Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

Definition of secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others. Definition of confidential: intended to be kept secret.  [Oxford Dictionaries online] 

Who does Cllr Gilbey think he's kidding? 

---

Canterbury City Council is one of the most democratic local authorities in the country, claims leader John Gilbey. He hit out after the Kentish Gazette reported that the council had drawn up a league table of its 71 service areas and ranked them in order of importance but refused to reveal it.

Cllr Gilbey denies the council is guilty of secrecy. He told last Thursday's meeting of the ruling Conservative executive: 

"Some of these documents are kept confidential for many reasons and are looked at very carefully.  I think this is one of the most democratic councils we have, I honestly believe that.  That is why I don't take kindly to people inventing stories."

Last week it emerged that the league table is a key document as the council prepares for the 2014/15 budget. It is facing a cut of 50% in income by 2017 and scored each service according to importance and against the pledges in its corporate plan.

The Marlowe Theatre was fifth in the table and refuse collection came 29th, but none of the other positions are known and some are almost certainly facing the axe.

The council claims it will make the league table public next month when the proposed budget for next year is published.  But Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the council's opposition Lib  Dem group, is demanding it is released now.  He said:

"The Gazette is absolutely right and deserves praise for bringing the council's appalling secrecy to everyone's attention.  There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the current leader of the council to keep the council budget formation process confidential.  And the Gazette has certainly not invented any of this as John Gilbey has claimed. 

The current leader and a tiny handful of Conservative councillors keep jealous control of all the budget information declaring it 'confidential' and refusing to share it even with their own backbenchers, let alone opposition councillors or the public.  It's completely unacceptable - it's your money after all."

Kingsmead Field campaigner Sian Pettman said:

"There's a worrying disconnect between Cllr Gilbey's perception of democracy and that of many of the district's residents.  His authoritarian style of leadership is ill-suited to the 21st century."

University of Kent Emeritus Professor of moral philosophy Richard Norman added:

"If Cllr Gilbey thinks that this is one of the most democratic councils, he needs to be aware that there are a great many people in Canterbury who don't see it that way."

The council will begin its consultation on the budget in November and will look to approve it in February.

HB Gazette 17th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

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