Why KCC will have to come clean over Kerswell

Not for the first time, Kent County Council has shown that when it comes to transparency, its view of what the public has a right to know depends rather on what the circumstances are. It will not, we are told, be disclosing the details of the severance package it has agreed with its departing managing director Katherine Kerswell because it is bound by a confidentiality agreement. Ah, the good old confidentiality clause.

Perhaps with all the frenzy over trying to come to an agreement with Mrs Kerswell, the authority overlooked its new obligations to publish such information under the transparency regime that, to his credit, the communities secretary Eric Pickles has insisted all councils must follow.

Specifically, KCC appears to have not given much thought to a change in the Audit and Account Regulations 2009 that ensures the public is entitled to much more detailed information about the remuneration of senior council staff. This places a requirement on councils to disclose how much senior employees have earned in salary, fees and allowances, bonuses and

"the total amount of any compensation for loss of employment paid to or receivable by the person and any other payments made to or receivable by the person in connection with the termination of their employment by the relevant body."

In other words, everything about the pay and perks, as well as pension value, of senior staff for the financial year - including their names if they are earning more than £150,000.

So KCC will have to detail the sums involved in scrapping the group managing director's role when it next publishes its full accounts - probably around June. This does, of course, give the council the advantage of hoping that enough time will have passed for everyone to have forgotten about it but I suspect that may be a vain hope.

So, why doesn't KCC grasp the nettle instead of hiding behind this fig leaf? One of the reasons is that it has form when it comes to eye-watering pay-offs to departing staff, most notably when it agreed to pay former chief executive Peter Gilroy £200,000 on the day he left the authority as part of the package agreed when his contract was extended by a year.

So, it undoubtedly wants to avoid a further clutch of embarrassing headlines.

Its own avowed approach to transparency is - and I quote from the county council leader Paul Carter - is that 

"it is enormously important that residents of the county who pay substantial taxes know where their money goes. We have no problems with that at all."

Could there be a more compelling case for disclosure of how taxpayers' money is being spent? KCC is forever telling us how much its controversial re-structuring has saved the taxpayer. And its report proposing the deletion of the post of managing director emphasises how much it will save by not paying her salary - £265,000 a year.

If it can be so transparent on these matters, we are surely entitled to know the other side of the coin.

Paul Francis kentonline 13th Dec 2011

A golden opportunity missed

Disappointing. Unsurprising. Recoverable.

CCC voted down the opportunity to flaunt themselves as 21st century cyber-starlets (see Radio Sausage). The world is a marginally less glitzy place as a result.

More to the point, they voted down the opportunity to let their constituents see them in action. Internet access is becoming much more widespread, and is almost universal among the 'young' (anyone who runs for a bus). These are the very people who must be engaged in the democratic process if we are to stand the slightest chance of not going down the constitutional toilet, as a district, a county and a nation.

In the hope it will make some difference, I am emailing ALL the Councillors a link to the Radio Sausage post, in which I offer to prop up Western democracy single-handed. With luck, we may get some interesting and productive comments.

Councillors: I mean it. I am very worried that you have become so enmeshed in process, procedure and petty politics that you have lost sight of your purpose. You must actively seek out, and then represent, the wishes of your constituents. This takes involvement and commitment from everyone. There is an absolute need for widespread involvement in a vibrant and transparent local democracy.

You won't earmark a few tens (or hundreds?) of pounds to increase accessibility and participation. Out of a budget of millions. That is shameful.

Radio Sausage

A few ounces of reconstituted tree, shaped into a local freesheet, thump to the floor. The crisp metal edge of the letterbox snaps back into place, briefly trapping a small fleshy obstruction. The pain-numbed child continues its paper round.

This is what passes for effective communication in 21st century Kent.

But things are looking up: I read in that very freesheet that one of our elected representatives (Cllr Perkins) seems to have 'the vision thing' (article). He has proposed that Council meetings be recorded and broadcast on the internet, arguing this would encourage greater engagement in local politics - I approve. Anyone who actually gives a toss could listen live, or any time later that suits them. They wouldn't have to get themselves to whichever Council meeting place at whatever (more or less inconvenient) time of day.

Cllr Perkins accurately predicted that other Councillors would oppose the idea. Cllr Gilbey is quoted as saying  

"My personal view is that I wouldn't want to give the opportunity for grandstanding in front of cameras or recorders."

I may be warming to Cllr Gilbey's sense of humour: the idea that the mere presence of a microphone or webcam would transform Council into a casting session for Chicago! just makes me chuckle. On my one exposure to Council I observed:

• very little excessive or unnecessary expenditure of effort
• peer and group pressure to conform
• many conventions and procedures to curtail or restrict Councillor participation
• only about 5% egomania

This is not an ideal nursery for 'grandstanding' prima donnas. And they're limited to three minutes each, anyway.

The dark voices in my head tell me that some Councillors oppose this move towards greater transparency for bad reasons: embarrassed by what they say, or by how little they say; wanting to lay claim to non-existent protests and challenges; not wanting their words to be remembered too precisely; not wanting to be seen as a low-budget part-time imitation of Parliament at its braying worst; and so on.

The saying goes that law-making and sausage-making are not pleasant to witness. The proposed internet broadcast would be like listening to sausages being made (every one a sizzling banger, hopefully). It might set your teeth on edge. It might send you to sleep. It might play havoc with your blood pressure. But if it gets more people more involved, and makes more Councillors more responsive, it will be worth every penny.

If CCC 'doesn't have the money for this sort of thing' as Cllr Gilbey is reported as saying, I am more than happy to discuss digging into my own pocket to help make it happen. Any Councillors wanting to take me up on this kind offer can contact me via the Comments below.