New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[wangi]

[rathbone]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[wangi]

So what are Portobello High School Parent Council, Towerbank Parents Council and PFANs going to do about it? Next meeting of Portobello Community Council isn't until 30 Jan 2012. And that's a good bit after the for the petition being heard at the court.

[Maria]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

Thanks Marya..

Ok not actually on the Agenda but the fact it was mentioned at all is an achievement. One can see above how hard John Stewart tried to prevent the subject ever reariing its head.

Wangi, asks "So what are Portobello High School Parent Council, Towerbank Parents Council and PFANs going to do about it?"

Based on Marya's comments a positive outcome has already been achieved.

Lets face it there was really very little that could be done and had PPAG not been represented on PCC it would be nothing. The connection with PCC provides a formal opportunity to catalogue PPAG's misrepresentations and to record their response. Can they justify the claims they made?

There is a court hearing coming up, the character, integrity and representative nature of the group bringing the action (PPAG) will be examined. Now that PCC are involved, PPAG's response, or lack of, will become de facto. It is a lose:lose situation for them, unless they can substantiate the "significant majority" and other claims.

The three groups want the misrepresentations removed from the PPAG website and that may happen. Whether they stay or go it is now a matter of public record they agrred to justify or remove them. When taken along with all the other media where misrepresentations have been made, it makes for a fairly weighty dossier.

[Porty]

[rmolehusband]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that some elements within PCC have abused their positions of trust to further the goals of PPAG, though even I'm a little shocked by just how corrupt and blatant their self interested behaviour has been. I sincerely hope they can be held to account for this and other abuses, though I will not be holding my breath.

The future of the new High School now rests with the courts. I very much doubt that their pages of lies will bring in any more significant cash now, so why worry about it? PPAG will be irrelevant by the next PCC meeting anyway.

[Brenda]

For the information of those seeking to discredit Portobello Community Council and its Chairman regarding the issue of the PPAG website, and for the record :-

The letter from PFANS, Portobello High School Parent Council and Towerbank School Council suggested that PCC might censure PPAG for statements made on its website. As this was not something PCC had been faced with before, the Chairman requested advice from the Council's community council liaison officer on how to proceed.

I have been copied into all the email correspondence.

The Chairman gave the background to the issue, then wrote: "Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment.)" That attachment was a copy of the PFANS/PPC/TBC letter which explained EXACTLY why the suggestion of censure was being made, so the liaison officer could have been in no doubt about it.

The reply he received was: "It wouldn't be appropriate for the CC to censure PPAG as they are acting on their own behalf and haven't misrepresented the community council". Having asked for, and received advice, the PCC Chair felt obliged to follow it.

The PCC member who is representing PFANS/PPC/TBC in this matter (who was also copied into the email correspondence, so can confirm these facts) was not happy with that advice and contacted the community council liaison officer himself.

The reply he received was the same as that given to the Chairman of PCC, except for the addition of one important sentence: "The local authority offers procedural advice to community councils but ultimately it is up to the CC to decide whether to take this advice."

As there was by then a very full agenda for the PCC meeting of 28th November, it was agreed with the PFANS/PPC/TBC representative to carry the matter over to the next meeting and PPAG have been requested to amend their website.

Brenda Molony
Vice-chair, Portobello Community Council

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Mark Cameron]

I attended my first PCC meeting on 28th November and trying to remain as neutral as possible having not been involved in any of this my observation would be that had a significant amount of time not been dedicated to a couple of items(*) unrelated to Portobello which were within the 2 major planning applications being discussed there may have been time to discuss this matter that directly affects Portobello.

* the items related to how land at Leith Port should be used and what the PCC stance was on whether Edinburgh City needed more offices. Must admit I was somewhat surprised to find time being dedicated to that when there are significant issues affecting our community that appear to deserve more pressing attention.

[wangi]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[rmolehusband]

Given that PPAG have only just decided that some sort of formal membership is required, do they even qualify as a properly constituted organisation in terms of qualifying to be a nominated member of the CC? Has anyone seen their constitution or, more interestingly, accounts?

