On Wednesday, there was the first ‘ordinary’ meeting of the town council since the Mayor Making.
The first real debate was about council nominees to 4 outside community groups that had not been decided at Mayor making. They were…
1. Earth Trust
2. Fair Trade Group
3. Abingdon and District Twin Town Society (ADTTS)
4. Abbey Fish Ponds
For the Earth Trust both Conservatives and Lib-dems put forward a candidate. The vote was 10 to 10 and the Mayor cast his deciding vote for the Conservative nominee – continuing the trend of the mayor Making.
For the Fair Trade Group it was said that the new council’s policy on Fair Trade needed to be decided and there was to be a discussion later on that. So that was postponed.
It was said by the Conservative leader of the council that no town council representative was wanted by the twin towns society ADDTS where the council nominee was sometimes seen as an irritant.
On Abbey Fish Ponds the leader thought no representative was needed, but others argued that that it was useful for a councillor to be involved in the wildlife space run by BBOWT (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust) at the Abbey Fish Ponds – to help mediate with neighbouring houses who sometimes encroach. At the vote 2 Conservatives voted with the Lib-Dems to nominate a councillor to the Abbey Fish Ponds and then a Lib-Dem candidate was elected – bucking the trend.
What, environmentally or politically? Incidentally, it is hardly in the centre. I believe the stream, the Radley Brook, used to be the parish border with Radley? Note that it is the only BBOWT reserve in Abingdon. There are regular work parties down there and the warden when she sees this can decide for herself whether she wants to give her contact details.
I’l be interestig to see what the new council decides regarding Abingdon’s Fair Trade policy. I hope that they will support the selling of fair trading products in the town.
As one of the new Conservative councilors I found the discussion on Fair Trade very interesting. I would point out that both the conservatives and lib dem groups spoke in favour of the principle of fair trade and I’m sure are both supportive of the selling of fair trade products in the town.
The only debate was on the way the specific motion was (perhaps mischievously) worded which would have meant, for example, that the Guildhall could only sell fair trade wine, which may have significant implications for its event booking business.
I am convinced that giving some time to frame a proper policy, informed by an officer’s report, will result in a much better policy for all the people of the town.
Personally I am supportive of the Chamber of Commerce’s initiative to restart the fair trade group, and am only mystified by why the members of the previous lib dem administration let the town’s fair trade status lapse in the first place.
I am interested in the Fairtrade debate – so I checked the wording of the motion on the Town Council and Iain I think you are wrong. The motion talks about giving a choice of Fairtrade food and drinks at Council events and exploring selling Fairtrade wine at the Guildhall.
It only commits to providing only Fairtrade at Council controlled events. So I can’t see that this would affect Guildhall bookings.
Why wasn’t the Fairtrade motion debated? If it has been postponed to the next Town Council – isn’t that 2 months delay
It was debated, at length, weren’t you there? However, the ‘administration’ decided to go away and ‘study’ the implications, more or less. I, as a town councillor present, wanted to point out that the Guildhall issue was to only to give an option of Fairtrade goods, but by that time I thought, “no one is going to understand, or want to understand”, so I kept quiet. Not like me at all. It was a very tiring meeting; ask those present!
Patlon – it’s a sad day if you feel it is not worth speaking out.
I have just checked the motion too – it is on the Town Council website as part of the Town Council agenda. Looks fine to me!
I too have looked at the motion on the town council website, and I fear that some councillors did not read it properly before the meeting, since I can see nothing “mischevious” in it. Having seen many fair trade resolutions around the country this one seemed pretty standard.
Given the talk at the annual town meeting about the necessity of political groups working together I hope that the *real* reason for the opposition was not simply that it was proposed and seconded by two liberal democrat councillors.
It would be a real shame if an attempt to reinforce Abingdon’s strong commitment to fair trade was delayed or blocked because of party-political gamesmanship.
Please rest assured that I read the motion very carefully and think it is at best ambiguously worded:
‘…and only sell fair-trade wine at council controlled functions’
The council now controls the guildhall so do events here count as council controlled? Similarly does an event such as the forthcoming jubilee celebration fall into this category?
To reiterate I remain supportive of the fairtrade principle, which i dont believe is party political, but could not support the proposal the way it was worded. I know this sounds picky but part of our job as councillors is to make sure they are worded in such a way that they can be effectively implemented by the officers for the benefit of the town.
I hope that if I ever book the Guildhall for an event that the Council do not try to control me!
However – would it not have been normal procedure at a Town Council to propose and vote on amendments to the motion to produce a wording that is acceptable to all?
The very fact this wasn’t done gives the impression that the Conservatives had a negative view of the proposal.
Hi Helen
Yes that’s what happened. The leader proposed an amendment which will allow a revised wording to be developed and reviewed at the finance and general purposes committe following an officers report. This was then voted on and agreed at the council meeting.
