Wishing the horse was a camel – Cabinet versus the committee system

It does seem at times that the topics that most engages councillors are those that directly affect the way they do their job. Item 25 on last night’s Full Council agenda was entitled: Possible Changes to the Constitution.

At this point I should issue a spoiler alert; the result was no change – we will maintain the status quo.

It is not often that I find common cause with Nigel Holdcroft, former Conservative leader of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, but I did find last night’s proceedings odd. The irony here is that the debate boiled down to whether there are some councillors who are more equal than others, and in the debate itself this was a self-evident truth when Group Leaders’ utterances are considered to be more important than the rest of us.

We had a number of contributions, me included, before we concluded with a somewhat farcical (and twice taken) vote. Cllr Moyies evidently has troubled understanding the meaning of ‘or’.

In the vote we saw both UKIP (those that were present) and the Liberal Democrats (including their Cabinet member) voting en bloc to investigate the possibility of moving back to the committee system.

In the end it was a tight vote: 21 in favour of retaining the Cabinet, 19 for the committee system. Two abstained (Cllrs Flewitt and Woodley), and I wonder why. They were elected to make decisions, not sit on fences. The Mayor voted, which was also unsatisfying – I think chairs should only cast in the event of a tie.

The vote was carried by seven of the nine Labour councillors siding with the bulk of the Conservatives and a couple of Independents. I think us and the Tories wanted to maintain the status quo for differing reasons: they liked the model, we did not want valuable money diverted when so many cuts are to be made.

The keen-eyed will note that there were 42 councillors present for the vote, meaning nine were absent. Labour and the Liberal Democrats had a full complement; UKIP had two missing (commented on by Matt Dent here), the Independent Group had three absent, and the Conservatives were down by four. Whilst there will always be the occasional absence, last night’s was the most sparsely attended that I can recollect in my two and a half years as a councillor. It is not just at Full Council where absences occur, many of the committees are seeing gaps. I do not keep a track of who attends what, although I am tempted to begin doing so. It is noticeable that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are ever-present, yet the other groups, especially UKIP and the Tories, are less than assiduous in being present when requested.

Here is (roughly) my contribution to the debate:

When this council voted to broadcast its meetings on the internet I expressed my opposition to this – not on the principle (I am in favour of opening up our democracy) but because in a time of cuts this was a frivolous expense. I felt then that this was essentially a vanity exercise when many vital services were being squeezed.

I am ambivalent about the prospect for a return to the committee system. I have not experienced this system first hand, but my experience of the Cabinet system has not been unfavourable. I am more vexed by decisions made in this place than I am with the mechanics of how those decisions are reached.

We are facing yet more cuts this year, indisputable even if we can haggle over the precise figure. To consider making a change, invisible to all but a tiny minority of the electorate, at times of austerity is to navel gaze. This exercise comes with a cost, and one or more services that we provide will suffer because of it.

It is not a doorstep issue in my ward – residents have far bigger issues to animate them. As to the issue of councillors not doing their jobs that is for the electorate to judge; I only hope that Cllr Terry was not thinking of me when he made this judgement. I do find it ironic that there is a pressure group locally who complain about a lack of democracy – yet are self-appointed unelected spokespeople themselves.

I encourage all to think on this when casting their votes.

So close, and yet so far away – a night of missed opportunities

Last night’s full council meeting last seven hours and fifteen minutes (although there was a five minute break after about four hours). This makes it the longest of my (limited) experience; the previous longest I had taken part in was the budget debate earlier this year which lasted a mere six hours.

I made a few contributions, and what follows are my notes – not intended as a full record (this is best obtained by watching the webcast). Part Two items are not included in the webcast, and neither do they feature here.

I spoke in the debate on the Future of Southend Library Services. I suggested that I could have asked a question about what sort of wheel has two hubs and only one spoke; and answered my own question with reference to the struggling portfolio holder’s dismal performance in answering questions thus far. I also pointed out the irony that this minute was adjacent to that on the Skills Strategy.

