Jacqueline Swanson's Posts - goldenlaneestate.org2024-03-29T01:42:10ZJacqueline Swansonhttp://goldenlane.ning.com/profile/JacquelineSwansonhttp://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2526925908?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://goldenlane.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=00luymrkev1qr&xn_auth=noMental Health Awareness Week: Open Letter to COLPAI Projecttag:goldenlane.ning.com,2020-05-21:2323372:BlogPost:754162020-05-21T07:37:54.000ZJacqueline Swansonhttp://goldenlane.ning.com/profile/JacquelineSwanson
<p>Hello Neighbours</p>
<p>Yesterday I sent the attached <a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/5215187290?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Open Letter to COLPAI Project</a> (the first three pages copied below) about the effect that the construction is having on our well being during this week of Mental Health Awareness. This morning I am sending to all members of the City Council along with this link.</p>
<p>Thank you to everyone who contributed with their…</p>
<p>Hello Neighbours</p>
<p>Yesterday I sent the attached <a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/5215187290?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open Letter to COLPAI Project</a> (the first three pages copied below) about the effect that the construction is having on our well being during this week of Mental Health Awareness. This morning I am sending to all members of the City Council along with this link.</p>
<p>Thank you to everyone who contributed with their personal stories. I know there are many more so please do post underneath and I will include as an addendum to anyone else we send out to as we try get decision makers and influencers to understand the detrimental effect that the works are having on residents who live so close to the site. </p>
<p></p>
<p>All bests</p>
<p>Jacqueline</p>
<p><strong>_________________________________________________</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>20 May 2020</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Dear COLPAI Project</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>We’d like you to understand the damage you are doing and have done to the mental well being of the residents on Golden Lane Estate during this time of exceptional national distress.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The country went into lockdown on Monday 23 March and as everyone got up on Tuesday ready to face the new normal of working and schooling from home we were all perplexed to discover construction continuing on the COLPAI site. Why was this non-essential activity continuing – weren’t we all supposed to be staying at home to save the NHS?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The more cynical of us weren’t that surprised but did become very concerned when it was clear social distancing was not being practiced. We had to turn into snitches, providing incriminating evidence before the site closed on 2 April. In contrast Taylor Wimpey just 100 metres away decided to close their site just after the lockdown began ‘<em>due to the current pandemic…and the health risk it presents to all people</em>’.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Despite our local councillor and own MP Nicki Aitken lobbying for the closure of non-essential construction sites in the City, two weeks later on 14 April COLPAI construction resumed. And let’s note, that was well before London had passed the peak infection rate and we residents were in full lockdown.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To add insult to injury you send us newsletters extolling your commitment to ‘<em>delivering the necessary infrastructure to allow people to have safe spaces to live, learn and play’</em>. What about our current need for safe spaces? To top it all you asked us to cooperate and included an image of site workers observing the two minute silence for those NHS staff and carers who have lost their lives trying to save others. Who thought using photos taken at a funeral (because essentially that’s what it was) to emotionally bully residents already at their wits end was acceptable?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This week the country starts to make its way out of lockdown and construction sites across the country are going back to work. Hopefully, our children will get back to school, and us adults, lucky enough to still have jobs, back to our work place. In the meantime, we are into week 6 of incessant noise, dust and fumes whilst being confined to our tiny flats with their single glazing…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very few of us want to engage with you anymore, or trust it will make any difference. This report compiles testimony from some of the residents of Basterfield and Hatfield House whose lives you are affecting but for whom you have offered no help and shown no empathy. It wasn’t easy, just writing this down can be really upsetting and triggering.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But maybe this week of all weeks, Mental Health Awareness week, you may take some notice, consider adjusting your work practices and confirm absolutely you will NOT under any circumstances apply for an extension of works to 9pm for the duration of the works.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yours sincerely</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jacqueline Swanson</p>
<p>With the support of Basterfield and Hatfield neighbours</p>
<p></p>
