John Gilbey got out of the wrong side of bed Part 2

It would seem that John Gilbey's Saturday didn't improve. Having slain his traffic-related opponents with his mightier-than-any-sword quill pen, he then swivelled his attention to focus on those who simply would not follow orders - in this case regarding the supposedly independent commission he was thinking of setting up to waylay the referendum on governance. (Translation: moving away from elected dictatorship, towards something more like democracy.)

This press release is altogether punchier, even though it has fewer exclamation marks. It may read like a snarky comment on some social network site, but this is actually an official statement from the Leader of our Council.

---

Governance

Cllr John Gilbey landing a few metaphorical punches

A few weeks ago, we said that we wished to set up an Independent Commission to inform the public openly and completely about the various options with regard to the governance system of the council.  This totally transparent exercise, completed by a wholly independent commission would have enabled everyone with an interest in this admittedly remote subject to inform their vote in a referendum next year. Three of the four parties had agreed in principle to support a Commission.

With appropriate weasel wording, the Lib Dems believe that the public should not be informed until much later, after a petition reaches the required level - which they assure us will be reached.  This purely political manoeuvring means that the public will not be provided with information at an appropriate time.

Council decisions will always be made by the party with the majority of seats, whatever the governance system.  Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics and at appropriate speed and I therefore believe that we should be very wary of a return to the politically-charged committee system.  There would also be cost and officer-time considerations to assess under the various systems and I regret that these members have decided to reject the opportunity to inform the electorate.  Unfortunately it means that we cannot proceed without the full support of members for an Independent panel.  I am not going to support adding costs to the council without cross party agreement.

Finally, I would welcome any of the other Parties coming forward with a Policy rather than purely relying on opposition to anything the current majority group does.  This suggests simple laziness or lack of interest?  It has been going on since 2005 and perhaps even before that.

News Release - Saturday 15th March 2014, from John Gilbey's website, and on Facebook

---

"Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics..."

I laughed till I stopped.

Cllr Gilbey's wariness of a committee-based system makes me wary of the "independence" of his now-never-to-be Commission.

Electoral Review - your chance to have a say. At last.

With the Electoral Review now underway for Canterbury I would urge local people to ask themselves if they're happy with the way Canterbury City Council currently conducts matters on their behalf.

The Council have asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to cut the number of councillors down to 38 from 50.

They say that the 'Strong Leader and Executive' system of governance serves this city well and base their submission to the LGBCE mainly on this.

Given the absence of debate in decision making with the current Council this move will make it much harder for councillors to represent their constituents as they will not have enough time to liaise with the many groups, parishes and associations.

Our councillors already have a far higher quota of electors than other districts and will be even higher with the intended housing development in the Local Plan… an extra 780 houses per year.

The LGBCE want to hear the opinions of local people in regard to this matter and can be contacted thus by 6th August 2013:

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Write to: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG

Yours sincerely

Lynette Coleman, Canterbury

Proposed cut in councillors could make a bad situation worse

The Shape and Health of our Local Democracy

Canterbury City Council is proposing to cut the number of local councillors in the district from 50 to 38.  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has just initiated a public consultation on whether to approve this proposal.  As residents, we need to consider the implications of such a drastic cut as they could be significant for the shape and health of our local democracy.  

The first question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the way in which decisions are made?

The Council's submission to the Boundary Commission claims that the current 'Strong Leader and Executive system' is well embedded in our local democracy and that the number of councillors should be reduced accordingly.   However, many residents would disagree with both this assertion and this conclusion.  Far from being embedded in our local democracy, the Executive System is becoming the source of increasing political disquiet.

The Executive system was introduced in 2002 as a result of a change in national legislation.   It was supposed to speed up decision-making and improve accountability, but its unintended consequences have included the creation of a small political elite; a lack of in-depth debate before decisions are made; and the effective exclusion of many councillors from the decision-making process.

Under the Localism Act 2011, we are no longer obliged to keep the Executive system, but a sharp reduction in in the number of local councillors could make it more difficult for us to introduce an alternative model as these generally require a greater number of councillors.  We, therefore, need to ask the Boundary Commission to assess the requirements  of other decision-making models, such as the Cabinet Committee system operated by Kent County Council, as this may be something which we would want to introduce in the future.

The second question is:

what impact will a 25% decrease in Council size have on the ability of local councillors to represent the residents in their wards?

At present, each councillor represents on average 3,023 residents.  This is considerably higher than many other district councils.  If the number of councillors was reduced from the current 50 to 38, the average ward size would be 4,200.  If a further 780 new houses are built each year, in line with the objectives of the draft Local Plan, the ratio of residents to councillors will be considerably higher.  

