Another Fine Mess you got me into - Alan

Just sent a letter to the Bolton News following on from the article that appeared there on 26th December.

Dear Sir

Further to your article 'Open up or face Court' (26th Dec), might I add the following.

The Deputy Information Commissioner, in his twenty five pages long Decision Notice of 17th December, has stated (not claimed) that Bolton Council has breached variously Sections 1, 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act seven times in dealing with Mr Greenwood's request.

Seven individuals were sent on 'Courses' held by the Common Purpose organisation. The name of one person is already in the public domain. The Commissioner has decided that two further individuals are indeed protected by the Act leaving the four which the Council now has to name.

The 'Chatham House Rules', under which these courses are held, require that nothing said or discussed can be revealed by the attendees. Nor can they reveal the names of anybody else attending.

Common Purpose, in it's own words, promotes 'Leadership beyond Authority' which, when encouraged in an employee of a public body, strikes me as a sinister if not Orwellian phrase.

The cost of each three day course can be up to £6,600 per person. The seven individuals sent on these courses by Bolton Council cost Bolton Council Tax payers £28,367.71p.
If I sent my son to University, the tuition fees would be £3,000 for a whole year.

Because of the secrecy, there is no way of confirming that this spending of money is for the Public Benefit as is required.

Many Councils and Public Bodies utilise these courses. Leaving aside the question of 'Why ?', other Councils, when faced with similar FOI requests, are completely open and reveal names, dates, bank details etc straight away. Why then does Bolton Council try to hide the information?

Bizarrely, within the Council, the Monitoring Officer who reviews FOI decisions is the same man who refused the request in the first place.

Bolton Council is aquiring a bit of a track record when it comes to the accuracy of legal advice that it relies on. Perhaps the Leader, Councillor Morris, ought to issue a statement that he has complete confidence in those who provide it before it costs us any more money.

Paul Richardson

Mr Alan Eastwood - again!

It's funny how one thing leads to another.

In my research and investigation into the Change of Governance at Bolton Council it finally came down to a difference of opinion between myself and the Director of the Chief Executives office, Mr Alan Eastwood.

It would appear that he is the top Legal man at the Town Hall - the link between the Statute Book and the Elected Members and Officers of Bolton Council.

I have already wondered what other instances there might be where his interpretation of the requirements of the law could prove to be somewhat 'dodgy'.

It didn't take much trawling of the internet to find something.

Read on!

...........................................................................................

The Information Commissioner - the chap who rules on what can or cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act - has, on 17th December 2009, found Bolton Council guilty of seven breaches of the FOI Act.

This decision has yet to be posted on the ICO website.

The background to this case relates to a FOI request (not from me) asking for the names of Officers of the Council who have been sent on training courses by the Council provided by an organisation known as 'Common Purpose'

This organisation, purporting to be a charity, holds leadership training courses for potential 'leaders' in areas of Government, Local Government and other Publicly Funded Bodies. People who 'pass' these courses are regarded as 'Graduates' of Common Purpose and have access to a network of other graduates.

The problem is that everything that happens on these courses, and who attends them is subject to what are known as 'Chatham House Rules'. Nothing that is said, nor the names of those who attend can be revealed.

Furthermore, one of the purposes of this organisation is to encourage and promote 'Leadership beyond Authority' - a very sinister phrase when applied to those in Public Bodies.

Bolton Council, in the form of Mr Eastwood finally and grudgingly revealed that they had spent £28,367.71 on sending employees on an assortment of these courses.

It turns out from the invoices that we are talking about up to £6,600 for each individual!

I have gleaned from other sources that this is the likely cost for a three day course.

It only costs £3,000 for a year at University!!!!

Mr Eastwood, however, refused to release the names of the individuals or the positions that they held within the Town Hall.

The Information Commissioner, in a lengthy series of communications, has finally got to the bottom line that seven individuals were involved. He has determined that one name is already known ( I'll find out who), two others are protected by the Data Protection Act but the remaining four must be named within 35 calendar days from the 17th December.

....................................................................................................................

Point 1

Why, when Bolton Council is so strapped for cash, are they spending this kind of money on 'training' and particularly with this organisation?

Point 2

Why, as a result of the secrecy, are we not allowed to know the content of this training to determine whether or not it is in the 'Public Benefit' as required by law.?

Point 3

What is Mr Eastwood and the Council trying to hide by erroneous interpretation of the Data protection Act when other Coucils faced with the same question have divulged the names and job titles of attendees.?

......................................................................................................................


I only came across this Decision a couple of hours ago. By sheer coincidence I've just bought todays Bolton News & lo and behold on page 7:-

.....................................................................................................................


Open up — or face court, council told

Town Hall chiefs have been threatened with High Court action amid claims they have breached the Freedom of Information Act.

