Councillor requests meetings are recorded
- Credit: Archant
A Bideford town councillor has suggested meetings should be recorded to provide a ‘true record’ of proceedings.
A BIDEFORD town councillor has suggested the council ‘moves into the 21st century’ by recording its meetings.
Councillor Andy Powell asked councillors at Bideford Town Council’s full meeting on Thursday to consider the option with a budget of £750.
He said it would provide a ‘true record’ of proceedings and members of the public could purchase a recording for a charge of £5.
But councillors had a number of concerns regarding the legal footings of recording the meetings, including closed, part two sessions.
You may also want to watch:
Councillor Anne Brenton called the motion ‘premature’, saying the council should seek further advice before agreeing.
One councillor dismissed the idea altogether, claiming it was a waste of tax payers’ money.
- 1 Farmer fined for ploughing up protected Iron Age remains
- 2 Tractor guidance systems taken from farm near Bideford
- 3 North Devon woman reveals huge collection of HM Queen portraits and memorabilia
- 4 Rare vehicles from Dave Vanstone Collection go to auction
- 5 Bideford town centre regeneration plan backed by council
- 6 South Molton youngsters enjoy Land Rover Premiership Rugby Cup
- 7 Brother told sister 'you're dead' after birthday party bust-up
- 8 Bideford Pannier Market offers traders new deal
- 9 Assault and attempted robbery near Tarka Trail
- 10 Man arrested after 'serious assault' outside Barnstaple nightclub
“I don’t think it will help Bideford at all,” said Councillor Tony Inch.
“I’d rather give the £750 to the Food Bank; that would be money well spent.”
But some councillors welcomed the idea of moving ahead with the times.
“This is the 21st century, and it would be nice to see the town council move forward, even if only to the 20th century,” said Councillor David Howell.
Councillors amended Cllr Powell’s motion to consult with other councils already recording meetings to find out more about the legal implications. Five councillors voted against, and 10 for the amended motion.