<p>This document contains testimonies from 30 residents affected by the actions of COLPAI during lockdown. They have been anonomysed where necessary but otherwise have not been edited. A few are transcriptions of conversations with residents not so confident with their writing skills.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We also include a letter co-signed by 5 Hatfield residents written to our Local MP Nicki Aitken outlining the ongoing issues with the COLPAI site and those responsible for its communications and community engagement.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Below are just a few quotes selected from the testimonies:</strong></p>
<p><em>"During the Covid -19 pandemic, when London was at its epicentre, they [COLPAI] took the decision to put our lives at increased risk - workers and residents - by allowing the works to restart during lockdown. If they're prepared to do that, without any form of consultation or risk-assessment for its impact on the Estate and its residents, then it shows that fundamentally they really don't care."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"…. in this already stressful situation, we are having imposed on us, a constant racket of noise, machinery, vehicle movements, fumes and dust from the COLPAI construction site starting at 8 AM every morning and carrying on more or less continuously until 6PM. This is completely inescapable for us in the lockdown and the sense of helplessness to do anything about it is unbelievably stress inducing in the extreme."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"As people we are hot wired to associate noise with emotion. Whether its music or the noise of hammering we react at an emotional level. We feel stress when these emotional triggers are pressed and the effect on our wellbeing is detrimental. COLPAI is going ahead and I quite accept that. What I don’t accept is the creep of noise, the chatter of mobile phone chat before 8.00."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"Noise is not only a nuisance, it is also a well-established form of torture. We’re not merely ‘nimby’ neighbours concerned to protect our own backyard. We’re victims. Your victims."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"Pardon my French but to put it bluntly, they [COLPAI] deliberately took a decision to make the life of everyone living around the site a little bit shittier in the middle of a category 5 shitstorm… going on the balcony is about as noisy and enjoyable as being standing on the hard shoulder of a motorway. And the worst is the stench - the petrol fumes from whatever machines they are using on site stink and even get into the flat if I leave the door open."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"As a brain-injury survivor, the stresses and anxieties I suffer are on a permanent hair-trigger. The noise from the site has kettled me and my mental health issues into an ever decreasing small space."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"I thought I was resilient, I thought I could get used to the noise; an eight o’clock wake up is only like the alarm I thought… but its not. It’s a “must get up” call…. These few weeks since the work restarted have become increasingly stressful because I have been sticking to the rules but the noise seems to have increased, in my upset I think I have become more sensitive to the noise, not less."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"I am heartbroken and depressed as my work/home life has no place I can escape to, even to be able to concentrate. I am hemmed in by noise. I wake up very early just to get some peace and the yelling and hammering starts before 8 on most days."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"My partner is working as a mental health and capacity advocate in various care homes for a mental health charity. It is impossible to make calls to speak to her clients with that level of noise at a time when they really need her the most."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"To follow the corona virus government regulations and stay at home as much as possible feels like torture. To leave home and be out, feels like a selfish act and a suicide mission especially given how many elderly people live in our building."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"The almost constant noise as I try work or rest and the almost intolerable stress are having a real impact on my ability to work and interact with my family and as we are supposed to be shielding my son by remaining at home for another 10 weeks this just appears to me as an enormous mountain to climb before we are through and from where we are now, it looks insurmountable."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"Living in a dusty and noisy flat has been particularly stressful during the lockdown as we have literally nowhere to go to escape. This has had a huge effect on mental health and well-being - on some days there is no point in even getting out of bed."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"As with many other residents, we appreciate the need for more housing locally. But during such an unprecedented time it seems cruel to continue with work as intensely as before - and particularly now we're advised work could continue through to 9pm and throughout the weekends. It seems deeply ill-considered and as usual, the poorer, less empowered residents of Golden Lane will be the ones ignored, and ultimately the ones who suffer."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"Construction noise is of course stressful but the silence from the City of London is worrying."</em></p>
<p><strong>_________________________________________________</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Then followed 12 pages of testimonies and a copy of the letter sent to MP Aiken on 13 May. <a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/5215187290?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You can read them all here.</a></p>Resident complaint to Standards Committee about Cllr Ann Holmestag:goldenlane.ning.com,2019-11-07:2323372:BlogPost:731052019-11-07T09:00:00.000ZJacqueline Swansonhttp://goldenlane.ning.com/profile/JacquelineSwanson
