Stem van Krimpen, Leefbaar Krimpen and D66 submitted a motion of censure to councilor Timm at the council meeting on Thursday 2 July, prior to the vote on the new aldermen. This was because he had not submitted his resignation, co-formed for the new coalition and that the resignation meant that the council could not vote again on his appointment and that it is therefore not clear whether there is unanimous support among the entire council.
Below you will hear the speech of Jeffrey van der Elst of Leefbaar Krimpen:
[AUDIO 174 2020-07-02 - Motion of censure to address Alderman Timm]
In the response that Alderman Anton Timm gave, he told how he did create distance last Monday in the formation process and that he had also obtained information about whether or not to resign.
[AUDIO 175 2020-07-02 Response of Alderman Timm]
Various parties called for the motion to be withdrawn. Sharon Tollenaar (VVD) even gave a sound recording of last January 7. Arrèn van Tienhoven (SGP was sorry and not the moment that this bomb was dropped in the middle of the meeting. Reinier Cornet (CU) personally thinks it was going too far that the motion was already submitted before talking to the councilor. Miedema (CDA) was baffled, because it was a real bomb, that the atmosphere was good beforehand and that there was sharp debate and that it was good, and that the council filed the motion without preparation and also called for the motion to be returned. Saskia Bijl (Krimpens Belang) also called for the motion to be withdrawn.
Below you can hear the reactions of the different parties:
[AUDIO 176 2020-07-02 - Motion of censure (coalition reactions)]
Larry Köster (D66) was addressed and hoped with a vote to clarify whether there was a real mandate for Alderman Timm, because before Anton Timm was sworn in as Alderman there were also opposing voters of parties who are now in the coalition . Whether there would be enough support for the councilor in the new Team in a new program.
Arrèn van Tienhoven (SGP) found this a baffling position. Because votes are unanimous and at that time the mandate was given to the councilor. Reinier Cornet (CU) then gave Köster a small lesson in municipal law. The mandate has nothing to do with these arguments. Whatever agreement the alderman has to work with, the mandate applies for the entire period of 4 years.
[AUDIO 177 2020-07-02 Motion of censure reactions D66, SGP, CU]
The mayor concluded the discussion with the following fact: "You can pass a censure every month, the councilor is only gone if he is fired or if there have been elections. Nobody fires a vote of disapproval for clarity. So if you thought you voted on the appointment of an alderman with such a motion, that is simply wrong on procedure. "
The vote for the motion then followed. The motion voted in favor of Livable Shrink with 3 votes, D66 with 1 vote and the Voice of Shrink with 4 votes. The motion was therefore rejected by the city council.
[AUDIO 178 2020-07-02 Response from mayor and motion rejected]
© 2020 Lokale Omroep Krimpen
Source: Original article (Dutch)
Comments
Post a Comment