General Discussion
The last time a reporter from the local press attended a Dawlish Town Council meeting was back in the summer.
There was a Dawlish Town Council meeting again last night and again there was no-one there from the press.
So how are the citizens of Dawlish supposed to know what is going on if their only source of information is from the local press?
It seems last night's council meeting had some 'interesting' bits. I wonder what, if anything, will be in next week's newspaper about last night's council meeting.
Only and until all councils meetings are minuted by an outside source and digitally recorded, will anyone find out what is really going on in the corridors of power.
I have recorded meetings, and what is said by some is totally different from what is recorded in the minutes.
It is only recently that recordings of council meetings are allowed, but officers have battled long and hard to prevent this.
It is time for change.
Is donald duck right when he say's that reporting is a catalogue of lies?
Thank goodness for the person who has (past 12 months?) recorded the town council meetings and then puts the video on Youtube.
I agree that minutes (and newspaper reports for that matter) don't necessarily give the full 'flavour' of a meeting. Although both may give different versions of the same thing and with different styles of English.
If people are unable to attend in person then a video recording is the next best option (but that can prove unbelievably snoresville - that's not a slight on the person who is kindly doing the recordings by the way more a comment by me on the boringness, as I perceive it, of the plodding, pedantic, procedure of council meetings.)
Looking forward to watching last week's council meeting on Youtube. (when I'll be able to watch it bit by bit).
Especially the bit about the playpark funding.......
Recordings are obvioulsy useful but minutes, I thought, were meant to simply record decisions on a particular item of business and are not meant to be reports or verbatim of what was / wasn't said by councillors, other than distirct and town councillor reports. I also think I read somewhere that they should be as short as is consistent with clarity and accuracy; in addition they are less likely to be defamatory and expose the council to risk of legal proceedings and not expose public money.
If the meetings were interesting then perhaps the press might turn up! By the time you have listened to everything each councillor has done over the last month, most of which isn’t relevant, then there is little time for anything else.........yawn!!!!
Have just bought today's Dawlish Gazette.
Other than an article and 2 x letters concerning the new proposed dog regulations, which is a Teignbridge District Council wide matter and not a Dawlish specific one, I can find nothing about any other issues raised at last week's town council meeting.
Which, given that no-one from the press was there, I suppose is only to be expected.
@maki1. you said "but minutes,i thought, were meant to simply record decisions on a particular item of business and are not meant to be reports or verbatim of what was / wasn't said by councillors,"
Of course they are not verbatim, and there in lies the problem. If we do not know what coucillor said what or even know when a vote is taken on a motion, what councillor voted for, against or abstained, we are up the creek without a paddle. We have no one else to blame but the voter for letting them get away with it. when they get elected. Don't take too much notice of what they say they are going to do, there is much more they do but don't tell you.
You have a right to know, after all, they are representing your interests one way or another you elected them into office.
And as lynne rightly points out, with newspapers deminishing, where else will we find out what is going on.
Hansard records what everyone said and when they said it, the same should apply to local authorities in the form of minutes.