At the very least it has to be inclusive, could we all join, have an EGM, and force a change of direction? We could help them go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

Thing is; both John and Brenda are fully aware that those three claims are lies. And they know they are lies from a group that is represented on PCC. And they know the lies are being used to raise funds from the community- none of that is in dispute. They also know that "acting honestly" is a key element of the Community Council scheme. It is is inconcievable that an open and fair community council would block a debate.

They got a reasonable request from three well respected groups, who asked for a debate with the POSSIBILITY of censure. John and now it seems Brenda opted to protect the liars from the debate. According to John's email above, he said no even before he got the council's advice. He told the council what he wanted and they backed him. I'm guessing he refrained from advising the council he had allowed PPAG to speak on "siting and court action" at the previous PCC meeting.

I don't know whether the PCC secretary, Diana Cairns is on record making any of those claims but there is a strong possibility she is the author of the lies. Perhaps that is why PCC would not accomodate PFANS, PHS parent council and Towerbank parent council. Doesn't look good having to censure your pal.

As Bob says above, its been almost two weeks since PPAG agreed to review their website, maybe thay are content with the way it is?

[seashell]

Re the website: surely in this case actions (or the lack thereof) speak louder that words?
The facts presented here are quite shocking and it seems untenable that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Is there a possibility of convening an extra-ordinary meeting of PCC to discuss *all* of the above issues, including the correspondance with the council?
Are there provisions for a motion to censure?
How about a vote of no confidence or to dissolve the current PCC - what are the relevant procedures, or if there be no such provisions, can the council be petitioned directly?
With the Court of Session hearing set for less than 4 weeks away, it would appear that swift action is required.

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[wangi]

[Bob Jefferson]

And to be fair to PPAG, that's exactly what they have done. They have updated the site by putting the words 'significant majority' in an even larger red font. And they haven't retracted any of the other lies. Frankly, they are taking the piss out of Portobello Community Council. Unless they intend to change it all again before midnight of course. I won't be staying up.

[Porty]

Has anyone bought a PPAG 2011 calendar. How much are they charging and does it include free entry to the 2012 party in the park?

[Bob Jefferson]

Party in the park? Surely you mean hoe-down in the housing estate?

[Maria]

[wangi]

[seanie]

No, it's changed.

Although barely perceptibly.

[Porty]

[Makaveli]

Who are the PCC answerable to?

I presume it must be someone at Edinburgh Council?

[Pal of Porty]

It appears PPAG have chosen to maintain many of their misrepresentations on their website but I am not in the least bit surprised as it is wholly consistent with the way they have conducted their entire campaign. It is clearly wrong for any organisation to raise funds on false premises but they are in the last throes of their life span so they probably just thought 'stuff it' and had a bit of a laugh to themselves.

My frustrations however are not with an an organisation that has been two faced since it was created but with the PCC that allows one of its members to treat it with such contempt. The message this sends out to citizens of Portobello is not too good. The inner coven of the PCC are aligned with the aims of PPAG (and their pals) and were possibly even involved with the PPAG decision regarding its response to the PCC - neutrality is a total lie to hide behind and a complete abdication of their responsibilities.

Fast Forward to end of January 2012 - Chair to PCC says, We have all seen the PPAG response but now that the school is going ahead I don't think we need to discuss this matter anymore etc etc ..........

[Porty]

Makaveli:

Eileen.Hewitt@edinburgh.gov.uk
Michele.Mulvaney@edinburgh.gov.uk

But you won't get anywhere. The council are reluctant to get involved with internecine debate about local issues, which is quite understandable. They minimise interference by acquiescing with however a CC Chair decides they want to handle a matter. No doubt the strategy works well when the Chair plays with a straight bat. Which is demonstrably not the case here. All the behavioural evidence suggests he's in PPAG's pocket, simple as that.

The chair knows, through excperience, if he writes to the council saying "i've said no", the council will back him without putting too much effort into investigating. So that's what he did.

You'd think the Chair of a Community Council, who are a democratic component of the City Council, would have some conscience about one of its member groups lying to fundraise in order to "sue" his/their parent body. Instead- we have a CC that has gone to exrtaordinary lengths to suppress the matter, which is akin to complicity.

Expect "Bogus Workmen" and "Doorstep Fish Sellers" to put forward a PPC representative at the next elections. Think what a "Supported by Portobello Community Council" badge could do for business.