I went on to say that in the west (of the borough) the two hubs are situated in leafy environs. The library supporting a community where deprivation is endemic is not being supported. I stand up for all libraries – I do not want to rain on either Leigh or Kent Elms’ parade. However, I regret that Westborough now has a cloud over it. When the dismal news about the libraries is set in the context of the poor educational performance (in the borough) one cannot help but speculate more bad news ahead.

Mark Flewitt appeared to address his diatribe at me. He was “pleased with the achievement” (of securing hub status for Kent Elms library), and said he is a glass-half-full person. I am not a natural pessimist either, but I cannot rejoice at seeing the library service being savaged across the borough.

There was a vote on whether to refer the item back to Cabinet. This was defeated by 30 votes to 16. All of the Labour Group (Cllrs Borton, Gilbert, Anne Jones, McMahon, Norman and me) voted for referring back. Eight of the Independent Group voted for too: Cllrs Assenheim, Aylen, Ayling, Chalk, Stafford, Terry, Van Looy and Woodley. Two Liberal Democrats also voted for: Cllrs Betson and Collins.

Now for those who opposed: all the Tories present (except the deputy mayor who was chairing the meeting), Cllr Velmurugan, and seven Liberal Democrats (Cllrs Crystall, Godwin, Grimwade, Lewin, Longley, Russell and Wexham). A case of I’m alright Jack for the Lib Dems, who were content with merely saving Leigh library.

Cllr Morgan unaccountably was absent from the chamber during the vote.

Cllr Velmurugan’s vote was most puzzling: he spoke against the minute and then voted for it! The seven Lib Dems who supported the Tories should be hanging their heads in shame today. They are developing a theme of failing to step up to the mark when needed.

Had we managed to refer the item back this would have opened the possibility of reprieve for the library service – and thus this was a crucial vote.

In the debate on Refuse Collection I extracted a commitment from the portfolio holder that he would look at the policy of leaving rejected pink sacks that are not on the highway indefinitely; those on the highway are collected after forty-eight hours. This policy is described as the education encouragement process – I thought it better named as the neighbour irritation procedure as it creates a scruffy street name and makes gardens look like they’ve been fly-tipped.

I referred, in a later comment, to corporate performance indicator CP2.1 (number of reported missed collections per 100,000 (monthly snapshot)), it being worse than last year. I also pointed out that the cut to black sack distribution meant that pink sacks were being used for general refuse and thus were being rejected. I think this cut could prove to be a false economy.

I asked the portfolio holder for children and learning to clarify what he meant by ‘few’ when he kept referring to the number of young people using Focus in the debate on the Future of Youth Service. I asked whether the numbers were more or less than the number of users at the Lower Thames Rowing Club on Leigh Marshes. He originally agreed to supply these numbers, then retracted this promise. He accused me of being “disingenuous” – clearly he is uncomfortable with accountability.

Cllr Woodley asserted that he was “the only Conservative in this town” during the debate on the future of Delaware and Priory Care Homes and day centre. Make of that what you will.

The subject of sea defences came up twice during the course of the evening. The second occasion was an Opposition Business debate called by the Independent Group. Cllr Woodley declined the offer of a vote at the end of the debate saying he knew he would lose. I questioned his assertion at the start of the debate that cost was irrelevant because in austere times it is very relevant. Few argue against the need for improvements to the defences, so it comes down to a choice. I cannot see beyond going for the best value for money option.

After a short debate on the Local Council Tax Support Scheme Annual Review we had a vote. This scheme provides relief for the most vulnerable and poorest members of our community.

This was not a named vote, and I neglected to take exact notes of who voted which way. I did note that the Labour Group voted against (except Cllr Norman, who suffering with a bug had left earlier). I also noted many abstentions amongst the Liberal Democrats. The vote was tied 18 – 18, which left the deputy mayor with the casting vote. Conservative Cllr Walker unsurprisingly supported the administration.