Agenda item
Questions
- Meeting of Council, Wednesday, 15th December, 2010 10.30 am (Item 21.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 21.
Minutes:
The Council had before it the following questions, of which due notice had been given in terms of Standing Order 20(2), which had been placed on the agenda as the questioners had indicated they were unhappy with the responses.
Councillor Farquharson
QUESTIONS -
To the Leader of the Council
(1) “How can you justify the actions of yourself and other Administration Councillors in intervening in the selection process for Council internal and external positions specifically designated for Opposition Councillors? Do you not accept that these appointments should be made by Opposition votes alone or by drawing lots in the event of a tied vote?”
(2) “Do you not agree that the Administration intervention is a serious breach of democracy and on a personal level is misuse of authority and power?”
ANSWERS (by Councillor John Stewart) -
(1) As has been made clear to me by the Labour Group secretary, external appointments are not party appointments, but Council appointments. Therefore, those appointments should be made by the whole Council. In the recent case of the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre (AECC) Board, there were two places reserved for opposition councillors, and the split between the opposition councillors was not specified in the Labour amendment tabled. Two named opposition councillors were properly proposed and seconded. Only when realising the inadequacy of the amendment did the Labour group then propose an un-named Labour representative, necessitating a vote. Since these appointments are Council appointments, I feel I have a responsibility to ensure that the individuals that the Council puts forward to our external partners are the best appropriate members. In the case of the AECC appointment, I could not judge the character of an un-named member and therefore supported the two named nominations. If the opposition groups on the Council cannot phrase amendments to properly reflect their intent, or cannot work together to reach agreement on their nominees, that is not the fault of the administration. I am sure that staff in Legal and Democratic Services are more than willing to offer advice to all councillors to ensure amendments are not only competent, but that they actually and accurately reflect the intent of the mover, thereby removing the need for officers and other members to try and interpret intent by mind-reading, osmosis or other mystic means.
For internal appointments, where the opposition cannot agree their nominees, for instance in the case of the Appointment Panel (there being one Aberdeen Conservative nominee and one Independent nominee for one Conservative/Aberdeen Conservative place), and where it was imperative to reach a conclusion quickly otherwise an opposition place would have been effectively removed from the Panel, it was quite proper that the Urgent Business Committee took that decision to allow a full complement of members to participate in the extremely important process for appointing a new chief executive. It is not the fault of the administration that the two Conservative groups could not reach agreement on a nominee.
(2) No, I do not agree. What was unacceptable was Councillor Farquharson's subsequent behaviour, be his failure to show respect for the Convener of the Urgent Business Committee, or his abusive language following the meeting, be that fascist, faggot or fat git. Council staff in particular, should not have to endure such outbursts in their workplace.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor Young declared an interest in the following item by virtue of his position as a Council appointed Governor to the Board of Oakbank School but did not consider it necessary to leave the meeting.
Councillor Leslie
QUESTIONS -
To the Chief Executive
(1) “When did Oakbank School receive a loan from Aberdeen City Council?”
(2) “How much was the loan?”
(3) “How long was the repayment period over?”
ANSWERS (by the Chief Executive) -
(1) The Finance Sub-Committee approved the loans to Oakbank School at their meetings of 21st January 1997 and 19th December 1997.
(2) An initial loan of £300,000 and thereafter £80,000.
(3) The loans were to be short term, not exceeding one year.
In accordance with Standing Order 20(4), the Lord Provost ruled that the questions had been answered satisfactorily.
At this juncture, Councillor Young presented the Head of Legal and Democratic Services with cheques totalling £103,764 on behalf of Oakbank School, the sum being the total amount owed to the Council by Oakbank.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.
Councillor Young
QUESTIONS -
To the Chief Executive
(1) “To ask the Chief Executive what steps she has taken to protect the Council Tax payers and citizens of Aberdeen as 100% stock holder in Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre (AECC) following the Council decision back in February 2010 and reinforced in August 2010 that Council only completes the necessary support documentation required to convert the existing £2million Loan Facility into preference shares, on appropriate terms, and extend the repayment date of the £7.5million Loan Facility to 17th May 2017, given that it was subject to AECC replacing three of their current elected member Board members with three new non-elected member Board members to be appointed following external advertisement and appointing a non-elected member chairperson, as agreed by Council in February 2010.
Can the Chief Executive confirm what support, if any, has been given to the AECC between the decision taken in February 2010 and today and can the Chief Executive confirm that under no circumstances, will this Council provide support to the AECC until its current Chairperson demits office as agreed at Council in February 2010 and reinforced in August 2010 and appoints 3 independent Board members?”
(2) “To ask the Chief Executive when she was interviewed for the article in the Holyrood magazine of 1st November 2010, was it before or after the Education, Culture and Sport meeting of 28th October?”
(3) “To ask the Chief Executive to confirm how many meetings the Chief Executive or her officials have had with Sir Ian Wood or his representatives and the anonymous donator or his/her representatives since the last Council meeting in order to finalise the £50million and £5million gift donation with regard to the Union Terrace Gardens project and to further ask the Chief Executive to confirm when the legal documents confirming the £50million and the £5million donation will be ready for signature by both the donators and the City Council?”
ANSWERS (by the Chief Executive) -
(1) The Chief Executive can confirm that discussions have taken place with AECC regarding the replacement of Directors and the conversion and extension of loan facilities, as noted in the question. As yet, no conversion or extension has been undertaken and this will not happen until the Board makes the changes requested of it by the Council.
