Only four e-petitions at Liverpool council last year
Setting up a government e-petition has become a highly effective way for campaign groups to raise awareness of their causes.
The government was forced to allow a debate into the release of Hillsborough documents after massive support via an e-petition.
Liverpool council has also had the facility to create e-petitions for some time now. But a quick search shows that only four were created last year.
Help Save Calder Kids got 165 signatures, Save West Derby Childrens Centre got none (it's a bit strange that the person who set it up didn't sign it), No bollards got five, and Free Formula Milk for HIV Positive Mothers received six.
Given that only 100 signatories are needed to trigger a council official having to look into the matter and then post a response, I am surprised that this tool is not being used more than it is.
UPDATE: Here is a bit more info:
If 4,349 people sign the petition must be considered by council.
If 437 people sign a senior officer will be required to attend a public meeting to answer questions.
And if 100 people sign the council has to look into it and post a response.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Heard a rumour that Joe Anderson is thinking of starting one himself.It is about a referendum on whether we want a mayor. I think he is secretly upset at the lack of democrarcy. Mind you it may just be a rumour.
Interesting fact.
A recent article here mentioned a watering down of the current Freedom Of Information
Act.
So if say a group of 100 people were to get together and instead of asking the queastion via a FOI request they were to sort of ask it via an E-pettion then they could get a response.
Or if the group was 437 strong then a public meeting.
Interesting.
I suppose a petition with a lot of signatures might cause some temporary embarrassment, but that's all.
Even one that must be "considered by the council".
They manipulate these things, and are economical with the truth to put it mildly.
I went to a Finance & Resources Select Committee in December, and asked what had happened to the ICT strategy - a thorough document approved by the previous administration for the five year period from 2009 to 2014. It was one of the documents used to prepare the financial plan (the budget). I was told, by the senior officer responsible, that it had not been a proper official strategy, just a list of projects (the exact words are in the minutes of the meeting). This is not and was not true, but she said it anyway, in a meeting with constitutional responsibilities for scrutiny, while sitting next to chief executive Ged Fitzgerald, who said nothing.
So they wouldn't have a problem running rings around a petition, I think.
For clarity, I should point out that the strategy I refer to above appears to have been buried immediately after the election, as there is no mention of the ICT strategy as one of the documents underpinning the budgt for 2010/11 or, indeed, this years. Nothing, obviously about savings in IT costs either. There has been a short presentation about all the improvements that are going to be made (i.e. money spent). The replacement "strategy" isn't ready yet - almost 2 years after the last one fell off a cliff.