<div dir="ltr"><p><strong>I went to the Standards Committee meeting on Oct 4 where I and other residents witnessed a number of vote counting errors. It's generally understood that the public remain silent, however I felt compelled to point out that the vote counting was incorrect. Despite being correct I was seriously rebuked and told there would be no vote recount. Below is the correspondence which resulted, preceded by the complaint I have submitted against Cllr Ann Holmes, Chair of the…</strong></p>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><p><strong>I went to the Standards Committee meeting on Oct 4 where I and other residents witnessed a number of vote counting errors. It's generally understood that the public remain silent, however I felt compelled to point out that the vote counting was incorrect. Despite being correct I was seriously rebuked and told there would be no vote recount. Below is the correspondence which resulted, preceded by the complaint I have submitted against Cllr Ann Holmes, Chair of the Standards Committee.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>MONDAY 4 NOVEMBER</strong></p>
<p><strong>COMPLAINT TO STANDARDS COMMITTEE</strong></p>
<p>I was one of a number of City residents who attended the meeting of the Standards Committee on 4 October to hear it discuss its dispensations policy, which affects our elected members' ability to represent us properly. The vote counting on the first indicative show of hands was confused: on the third attempt the result was announced 6-5 although it was apparent to myself and other residents that it should have been 5-5.</p>
<p>I raised my hand and queried the count by saying that we hadn’t “<em>seen those numbers</em>”. Councillor Holmes, who was chairing the meeting, aggressively retorted “<em>nor do you need to</em>”, and went on to say that she was not willing to “risk" members of the committee being “<em>pilloried</em>” for their views.</p>
<p>Later, after the public were excluded, a member of the committee also queried the count, and it was agreed that the result of the first vote was indeed 5-5. The residents only found out about that because a member of the Corporation who does not sit on the committee attended the non-public session and afterwards shared the information with us. The draft minutes published on the Corporation’s website do not record any of this, and show the vote as having been 7-5 by including the two co-opted members present, although the point had been raised in the meeting - and not opposed - that the co-opted members should not have voted. </p>
<p>I wrote to Councillor Holmes on 11 October to give her the opportunity to apologise for the unwarranted assumption she made that I wanted to “pillory” members. </p>
<p>Her reply on 15 October not only misrepresented what I had said at the meeting (I clearly referred to numbers and not individuals when I queried the vote), she also went on to make further inaccurate statements as a basis to query the action / non-action of Councillor Sue Pearson, and cast us both in a demeaning light.</p>
<p>The email correspondence is attached and I quote from it:</p>
<p>“<em>Given your were sitting next to, and chatting with Sue Pearson, I’m somewhat surprised that she didn’t just have a quick word with one of her ward colleagues, who is on the committee…</em>.”.</p>
<p>I wrote back on 21 October, explaining that:</p>
<p>- I was not, in fact, sitting next to Councillor Pearson at the time of the confused vote</p>
<p>- the word “chatting” suggests that she and I were not taking the proceedings seriously</p>
<p>- I found it extraordinary that Councillor Holmes should, without foundation, attack Councillor Pearson in this manner</p>
<p>I asked Councillor Holmes to withdraw the remark and apologise to Councillor Pearson. </p>
<p>Just over an hour later, Councillor Holmes replied, addressing me as “Ms Sansom” (it shouldn’t have been too much trouble to check that my name is Swanson), and declaring that “<em>I have not attacked Sue Pearson</em>”. That is obviously untrue as evidenced in the email chain.</p>
<p>She then unilaterally terminated the correspondence by saying that “<em>You and I clearly have different perceptions and views, and I see no point to continuing this correspondence</em>”.</p>
<p>Surely I cannot be dismissed for having a “different perception or view’ when my concerns are based on matters of fact, and there were several witnesses to attest to my account of these facts. I had asked in my email of 21 October who among those present did she think was going to “pillory” members, having said that it wasn’t me? If no one, why did she say something so pejorative? Why in any case did she not want to “risk” members of the committee being identified? Isn’t it a principle of public life that every elected member should act with openness and accountability? This has not been addressed.</p>
<p>After some consideration and despite feeling quite intimidated I feel I must submit a formal complaint. I also feel disquiet about how the minutes reframe the count.</p>
<p>My original email inviting Councillor Homes to apologise to myself and residents was an opportunity to show us some respect and empathy by taking a moment to consider how the process must have appeared to residents. Reasonable people, and I consider myself to be one, understand errors can be made - it is the acknowledgment and the way they are put right that counts. Rather than building bridges the responses of Councillor Holmes have effectively further jeopardised what little trust remains in the Standards Committee.</p>