It’s a shame the motion had to be put in the first place really, as it wouldn’t have been required if the lib deems had renewed the towns fair trade status at the start of the year when it expired.
Anyway, all being well we’ll have a well worded fair trade policy which we can all support available soon.
Soon is a lovely ambiguous word.
From the outside it looks like party political silly beggars is brginning to bog down simple matters, chucking things that ought to be sorted out easily into a long winded committee process.
From the town council website it looks like the earliest that the finanace and general purposes committee can look at this is 13th September. Assuming they do not take until the next meeting (!8th October) or the one after (15th November) to “develop and review” the wording, then the earliest the full council can vote on this is 30th November. Any dealys in the committee process will delay this matter until at least 25th january 2012.
Iain, thanks for coming on here by the way. But can you confirm that my dates are correct? This seems an incredibly long process for a simple matter.
Hi David
The timing is broadly correct – the next FGP committee is 13 sept and the full council is the 28th. Unfortunately the schedule is pretty standard regardless of which party is on power. I come from a commercial background and I agree that everything does seem to move very slowly.
Whilst the delay is frustrating, there has been no fair trade policy for about six months already, so I’m sure we will survive with a slight delay while we get a good one which will work for everyone for the next four years and hopefully
beyond.
Thanks for your comment David – it’s nice to have the opportunity to explain why we do the things we do as these things can easily be misinterpreted. I appreciate a new administration after 16 years must leave people feeling uncertain.
By the way – is anyone else surprised that a blog about fish ponds should spark a lively debate?
Nothing ever suprises :). The new wording for Fair Trade is stronger than the original that was carried at the Town Council when Abingdon became a Fair Trade town.
It read …
This Council welcomes initiatives by the Abingdon Fair Trade Group to encourage the use of Fair Trade goods, and backs their bid to gain the Town Fairtrade Status. The Council will support this bid by:
* Welcoming a Fair Trade stall at Town Council events;
* Using Fair Trade products when possible at offices and events as an alternative;
* Promoting Fair Trade in its publication ‘The Town Crier’.
See the words ‘as an alternative’.
VWHDC passed the motion
This Council welcomes the initiatives by Fairtrade groups across the Vale of White Horse to encourage the use of Fairtrade goods, and backs their bids to gain the ‘Town Fairtrade Status’. The Council will support their efforts by:-
* Using Fairtrade products, eg tea, coffee, biscuits, fruit and other products as they become available at offices and events as an alternative for individual choice.
* Promoting Fairtrade in its publications.
See the words ‘as an alternative’ repeated.
As far as I know both policies still stand until withdrawn so why is a new wording needed. Both Abingdon’s councils support Fair Trade. So why reinvent what was agreed 6 years ago?
Add Fair Trade wine ‘as an alternative’ and I am sure everybody will be happy. Fair Trade is a matter of personal choice. You can’t legislate Fair Trade.
“, there has been no fair trade policy for about six months already”
As I understand it, this is incorrect. The council fair trade policy did not have a time limit on it, and so did not lapse six months ago.
However, Iain, it seems from your comments above that the new administration considers that there is no fair trade policy in effect until you pass one. Is that correct?
The Fairtrade website has information on how towns get Fairtrade status. Abingdon has done this – but apparently it is supposed to be renewed every 2 years. I guess this was not done?
From what Backstreeter says – the local councils already formally support Fairtrade. So it just remains for the Town Council to actively demonstrate their support.
It sounds from what Iain says that they will get around to this eventually!
Helen’s correct and per David’s comment sorry, my wording was clumsy and inaccurate. It was the fair trade status that I was meant to refer to as having lapsed rather that the policy.
…was meaning even – brain not working today
No problem. As someone who is a bit passionate about fair trade I wanted to be clear about Abingdon’s position.
The twin towns society ADTTS are not happy with the reported comments made at the council meeting and are seeking clarification.
Does the twin towns want a town council rep then?
Dear All,
I am the President of the Abingdon Chamber of Commerce & would just like to clarify the position on the Fairtrade polocy. A motion was passed in 2004 for the Town Council to support the Fairtrade group & Abingdon gained Fairtrade Status. This “officially” ran out in 2009 due to the Fairtrade group diespanding. We , The Chamber, have been holding some funds since then to use to promote Fairtrade in Abingdon. This year we have a completely new comittee on the Chamber from last year & have decided that we need to resurect the Fairtrade group. To regain the status as a Fairtrade Town we need the Town Council to confirm that they are still committed to supporting Fairtrade in Abingdon. A steering group has now been formed & an event will take place on the Market Place on 20th August. Please come & support us. Thankyou
Regarding twin towns… in my notebook I wrote “Irritated by town on ADDTS committee so happy not to have rep.” Best ask the council leader what was intended. It may have got lost in translation.