Reducing the number of councillors to 38 is likely to reduce the ability of each councillor get to know their communities, listen to their concerns and represent their needs and interests.  Admittedly, some councillors currently do this much better than others, but it is the hallmark of any vibrant, healthy democracy.  A sharp reduction in the number of councillors is likely to decrease the capacity of existing councillors to fulfil this vital representational role.

The Electoral Review process provides us with the opportunity to have an active public debate on the shape and health of our local democracy.  We are unlikely to get a similar opportunity for at least another decade.  Let's not waste it! 

For more information, see: consultation.lgbce.org.uk  The deadline for the receipt of comments is: 6 August.

Comments should be sent to:

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Post: The Review Officer (Canterbury), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG

Sian Pettman, Canterbury

Gilbey slams the gutless

But there's no hint who he might be talking about. Or what they've done.

At the recent Executive meeting, Canterbury Council Leader John Gilbey laid into someone or other. He was clearly disappointed that they weren't there to take their medicine - maybe their invitation didn't arrive in time.

OK, well I'm going to say something else now which I'd like recorded. I think it's quite clear that there are people who are quite prepared to go out to Twitter, they're prepared to email newspapers, they're prepared to cause unending sorts of trouble and worry to all sorts of residents by misrepresenting, and by having things out there that are simply not true, and they have no guts in not appearing here tonight to ask the questions.

Hear these words.

So what's actually happening here?

The Council as a whole is effectively a mechanism for rubber-stamping the decisions from the Executive. The Executive is chosen by the Leader. Thus the Precious Leader, Joniji-il Bi, enjoys a position of sweeping authority.

It would appear that someone displeased Jonji. He could have used Twitter to rebut their their arguments, or emailed the newspapers himself to put his side of the story. However, he has used (abused?) this public democratic forum to indulge in what is little more than posturing.

It's safe to assume that the rest of the Executive knew what, and who, he was talking about - he was grand-standing to a small and carefully chosen crowd. In my mind's eye, I can picture them nudging each other "Go on, Jonji, stick it to 'em... that's telling 'em". It may have played well to the Chosen Few, but it was a waste of breath.

If someone is "misrepresenting" an issue, the simplest and most effective remedy is to represent it accurately. If someone has displeased the Precious Leader, how are the rest of us to avoid repeating their error, unless we are told Who Did What?

Unless we know what is forbidden, we cannot be appropriately obedient or respectful.

2004 Pier Report: CCC summarise the findings

Consultants report on pier's future

Consultants have concluded there is the potential to develop Herne Bay pier into a major attraction that could help regenerate the town as a thriving seaside resort. However, their report makes it clear that there is no prospect of attracting sufficient public or private funding, in the foreseeable future, to restore the full three-quarter-mile long pier.

The report, by specialist leisure consultancy firm PMP, says it may be possible to extend the existing pier for a short distance and introduce new commercial leisure facilities to provide an all-year attraction. PMP found a strong level of commercial interest in developing the pier, but said the income from the private sector needs to be offset against the high costs of developing over water compared to land. They considered the most successful commercial use is likely to be restaurants, bars, a casino and family entertainment.

The report stresses that there will need to be considerable effort to secure external funding to achieve this form of redevelopment. It also highlights the need for a clear strategy for the regeneration of Herne Bay. A key part of this will be the future of the sports centre, which currently occupies the main pavilion on the pier. The consultants believe it cannot continue to provide the quality of facilities required in modern sports centres and say it will be essential to upgrade it, which could be more easily achieved on a new site within the town.

The study was commissioned earlier this year by Canterbury City Council, Kent County Council and Tourism South East. PMP's report will be presented to the city council's Executive in July when decisions will be taken on further study work into producing a regeneration action plan, relocating the sports centre and developing details of options for the pier. Canterbury City Council's Executive member for leisure, Cllr Roger Matthews, said:

"The city council's Executive will be able to use this report as the basis for a clear strategy for rebuilding Herne Bay pier as part of an overall regeneration action plan for the town. It may not be possible to achieve the full-length pier immediately, but we are very hopeful that we can provide residents and visitors with a major new facility. In the future, when the financial climate may be easier, I hope we can look to extending the pier progressively towards its former length."

Kent County Council's Cabinet member for regeneration, Alex King, said:

"We have been keen participants in this study from the outset. I am now looking forward to seeing how potential commercial development on the shorter pier can impact upon Herne Bay's prosperity within a wider regeneration programme for the town itself and provide a basis for further development in the future."

CCC website 29 June 2004