The Chairman and Directors of AECC have given considerable attention to how they might attract new Board members onto the Board of the company pending the anticipated changes in their financial structure and the uncertainty surrounding their involvement with the proposed hotel development.
The Council’s recent decision not to support the hotel project and to remove AECC from any direct role in any future development of Council owned assets at or around the AECC has meant that any proposed new Board members of AECC will now have a clearer understanding of their role than may have been the case some months ago. Consequently, we expect AECC Board to make the required personnel changes as soon as possible.
(2) The interview with Holyrood magazine took place on 21st October.
(3) Since the last Council meeting the Chief Executive has met with Sir Ian Wood on one occasion to discuss progress with the City Garden Project. Through Sir Ian Wood a legal letter has been received in respect of the anonymous donor securing that offer and furthermore mechanisms are currently being put in place to receive private sector donations and to use these to fund various aspects of the Project. These mechanisms will involve the creation of a Project Agreement between the City Council and the other major stakeholders setting out the responsibilities and obligations of the various parties.
The exact nature and basis on which any donation is made will be outlined in the Project Agreement, but it is not yet known when this will be signed. However, it is clear that the Agreement will need to be signed before the Council agrees (a) to support further progress with the design competition; (b) to enter into discussions regarding the basis on which land may be made available to facilitate the Project; or (c) to decide whether to make available public loans, backed by a TIF scheme, to implement the Project.
In accordance with Standing Order 20(4), the Lord Provost ruled that question (2) had been answered satisfactorily.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.
QUESTION -
To the Convener of the Housing and Environment Committee
“To ask the Convener of Housing and Environment what plans if any the Council has to upgrade the bathrooms, replace the windows and cut down and maintain the trees at “Hamewith” Sheltered Housing complex in the Bridge of Don?”
ANSWER (by Councillor Malone) -
At Hamewith, numbers 1-20 were constructed in 1975 but numbers 21-50 were constructed in 1996. Accordingly the replacement dates for housing capital works vary for each tranche of addresses when applying a lifecycle analysis.
Windows
1 - 20 were last replaced in 1997/98 and are not due until 2028
21 - 50 are not due until 2025 (based on construction date)
The default replacement date will be set at 2025
Kitchen and bathroom upgrades
1 - 20 are scheduled for replacement now.
21- 50 would be due for modernisation in 2016 which passes the cut off date for Scottish Housing Quality Standard.
In this case we will programme to upgrade the kitchens and bathrooms in the whole block in the 2012/13 financial year. This would mean that we are replacing the majority of kitchens 4-5 years before we are scheduled to but would then get the whole block back on the same lifecycle schedule.
The trees and shrubs are part of an ongoing maintenance programme. The shrub work has now been completed for the year. There are no current works planned for the trees although officers are to revisit the site and reassess. Any works required will be programmed in as necessary to next year’s work schedules.
In accordance with Standing Order 20(4), the Lord Provost ruled that the question had been answered satisfactorily.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.
Councillor Ironside
QUESTIONS -
To the Chief Executive
(1) “To ask the Chief Executive what is the Council’s policy/protocol regarding Councillors attending tours of the Town House when a school from their electoral ward is visiting?”
(2) “To ask the Chief Executive why when Kingsford Primary School visited for two tours of the Town House on 29th September, the first tour was hosted by one local member who is part of the Administration with the second hosted by the other local Councillor who is also a member of the Administration, but as the third local Councillor and member of the Opposition, and previous Council Leader, I was not invited?”
ANSWERS (by the Chief Executive) -
(1) Tours by school groups of the Town House are hosted by the Lord Provost or his representative and are listed in his diary of activities. Councillors from the ward in which a visiting school is located would normally be informed of the visit and invited to be in attendance at it.
(2) Unfortunately, due to an administrative oversight on the occasion in question no invitation was issued.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor Kevin Stewart declared an interest in the following item by virtue of his membership of the Aberdeen Business Improvement District Board but did not consider it necessary to leave the meeting.
QUESTIONS -
To the Convener of the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Committee
(1) “To ask the Convener of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure how much in monetary terms has been spent on consultants and other work in the Business Improvement District (BID) to date?”
(2) “To ask the Convener of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure what progress has been made on the BID so far?”
ANSWERS (by Councillor Dean) -
(1) Aberdeen BID Development Company Ltd has spent £161,577.72 on consultants and £47,339.58 on other operational expenses to date.
(2) Progress on the Aberdeen Business Improvement District (BID) was most recently reported to the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Committee by way of a bulletin report on 9th November 2010. In summary, considerable progress has been made on the Aberdeen BID to date. Namely, the design, distribution and analysis of a Business Perception and Attitudinal Survey Questionnaire; undertaken the statutory process of pre-ballot consultation (including thematic workshops) and an associated survey of the individual business constituents within the defined BID constituency; definition of the baseline services provided by Aberdeen City Council within the Aberdeen BID area in preparation for a Baseline Services Agreement between Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeen BID Development Company Ltd; and, following analysis, development of a BID Proposal based on the Summary Survey Report and Baseline Services Agreement.
It is anticipated that Aberdeen BID will proceed to a statutory ballot of businesses in July 2011, having completed the majority of the preparatory stages utilising the funding allocated to the BID by the Energising Aberdeen Fund (26th March 2008). In the event of a successful ballot, the BID will generate circa £4m of investment over a 5 year period upon identified city centre priorities identified as a result of the pre-ballot consultations and development activities highlighted above.
The Council resolved:-
to note the details.