AddThis SmartLayers

Editor accuses councillors of ‘contempt’ as daily barred from meeting

Mike Sassi (2)Councillors have been accused of showing “contempt” for open government after barring a regional daily from a meeting about the finances of a council-run energy firm.

Council members voted to exclude the Nottingham Post from the meeting about the financial situation at Nottingham City Council-owned Robin Hood Energy on the grounds that they wanted to ask questions which were “commercially sensitive.”

According to the council’s auditors, the company already owed the council around £40m in unpaid loands and a decision needed to be taken on whether it could continue trading.

The Post’s Post local democracy reporter Kit Sandeman later discovered that, at the meeting from which he had been excluded, the council had agreed to lend the company another £9.5m.

Before the meeting, a joint bid had been submitted to the council’s audit committee from the Post and its Nottinghamshire Live sister website, BBC Nottingham and the Local Democracy Reporting Service to allow them to report on it.

However, all five Labour councillors on the audit committee voted to exclude press and public – with its sole Tory member opposing the idea.

Mike Sassi, pictured, editor of the Post and Norttinghamshire Live, told HTFP: “This is a big, big issue for local taxpayers. Independent auditors have said that there are doubts whether Robin Hood Energy – which was set up by Nottingham City Council and has subsequently received more than £40m of local taxpayers’ money – can continue trading.

“But city councillors have chosen to discuss the issue behind closed doors. Their lack of transparency – and contempt for open government – is breath-taking.

“When we – together with the BBC in Nottingham and our local democracy reporter Kit Sandeman – challenged their secrecy they said that commercial considerations prevented them from allowing anyone else into their meeting.

“Kit later found out that the council has now loaned Robin Hood Energy another £9.5m.”

The joint request from the media organisations had stated that since public money had been invested in the company, the public had a right to all the information it can be given about it.

“Many Nottingham residents not directly involved in the company are essentially investors in it, as public money has been used for the project,” it said.

But Labour councillor Michael Edwards told the meeting “When we come to talk about Robin Hood Energy I will want to ask questions which are commercially sensitive, and I want to do that in an environment that’s secure.

“To question Robin Hood Energy without paperwork in a public forum limits severely the questions I can ask. Because I will then have to wonder whether seeking an answer to that question actually commercially threatens the future of Robin Hood Energy, and I’m not prepared to take that kind of risk.

2 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • October 25, 2019 at 12:43 pm
    Permalink

    Could they not have excluded the Press while they asked their ‘sensitive’ questions then let them back in for the rest of the meeting? Seems excessive to exclude them all together.
    Well done to the Post for challenging this. Far too much is going on behind closed doors in our councils now, since the demise of local Government reporters on the ground. Shows how much we need local democracy initiatives funding, such as we have started to see recently.
    Councillors need to remember that they are public servants and must behave in a transparent manner, especially where public money is concerned. How can they be held to account if we do not know what is being decided and why?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • October 25, 2019 at 3:19 pm
    Permalink

    Commercially sensitive questions like ‘how much more of the public’s money do you need to bail you out?’…
    Robin Hood Energy: Good ironic name. Take from the poor and give to the men in suits.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)