A grave error of judgement by councillor
IT MAY come as a surprise to you that councillors each get £3,500 of your money to spend as they see fit every year.
That is not to say the community grant scheme is a bad thing – councillors are our elected representatives. They are people who have decided to stand up and be counted rather than simply moan from the sidelines. They are community leaders to whom we entrust the future of our city so why not give them the power to provide cash grants to benefit the communities they represent?
Even if the scheme is a surprise to many, once you have given it a little thought you may well come to the reasonable conclusion that it is quite a sensible way of distributing taxpayer funds into the communities that our councillors know so well.
However, these funds are given to councillors in their role as public servants and not as private individuals. Our story today appears to highlight a case where that distinction has been forgotten.
BRAND NEW FORD B-MAX ZETEC 1.0 ECOBOOST FOR ONLY £7685*
View details
DRIVE AWAY A BRAND NEW FORD B-MAX ZETEC FOR ONLY £7685.
1.0 100PS Manual
WITH:
Electric Windows & Mirrors
Quickclear Heated Windscreen
15" Alloy Wheels
Bluetooth with Ford Sync
Fog Lights
Terms:
*Drive away from only £7685 and then pay nothing for 24 months!
4.9% APR
Conditions Apply
Contact: 01626 240583
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Cllr Patricia Nicholson has broken no rules and her integrity is not in question. But by handing £1,750 of her community grant to an animal shelter which is not even in the ward which she represents she is guilty of a grave misjudgement.
When asked why she chose to use the council's cash to make the donation to Gables Farm she said she feels the shelter does a good job for Plymouth.
That is certainly true and the Herald supports Gables Farm with publicity whenever we get the chance. But there will be plenty of people in Cllr Nicholson's ward who will be wondering today why cats and dogs in another part of the city took priority over their needs and may well be contemplating how much good £1,750 could have done for the people of Peverell.
Cllr Nicholson has a commendable interest in supporting Gables Farm but she should do that as a private citizen with her own money.
In the middle of a recession when our council faces massive cutbacks it is entirely inappropriate for her to indulge her personal passion with public funds.
Comments
by jabbathebutt
Saturday, October 20 2012, 10:17PM
“I see from the headlines that scream out from the advertising boards outside shops and garages that there is "FURY" at this decision by her to do this . It seems the only "FURY" is by the writer of the above piece of so called journalism . For it to be so described on adverts to sell the Herald newspaper is a disgusting misleading distortion of the truth and the writer and the editor should be deeply ashamed at the description. For it also to be aimed with such venom against a councillor makes me wonder why it was described in such terms . No one would have known about this till we read it ,yet there was ( and here is that word again ) "FURY" . Read the thing and it is apparently only the writer on behalf of the Herald who sees it as such . See the comments and there is no "FURY" .... just discussion.”
by b_mused
Friday, October 19 2012, 10:16PM
“Some of the animals at Gables come from Peverell so what is the problem?”
by CharlieDodd
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:16PM
“..9AB said- 'That allocation was for her area and she had no right to spend it elsewhere'..
Look at the bigger picture mate, people from her constituency might well use Gables, no matter where it's located..:)”
by 9ab3jdr622l
Friday, October 19 2012, 8:50PM
“Not her call to make.
That allocation was for her area and unless she was given the go-ahead by her constituents she had no right to spend it elsewhere.
I would not disagree that Gables is a worthy cause but any donation should come from her own pocket.
Every Councillor is given a Community Grant,her community is in Peverell and not the area in which she and her son live.
How many times have local Councillors been accused of totally dis-regarding the views of the people of Plymouth,the incinerator being one example and yet she voted for it and her son works for them.
If her constituents are not her priority then she is not doing what she is paid to do, so she should therefore resign.
I also agree with Winston,family members sitting on the same local council should not be allowed.”
by Winstonsmith0
Friday, October 19 2012, 5:16PM
“How often do we find that a surname is common amongst several council members for this city? If that were permitted, say, on a planning committee then would that not raise questions over the possibility of unfairly swaying the voting?
Perhaps the people of Plymouth need to be more careful about these ruling families. Before you know it, planning applications for much needed houses will be refused where developments are proposed near councillor's homes and passed for satanic mills where people are poorest and most deprived.
but that wouldn't happen in Plymouth would it?”
by Nevman
Friday, October 19 2012, 1:38PM
“As you say, "Cllr Patricia Nicholson has broken no rules and her integrity is not in question." So why is the Herald so desperately partisan over this non-issue?
As for "how much good £1,750 could have done for the people of Peverell", it could have bought each resident a copy of the Herald. Oh, the deprivation!”
by whinger7643
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:52AM
“If the ratepayers of Plymouth wish to give to animal charities, they are free to do so at any time. The council should not be permitted to give away our money through expensive council overhead routes at councillors personal whims. Not just in times of severe financial constraints, but at any time this undemocratic practice should stop. I would think that the vast majority of Plymouthians did not vote for this way of using the ratepayers money.”
by Foldart
Friday, October 19 2012, 10:14AM
“Yes, you should be sorry, Betty. Without the likes of Woodside animal rescue centre and Gables there would be semi-feral animals roaming the streets so the service they provide does affect everybody.
The direction of the allocation the councillor spent was her choice not yours, or anyone else's.
Following your argument, childless couples shouldn't pay for schools or park playgrounds and we could really screw up society by only paying for what we use and not for the benefit of all.
And such a paltry amount too.”
by BettyD
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:40AM
“People before animals every time, sorry”
by BettyD
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:39AM
“No gables is not there to serve all the people of Plymouth, it's only there for those who have pets they no longer want or those wishing to acquire a pet.
It would have been better spending the money on some children's project in Plymouth or even St Luke's , which, DOES serve all people in Plymouth”