‘The’ Audio Recording 25th July 2016

‘The’ Audio Recording

Click on the link below to listen to the Full council meeting held on Monday 25th July 2016.

 
 

The full council meeting held on Monday 25th July at the Village Collage was well attended with an estimated audience of around 150. A good number of ‘well-established’ residents from Melbourn attended the meeting as did Mr Ian Dewar the CEO of CPALC and the three members of the independent panel that produced the grievance document on behalf of Melbourn Parish Council.
 
The audio quality is not perfect, but clearly shows how the meeting is conducted.
Only the names of residents have been removed from this recording.

‘The audio recording of this meeting was made under the
Local Government Parliamentary Act 6th August 2014,
which gives the public the right to film and digitally report
all public meetings of local government bodies.’

 

1749

8 comments

  • Personally, I think have been arguing since the act came in, that ALL parish council meetings should be streamed live to the web.

    Lets include the public more in how the PC is .

    As an X audio engineer, I’m impressed with the sound quality obtained, the microphones are very discreet, and if I’m lucky enough go back on a new PC, will be pushing further for recordings to happen.

    Unfortunately, as I understand things, unless all the PC resigns, there is only going to be an election for the 7 posts,. Then if the PC is more then 4 , it will CO-opt on who they want.

    If the PC don’t get more than 4, then I understand SCDC will co-opt a nominal 5th cllr to allow co option by the PC of others.

    Not a good situation.

  • What is this about “surreptitious” recording? Several people were recording the meeting that evening including myself. The regulations are very clear as has already been posted and no permission is needed. Only if the recording or filming disrupts proceedings is it an issue, so the discreet setting up of devices was in line with that requirement. None of us attending were surreptitious about our recordings – just respectfully discreet.

    Attendees I spoke to after the meeting were more concerned with the matters revealed about what had happened to people, rather than meeting technicalities. I should have thought that all at the meeting should have been grateful that it was recorded, so that the facts are clear and cannot be exaggerated or subject to reporting bias.

    • You are absolutely right when you say the Chairman asked if the meeting was being recorded, but this was clearly contradicted by a member of the public and the Clerk.

      Given the details that came out during the meeting and the way this whole sorry saga has been conducted, I know who I’m inclined to believe!

  • I was at this meeting – there were NOT 150 people there – possibly about 100 – but yet more exaggeration I feel? At no time was the permission given to record the meeting, surely permission should have been asked previously by the District Councillor who was recording it surreptitiously?

    • ‘The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations – 6th August 2014’, give the public the right to film, audio record, take photographs and use social media and the internet at meetings to report on any meetings that are open to the public.

      From the recording – Further on in the procedure there was an interruption by a member of the public when she said “our Clerk is being abused … not only are you being rude, I just heard what you said to her.” The Chairman responded with “I just told her I was recording.” The Clerk then stated “he told me he’s recording because I’m not making many notes.”

      What’s good for the Goose …

      As to how many people attended the meeting, well that’s a matter of opinion for which we are all entitled to give and a number of different residents gave their opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.