Bolton Council is refusing to divulge the names of officers who attended a training course which cost taxpayers almost £30,000.

Now Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith has issued a decision notice against the authority telling it to open up — or face being held in contempt of court.
He has given the council 35 days to disclose the names of the four employees who attended leadership development courses run by training company Common Purpose.

If it does not, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham could make representations to the High Court that the council has breached the act.

Any breach of the Freedom of Information Act can result in a charge of contempt of court. The Act was introduced to encourage openness and transparency from public bodies and give people access to official information.

Breightmet resident John Greenwood submitted a Freedom of Information request in April asking for details of how much the council had spent with Common Purpose, copies of invoices and the names of officers who had received training from the not-for-profit organisation.

The council sent details of the cost of the courses, copies of the invoices it had on record but redacted — blanked out — the name and job title of staff who had attended the various courses.

Mr Greenwood said: “The council has spent more than £28,000 of taxpayers’ money on sending senior officers on these courses and I felt that it was of public interest to find out who exactly these people were.”

Common Purpose meetings have attracted controversy in the past for being held under Chatham House Rule, which essentially keeps the identity of speakers or other participants secret.

Mr Greenwood added: “I do not think this is good for democracy that key decision makers, who are beyond public scrutiny, are attending these kind of courses in secret.”

In his report, Mr Smith said the council had been correct in withholding information such as invoice numbers and bank accounts but had incorrectly withheld the names of four officers, prompting his decision notice.

A council spokesman said: “We have received the request from the Information Commissioner and we are considering our response in light of this request.”

...................................................................................................

Enough for now - but, believe me, there will be more!!

Paul

To Block or not to Block -That is the Question

One of the consequences of my round robin e-mail to the 60 Councillors was that one of my own ward Councillors was disturbed by Alan Eastwood's refusal to allow Claire Atkinson to circulate the e-mail by pushing the button that would have done this.

This Councillor raised his concern with Mr Eastwood as follows:-

Alan,

I was made aware of the email from Mr Richardson of my ward two days ago and the email being blocked by yourself. Whilst I understand that your views are different than Mr Richardson’s views surely he had the right to allow his email to be circulated to elected members.

In recent weeks we have received many emails from residents on many subjects in particular Cutacre and planning applications and in many cases the comments within them are incorrect. These emails have not been blocked.

As you are aware residents are entitled to their views, could I ask you to inform me of the reasoning behind this when other issues are sent without being blocked.

Regards,

Alan Eastwood replied as follows:-

Dear Councillor

In no way did I block Mr Richardson from sending the email to members. We received a request to Members services to circulate the email. As you will see from my email I drew Mr Richardson’s attention of my concern to using the Councils resources for distribution because of the inaccuracies contained within the email.

Mr Richardson had sometime ago received a full response via his MP on the same subject matter with the same information.

In the event Mr Richardson did distribute the email and I therefore responded to all members with the response that I had sent to him.

I hope this helps.

Does this man understand the English language at all??

'In no way did I block Mr Richardson from sending the email to members''

The 'way' in which he blocked my e-mail was by telling Claire not to distribute it.

That means he blocked my e-mail.

He didn't ultimately prevent me from painfully copying and pasting the thing sixty times in order to send it one by one to the Councillors, but his hope could only have been that I wouldn't go to that trouble. If he had known that I was the determined type of guy that I am, he would have accepted that he might as well let it through.
.................................................................................

He doesn't answer my Councillors question as to why other e-mails with 'inaccuracies' in them have successfully been distributed in this way.

In any event, why should he, an unelected employee of the Council, albeit of a 'high' status,have any right of censorship or veto in communications between Electors & Elected.
...........................................................................

In reference to the 'full response' via my MP with the 'same information', - the 'information' is exactly what I was questioning in my e-mail to the Councillors.

The document, which was the consequence of a query from another Elector and which Brian Iddon freely forwarded to me, did not satisfy my doubts and queries.

I did not and do not accept that his reading of the Act was correct and I was drawing the Councillors attention to that for them to make their own judgement.

Is he too 'great' to have his opinion challenged or for the Councillors to re-examine the advice he had given them.

For the Director of Legal Services of a major organisation such as Bolton Council to have such a casual approach to the meaning of words causes me to wonder how sound and legalistically accurate other advice to our Elected representatives might have been.

This might sound like it is becoming personal. It isn't.

It is to do with :-

1) We are Electors

2) We elect Councillors

3) Councillors proceed, on our behalf, according to the various statues and Acts of Parliament to implement their policies.

4) Legal Officers of the Council advise them in a scrupulously accurate, impartial and detached manner as to that which the law requires.

5) The Electors have to be confident that this happens in all matters.

In this case, I am not sure that 4) & 5) are happening.