<p> In conclusion, I believe that Councillor Holmes has not dealt with representations from residents, both at the meeting and in my correspondence with her, fairly, appropriately and impartially (paragraph 2(b) of the Code of Conduct); not been accountable for her decisions or co-operated when scrutinised externally (paragraph 2(f)); not treated me and the other residents present at the meeting with respect, and attempted to intimidate by me by her manner (paragraph 2(l); and brought her office as the Chair of Standards Committee, and the corporation, into disrepute (paragraph 2(m). </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>__________________________________</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>FRIDAY 11 OCTOER</strong></p>
<p><strong>email to Cllr Ann Holmes</strong></p>
<p>Dear Ms Holmes</p>
<p>I am writing to offer you the opportunity to apologise for the unwarranted assumption you made about my concern regarding the vote counting at last Friday’s Standards Committee meeting (Oct 4). To suggest that I wished to ‘<em>pillory</em>’ members for their vote was insulting. As you don’t know me and so can’t have any well-founded reason to believe that was my intent, I can only assume the accusation was levelled at me as a resident. In considering the importance of making an apology I would ask you to consider what the residents who attended took away from the meeting.</p>
<p>Clearly, the vote counting was bungled more than once and it is difficult to understand how it happened. It was also worrying to witness a co-opted member having to be reminded that they could not vote. Why would they think they could, have they voted in meetings before? Why was it clear to all residents at the meeting that the vote had not been properly counted and yet apparently not to the members until the residents left the room?</p>
<p>The low regard in which residents are held is becoming increasingly apparent. How do you expect us to have any confidence in the Standards Committee?</p>
<p>As for the rest of the meeting, I was struggling to understand why it is proving so challenging for the Committee to come to a resolution that every other Local Authority across the country has managed. But finally it percolated to the surface – real estate in the City is so valuable that ‘third parties’ will challenge or threaten to challenge the City on planning decisions that are not in their favour. And some of these third parties have deep pockets.</p>
<p>As residents we understand the fear of costs of legal action, that fear on a number of occasions has prevented us bringing action against the City itself. The irony is not lost on us. However, the City does not get to trade democracy for comfort. It calls into question its fitness to act as a Local Authority. It has the legal minds at its disposal to make the granting of general dispensations robust and the process should not be conflated with other issues concerning third parties. </p>
<p>Please restore at least some faith by offering the residents an apology for your remark at Friday’s meeting and acknowledge our right to be treated with respect as we pursue our need to be properly represented.</p>
<p>I look forward to your response</p>
<p>Yours sincerely</p>
<p>Jacqueline Swanson</p>
<p>Golden Lane Estate resident</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>__________________________________</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER</strong></p>
<p><strong>email response from Cllr Holmes</strong></p>
<p>Dear Ms Swanson </p>
<p>Thank you for your email. </p>
<p>Of course I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but that wasn’t clear to me from what you said, which was that you hadn’t seen who had voted, not that you were querying the count. I most certainly didn’t, however, suggest you would pillory members. I said I was not willing to risk members being pilloried, which I fear can happen when they are named for indicating a particular view. </p>
<p>As I’m sure you’re aware, most committee meetings are held in public, but it isn’t usual for the public to take part, unless this has been arranged beforehand. Given you were sitting next to, and chatting with Sue Pearson, I’m somewhat surprised that she didn’t just have a quick word with one of her ward colleagues, who is on the committee, and was present at the meeting. </p>
<p>By way of reassurance, the action which concerned you was not a vote on a recommendation, it was an indicative show of hands. The draft minutes of the meeting make clear how many indications came from co-opted members. </p>
<p>There is no evidence for the assertion that other local authorities approach the matter in a radically different manner. In any event, the fact that the vast majority of local authorities operate a cabinet and not a committee system and have wards with much larger numbers of electors and fewer members mean the issues simply do not arise in the same way. Finally the policy behind the Localism Act is that local authorities should take decisions based on local circumstances – there is no ‘one size fits all’ </p>
<p>I hope this clarifies </p>
<p>Yours sincerely Ann Holmes </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>__________________________________</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>MONDAY 21 OCTOBER</strong></p>
<p><strong>my email response pointing out serious inaccuracies</strong></p>
<p>Dear Ms Holmes</p>
<p>Politeness would require that I thank you for your prompt response. However, whilst I note your cool and conditional apology, the factual inaccuracies and accusations in the main body of your email are troubling.</p>
<p>I will respond to the main inaccuracy first:</p>
