Is it predetermination

Question

A member of the public attends regularly council meetings and takes advantage of the public period (which in our council is a paltry 2 mins). The councillors don't like them asking questions because they often show up council failings, or discrepancies in the accounts or reminds councillors to declare an interest when they receive payments etc. A stickler for process and procedure and hot on budget and finance the member of the public is best described as not liked by some councillors. This resident asked for the Public Forum slot which in our standing orders states that provided the resident gives the clerk 7 days notice they can book the public forum slot before full council and speak on anything. The clerk ignored the request. On the agenda the clerk had added a proposal to change standing orders. The change was to remove Public Forum and Public Period.
The Chair when it reached that item said that the council wanted to concentrate on council business and that members of the public were disrupting the meeting during Public Period. No such disruption has taken place. Some councillors were opposed to any change but the majority passed it. The Chair went on to state that 4 councillors were in agreement on this and that they wanted to remove public period/forum for 6 months. The press picked up on it but the council won't back down stating to the press that ONE person was disrupting meetings and they need to get on with council business.
An FOI reveals that the resident asked the clerk to book Public Forum on the 23rd Jan and on the 24th Jan 4 councillors wrote to the clerk a letter asking for public forum and period to be removed from SOs.
This not only appears to be conspiracy and collusion but also predetermination. There was no debate, they clearly were not open minded but came determined to remove public forum and period.
The public are not happy, the press are going to run and run with this and it is bringing the council into disrepute. What can be done? What can the public do? Why did the clerk allow the councillors to behave this way? It is undemocratic.

Answer 1

Comments such as this are so depressing to those of us who believe in open and transparent government. To answer some of your specific questions, it's completely undemocratic, there's very little that can be done, especially by the public, but keep feeding the press frenzy as it can make a difference. The Clerk allowed the Councillors to behave in this way because it reduces public scrutiny of the Clerk as much as the Council. It appears to be predetermination, but that's poorly defined and rarely punished, particularly on minor issues such as this.

Public time is an important part of every agenda, as it allows the Council to explain its decisions, clarify misunderstandings, receive feedback, and identify issues that may need further involvement from the Council. How can a public dialogue not be Council business? Who do the Councillors represent? With the best will in the world, the Councillors can't be aware of everything that is happening on their patch, so the public has a role as the eyes and ears of the Council. Mature well-run Councils value this interaction immensely.

The only way to change this is at the ballot box. Start recruiting candidates now!

Answer 2

Very little than can be done. Pre-Determination vs Pre-Disposition (how do you proove which one and indeed who to because seems like nobody cares. I agree with DTC its poorly defined and basically unworkable in current form). Its not a defence but would also say I wish members of the public who care sufficently to get involved to that extent (learning the rules and asking questions monthly) stood for election.. Its only way you can change things with current system..
I personally value Public Participation. Echo DTCs words. I do sometimes wonder in modern world whether better ways of doing it (have we already failed if an issue has had to be brought up in a meeting what could we have done differently to see issue quicker)

Answer 3

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of this the person involved will never achieve anything in the long run and no doubt  phase 2 will be declaring them vexatious

They sound like a perfect Councillor and when I was in an almost identical situation I stood for election as there was a snowball in hells chance of me being co opted