WELL, now we know that the leader of the city council does not understand the constitution he purports to follow.

Bob Price (Oxford Mail, November 12) asserts that ‘motions on notice at council meetings have no relevance for the council’s day to day administration’… and ‘are therefore most appropriate for discussing topics which fall outside the council’s jurisdiction’.

But the Constitution, section 11.13(d), says ‘motions must be about things the council is responsible for, or something that directly affects people in the city.’ I can think of few things that directly affect the people in the city more than the provision of public toilets.

The same constitution says the council is responsible for setting the overall budget and policies and that only the council can amend the policies or budget.

So, if the council voted to keep public toilets open, the executive board would have to do just that.

Mr Price says that all parties agreed a budget saving of £50,000 in the public toilets budget – but they did NOT vote to close any toilets –merely to provide this essential public service more economically.

Labour claims that the proposed closures have been the subject of an extensive public consultation exercise.

But this showed that the public was overwhelmingly against the closures.

Labour ignored this very clear expression of public opinion and the strong opposition from Age Concern, city centre businesses and many residents’ groups.

This arrogance from an administration that does not even have a majority mandate is very depressing and bodes very ill for the people of Oxford.

JEAN FOOKS, Liberal Democrat councillor for Summertown, Oxford City Council