<p>You say that<em> “Given you were sitting next to, and chatting with Sue Pearson, I’m somewhat surprised that she didn’t just have a quick word with one of her ward colleagues, who is on the committee, and was present at the meeting</em>”. </p>
<p>It isn’t true that I was sitting next to Sue Pearson when I asked about the confused vote. I moved to sit next to her only later in the meeting after the person originally sitting next to her had left. </p>
<p>Your email appears to have been carefully crafted, so I suspect that you chose the word ‘chatting’ intentionally. This suggests that both Cllr Pearson and I did not take the proceedings seriously. When I moved to sit next to Cllr Pearson there was some communication instigated by myself to check that I was correct about the vote count.</p>
<p>I find it extraordinary that you should, without foundation, attack Sue Pearson in this manner. Please withdraw the remark and apologise to her. I’ve copied her on this email for that purpose. </p>
<p>I will now address the rest of your letter from the top.</p>
<p>You say “<em>what you said ... was that you hadn’t seen who had voted, not that you were querying the count</em>.”</p>
<p>I made no reference to votes or who made them, I said that we hadn’t “<em>seen those numbers</em>”. I was querying the count.</p>
<p>This is what I saw: two confused counts, and then finally a clear 5 for and 5 against the proposal. You then conferred with the Clerk and it was announced the proposal was lost 6 / 5. I leant forward to look left along the row of residents only to see confused faces and I shot my hand up. This shows that I understand that “<em>it isn’t usual for the public to take part</em>”. </p>
<p>I was met with very strong rebuke, but I made it clear when I spoke that I wasn’t trying to take part in the debate, I was asking only about the confused vote. The meeting was told in no uncertain terms “<em>There will be no recoun</em>t”. I am informed that there was a recount after the public had been excluded, and the result was what the residents had seen, and not what we were told. Under the circumstances you should acknowledge the residents behaved with restraint. </p>
<p>You say that “I <em>most certainly didn’t, however, suggest you would pillory members. I said I was not willing to risk members being pilloried, which I fear can happen when they are named for indicating a particular view</em>.”</p>
<p>I was the only member of the public who spoke. If you didn’t think I was going to “pillory” members, who among those present did you think would? If no-one, why did you say something so pejorative?</p>
<p>Why, in any case, did you not want to “risk” members of the committee being identified? Isn’t it a principle of public life that every elected member should act with openness and accountability? I can’t think of any good reason why a member would be uncomfortable about how they vote on any matter being known by anyone.</p>
<p>You say that “<em>the action which concerned you was not a vote on a recommendation, it was an indicative show of hands</em>”.</p>
<p>But how is that relevant? The vote related to taking further action. If not, what was the point of having a vote at all? </p>
<p>You say “t<em>hat the vast majority of local authorities operate a cabinet and not a committee system and have wards with much larger numbers of electors and fewer members mean the issues simply do not arise in the same way</em>”. </p>
<p>This suggests to me that the committee system does not work.</p>
<p>Finally, you say that “<em>the policy behind the Localism Act is that local authorities should take decisions based on local circumstances – there is no ‘one size fits all’</em>.”</p>
<p>Democracy is not relative. How can locality justify the extent to which residents are represented in decisions made that affect them? Except that in the City, where most councillors represent mainly business voters (unlike in any other council), it is even more important that resident councillors can vote on behalf of their constituents in all situations except where the matter affects the councillor more than any of those constituents. The fact that half of the Standards Committee doesn’t seem to think so is a problem that will have to be solved soon. </p>
<p>Yours sincerely</p>
<p>Jacqueline Swanson</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>__________________________________</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>MONDAY 21 OCTOBER</strong></p>
<p><strong>email response from Cllr Holmes</strong></p>
<p>Dear Ms Sansom</p>
<p>Thank you for your email.</p>
<p>I have not attacked Sue Pearson.</p>
<p>You and I clearly have different perceptions and views, and I see no point to continuing this correspondence.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely</p>
<p>Ann Holmes</p>
<p> </p>
</div>Put a stop to bullying in the Court of Common Counciltag:goldenlane.ning.com,2019-09-08:2323372:BlogPost:726302019-09-08T10:00:00.000ZJacqueline Swansonhttp://goldenlane.ning.com/profile/JacquelineSwanson
<p>I, like many other residents of the estate have been truly appalled by the treatment that our resident Councillor Sue Pearson was subjected to last year (2018) because she spoke and voted at a meeting to prevent the planning permission for the COLPAI development to be delegated to Islington only.</p>
<p>The Monday morning meeting to vote on handing over planning powers was announced on the Friday before in what our local newspaper…</p>
<p>I, like many other residents of the estate have been truly appalled by the treatment that our resident Councillor Sue Pearson was subjected to last year (2018) because she spoke and voted at a meeting to prevent the planning permission for the COLPAI development to be delegated to Islington only.</p>
