 2011.

Yours
R. Sutherland
Chair
Portobello Park Action Group

[Bob Jefferson]

And to be fair to PPAG, that's exactly what they have done. They have updated the site by putting the words 'significant majority' in an even larger red font. And they haven't retracted any of the other lies. Frankly, they are taking the piss out of Portobello Community Council. Unless they intend to change it all again before midnight of course. I won't be staying up.

[Porty]

Has anyone bought a PPAG 2011 calendar. How much are they charging and does it include free entry to the 2012 party in the park?

[Bob Jefferson]

Party in the park? Surely you mean hoe-down in the housing estate?

[Maria]

The agreement, made prior to the meeting, was that PPAG were to issue a formal response to the letter within 14 days of their meeting on Tue 29 Nov. and would 'review' their website. PPAG's formal response is to be circulated round all CC members.

I'm assuming you got it,what does the formal response say?

See Sean beat me to it.

Obviously, I'm very excited indeed that PPAG are launching their new 'reviewed' and 'updated' website at midnight, but think I'll head to bed instead.

[wangi]

Obviously, I'm very excited indeed that PPAG are launching their new 'reviewed' and 'updated' website at midnight, but think I'll head to bed instead.

Well I guess it was too much effort; 01:48 GMT Wed 14 Dec and it's same old.

(and lets be clear I didn't stay up for this - it's not the back of one here!)

[seanie]

No, it's changed.

Although barely perceptibly.

[Porty]

And to be fair to PPAG, that's exactly what they have done. They have updated the site by putting the words 'significant majority' in an even larger red font. And they haven't retracted any of the other lies. Frankly, they are taking the piss out of Portobello Community Council. .

And by default; the community of Portobello. The Chair and Vice-Chair of PCC must be delighted with this outcome. They stalled the issue for three meetings, have avoided censure and PPAG fund-raising can continue unabated, using false claims and lies. PCC neutrailty is a thing of beauty.

PPAG can now justifiably claim their mis-representations have the blessing of PCC.

[Makaveli]

Who are the PCC answerable to?

I presume it must be someone at Edinburgh Council?

[Pal of Porty]

It appears PPAG have chosen to maintain many of their misrepresentations on their website but I am not in the least bit surprised as it is wholly consistent with the way they have conducted their entire campaign. It is clearly wrong for any organisation to raise funds on false premises but they are in the last throes of their life span so they probably just thought 'stuff it' and had a bit of a laugh to themselves.

My frustrations however are not with an an organisation that has been two faced since it was created but with the PCC that allows one of its members to treat it with such contempt. The message this sends out to citizens of Portobello is not too good. The inner coven of the PCC are aligned with the aims of PPAG (and their pals) and were possibly even involved with the PPAG decision regarding its response to the PCC - neutrality is a total lie to hide behind and a complete abdication of their responsibilities.

Fast Forward to end of January 2012 - Chair to PCC says, We have all seen the PPAG response but now that the school is going ahead I don't think we need to discuss this matter anymore etc etc ..........

[Porty]

Makaveli:

Eileen.Hewitt@edinburgh.gov.uk
Michele.Mulvaney@edinburgh.gov.uk

But you won't get anywhere. The council are reluctant to get involved with internecine debate about local issues, which is quite understandable. They minimise interference by acquiescing with however a CC Chair decides they want to handle a matter. No doubt the strategy works well when the Chair plays with a straight bat. Which is demonstrably not the case here. All the behavioural evidence suggests he's in PPAG's pocket, simple as that.

The chair knows, through excperience, if he writes to the council saying "i've said no", the council will back him without putting too much effort into investigating. So that's what he did.

You'd think the Chair of a Community Council, who are a democratic component of the City Council, would have some conscience about one of its member groups lying to fundraise in order to "sue" his/their parent body. Instead- we have a CC that has gone to exrtaordinary lengths to suppress the matter, which is akin to complicity.

Expect "Bogus Workmen" and "Doorstep Fish Sellers" to put forward a PPC representative at the next elections. Think what a "Supported by Portobello Community Council" badge could do for business.