I am writing regarding the letter from Norman Bailey: “Question the candidates on sheltered housing situation”
(April 23).
His letters always inspire me. It is pretty well-known by those who attend cabinet and council meetings, the monitoring officer of Colchester Council appears to hold great sway.
Having directly experienced this phenomenon, I feel compelled to take the situation to the next level.
The position is that of monitoring officer. The decision to deny a full council debate on a ruling that requires a full council debate has resulted from the opinion of the person holding the position of monitoring officer.
The opinion of the person who holds the position is what now needs debate.
Can the decision by the monitoring officer to deny a full council hearing, on the basis a petition was “abusive, vexatious and otherwise inappropriate” be substantiated, and does the decision serve all parties affected?
The code of conduct for service throughout local government requires an honouring of the seven Nolan Principles, which are: Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The sheltered housing issue appears to have resulted from the fact those serving the people of our borough are failing to address evidence that the system within our council is breaking down.
On election day, please don’t just place a cross next to a name because that name happens to be familiar.
If we always do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have already got.
Angel Kalyan
Mersea Road
Colchester
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here