<p>The Monday morning meeting to vote on handing over planning powers was announced on the Friday before in what our local newspaper <a href="https://www.citymatters.london/city-planners-defer-islington-colpai-school-site/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">City Matters described as a last minute ambush</a> by the City Corporation.</p>
<p>If any party was to come under scrutiny you think that would be the City Corporation but instead it was Cllr Sue Pearson who was accused of speaking and voting when she had a 'pecuniary interest.' A pecuniary interest suggests she was likely to gain financially from the decision. She obviously didn't.</p>
<p>We all know Cllr Pearson to be of the utmost integrity - her concern was for the protection of democracy and the proper representation of Golden Lane residents. She felt, quite rightly, that as the development would have a considerable effect on City residents, then the City's planning committee should also vote on any planning applications in order that residents would have the chance to be represented by their own Councillors.</p>
<p>Cllr Pearson was advised by a leading QC that she had no pecuniary interest in the matter and hence no dispensation was required. However, had there been one, there clearly was no time to apply for one. The motion itself was anti-democratic and the attempt to push it through so quickly was deeply cynical. Despite all this she was actually referred by the City Corporation to the police! They declined to investigate.</p>
<p>This has lead to demands from residents for <a href="http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/gagging-row" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Standard Committee reform</a> but there is still unfortunately a level of maliciousness within the City Corporation which is directed personally at Cllr Pearson and is totally unacceptable. The latest example being at the Court of Common Council in July from Alderman Luder. Here's my letter to the Alderman Wootton <span>as the Chair of the “General Purposes Committee of Aldermen” which I sent on Monday 2 September to complain about his behaviour.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>EMAIL TO ALDERMAN WOOTTON 2 SEPTEMBER 2019</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Dear Alderman Wootton</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">I am one of the 558 residents of Cripplegate who voted for Cllr Sue Pearson and I have been following with growing concern the difficulties she has faced in properly representing her constituents, particularly her fellow residents of the Golden Lane Estate. Please read ‘difficulties’ as a heavy euphemism. In fact the recent ‘question’ posed by Alderman Luder at the meeting of Court of Common Council in July leads me to feel that Cllr Sue Pearson is being singled out and bullied. This is totally unacceptable and has deeply problematic consequences, not just for current representation but also on the effect that this may have on residents wishing to do their bit for their community in standing for Common Council in the near future.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Question from Alderman Luder:</p>
<p><em>“Could the Chairman of the Standards Committee confirm the rumours that a Member has made a claim for rights of light arising from the construction of COLPAI. If so, has the claim been settled, and would the Chairman agree that this indicates a disclosable pecuniary interest is engaged?”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">I can’t accept that there was any need for the question to be asked and the response should have made that clear. I’m sure I don’t need to point out to you the obvious: a 'pecuniary interest' is only relevant if it is 'engaged' in a matter when a member participates in a discussion or vote in a Court or committee meeting about that matter. It is not relevant to a member claiming or receiving compensation from the Corporation in a private capacity. COLPAI rights of light only came up in one committee meeting which Cllr Pearson attended. She declared her interest in that meeting, and did not speak or vote on the matter, as minuted for public record. Normal procedure followed, job done - so why was the question even asked or entertained?</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">As I believe there is no good answer to that question, do you consider it appropriate that Alderman Luder be required to make an unconditional apology at the next meeting of the Court of Common Council? </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">We should consider the impact of the Alderman's question on all members - clearly there were those who felt uncomfortable about its intent and had therefore warned Cllr Pearson in advance. Cultural attitudes towards bullying have changed in the last decade but it would appear that Alderman Luder has not sufficiently adjusted his thinking and behaviour. This is not to be or should be easily dismissed. </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">We are products of our own experiences so I would like to make a positive suggestion. Many local children have attended Prior Weston Primary School and it has a very clear code of acceptable conduct, which includes helping children who exhibit bullying behaviour understand the impact of their actions. The aim is not to vilify them but help them become a positive part of their community. Perhaps Alderman Luder could visit the school to talk to children about bullying and in doing so learn some useful lessons and increase his own self-awareness, or at the very least receive similar training?</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">I look forward to your response.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Yours sincerely</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Jacqueline Swanson</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>