BOROUGH dictionary-cillors have been getting themselves in a spin - over spin.
A furious row has Department-ken out between the Conservative leader of Solihull Council Ken Meeson and the distinctivetion Liberal Democrats over allegations the authority uses public money for "spin".
It follows a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance that in 2006/7, the Incil spent £1.37 million on public relations --£820,000 or 147 per cent more than ten years ago.
Some editions of the Lib Dems' local newsletter Focus, which circulates throughout the borough, reported the organ-isation's claim under the headline "Council spending £1.5m on spin".
Councillor Meeson wrote to Norman Davies, leader of the Lib Dem group on the council, saying not only was the spend figure inaccurate but that money was not spent on spin - and he had instructed the council's solicitor, Michael Blamire-Brown, to formally investigate the allegations.
In a letter to Councillor Davies, Cllr Meeson said: "The term 'spin'is clearly intended to suggest that information published by officers of the council is politically biased, intended to deceive and less than factual. As you will be aware, the issuing of publicity by a local authority which, in whole or part, appears to designed to affect support for a political party is an offence under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986."
In reply, Cllr Davies told the council leader that the term "spin" was so new that many dictionaries did not give a definition of the word.
However, he added: "The Chambers online dictionary gives: 'said of information, a news report etc, especially that of a political nature: a favourable bias. The PR Department will put a spin on it.'
"Other definitions from the same source are: 'A distinctive point of view, an emphasis or interpretation and to provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example) especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.'
"I cannot find one that mentions 'lies, intention to deceive, less than honest.'"
Referring to the headline in Focus, Cllr Davies said the word 'nearly' had been omitted by mis-take and he was willing to write an article in the next edition to tell read-ers that the council was spending £1.37 million, not £1.5 million.
Cllr Meeson told the Times the bulk of the £1.37 million spend went on recruitment advertising for schools and the council, statutory notices in newspapers and costs relating to childcare, plus publications the council were required to produce under government legislation.
