Opposition asks Rotherham Council ‘what have you got to hide’ during transparency debate

The motion by the Rotherham Conservatives called for the leader of the opposition to sit opposite the council leader during meetings; HD cameras in the chamber; and for the leader to attend overview and scrutiny meetings for his decisions to be examined.

Councillor Joshua Bacon, who proposed the motion, told the full council meeting on February 28 that elected councillors had a ‘duty’ to question decisions made by the council ‘without fear or favour’.

He added that the council is in a ‘dangerous position’ where his questions were ‘shut down simply because they don’t relate to a specific line in the agenda item’.

He said: “All I’ve got to ask is what have you got to hide?”

“It is also the duty of those who make decisions in this place to be available for robust questioning and stand accountable for the decisions they make.”

Councillor Simon Ball, leader of the opposition Conservative party, added that the motion was not seeking ‘anything other than scrutiny, and we shouldn’t be afraid of that’.

Councillor Emily Barley, formerly the leader of Rotherham Conservatives who broke away to form the Independent Conservative group, accused coun Ball of hoping for a ‘more prominent seat for himself and more time to force us to listen to petty political point scoring.

“I don’t believe that the leader of the opposition lacks opportunity to scrutinise, question or hold to account, it’s just that all of that takes hard, detailed work and preparation, with a coherent strategy,” added coun Barley.

“If those are things that councillor Ball finds too onerous, I urge him not to worry because I suspect that the electorate will soon relieve him of that burden.”

Councillor Chris Read, leader of the council, added: “This job was a lot more difficult when councillor Barley was leader of the opposition. She made my life much more difficult.”

Councillor Joshua Bacon said that there had been ‘cheap political point scoring’ during the debate, adding that the motion was ‘designed to enhance scrutiny further’.

“We’ve seen councillors in this chamber be shut down because [their questions] aren’t specifically related to an agenda item,” he said.

The motion was lost.