Paul

Different Words -Different Meanings

So far, all my deliberations have been to do with what I viewed to be an inadequate Consultation organised by Bolton Council prior to drawing up proposals for a change of Governance.

When I received replies from several Councillors to my round-robin e-mail, some of the comments they made suddenly brought to my mind a further, and probably a more important, point of contention.

These comments and the 'Amendment' to the motion put before the council on this matter, made it obvious that all the Councillors believed that the Government was the instigator of these changes and the Act left the Council with no choice but to change the way it was doing things.

The Amendment, submitted by Councillor David Wilkinson, read as follows:-

"That in approving this Motion, Council wishes to put on record that constant Government inspired tinkering with local democratic processes does nothing to improve Council performance and merely serves to erode local decision making.”

The comments included:-

" I agree with your sentiments but not your legal argument; in fact the Council last night unanimously passed a resolution regretting central government interference in the domestic political arrangements of the Council; ........................."

".......................... this was the least worst option legally available and was therefore unanimously backed by last night’s Council."

"....................... The real culprit in all this is the Government, who seem to have given little in reasoning as to why they suddenly want to change things................."

..................................................................................

Now consider the following three statements:-

1) The Consultation, drawn up by Bolton Council, in its various forms, states the following:-

"New National legislation - The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 - means the Council has to change the way it is governed by May of next year.........etc"

2) In a letter to Brian Iddon MP dated 17th November, Alan Eastwood states:-

"Under section 33(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, as amended (by the 2007 Act), Councils must consider to change to a different form of Executive..........etc"

3) The Act itself (as amended) in Section 33(a) actually states:-

"A local authority in England which is operating executive arrangements may —

(a) vary the arrangements so that they provide for a different form of executive, and
(b) if it makes such a variation, vary the arrangements in such other respects (if any) as it considers appropriate. "

(The meaning of the use of 'may' is further re-enforced by Section 33E ( Proceedure to be followed) which states in Sub Section (1):-

"This section applies to a local authority which wishes to make a change in governance arrangements")

.........................................................................................................

Now the English language is very precise. The people who draft Acts of Parliament are experts at precise use of the language.

In the three examples above "Has to change", "Must consider to change" and "May (vary)" mean three completely different things.

It is inconceivable that Alan Eastwood, the author of examples 1) & 2) did not know this.

Further to this even 1) & 2) both authored by Alan Eastwood are inconsistent with one another.

............................................................................................................

So, the second point of contention, (as well as the Consultation/Guidelines business,) is that the Government didn't require or compel the Council to do anything. It merely amended the 2000 Act to provide the facility for the Council to change from one form of Executive to another if the Council so wished.

The Amendment put to the Council by David Wilkinson and duly passed alongside the Proposals by all the Members present, was completely pointless since, from my reading of the Act, the Government didn't inspire anyone to tinker with anything.

It confirms, in my mind, that the entire body of Bolton Councillors, by passing this amendment, were proceeding in ignorance of these irreconcilable differences in wording in the belief that the legal advice of Alan Eastwood was reflecting the requirements of the Act.

This is the same legal adviser who is adamant that the Guidelines don't apply to the Consultation.

So- what was the purpose - and who's purpose was it?

.........................................................................................

On the face of it, and at the very least, the Councillors have been misled.
The question is - by whom and why?

.............................................................................

The Consultation document tells the public that the way of governing has to change.
If, in fact it didn't, then the choices presented to the public for their views should have been three-fold

1) 'New style' Leader & Cabinet (with the leader having the same powers as an elected mayor would have) etc

2) Elected Mayor etc

3) Leave the damned thing as it is.

If I am right, then the public has been misled as well.

................................................................................

It is difficult not to arrive at the following conclusion.
An 'Elite' at the top of the Town Hall wanted to concentrate power in the hands of a small group - shall we say the leader(s) and their close advisors.

To make this change they had to go through the rigmarole of the famous two choices/ Consultation etc.

The Consultation was designed to create the minimum response which could therefore be, and was, easily ignored.

The backbench Members were easily convinced on the advice of the Director of the Chief Executives Office that to change was compulsory and that the eventual Proposals were the least worst option legally available

I am no more stating that I am right in this than I did in the matter of the Consultation, but the logic is there to see.

If I am right...........................................????????????????

Over to John Denham, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government who is examining the point about Consultation Guidelines and who may soon be examining the point of everybody being misled.

Paul

Next Blog - Secretive Leadership Courses paid for by you.

More Letters to the Bolton News - Elected Mayors

Just to update the record of letters printed in the Bolton News on the subject of Elected Mayors.

....................................................................................................

Chance to cast vote would be nice

Monday 7th December 2009

RE the letter from Mr Peter Johnston. There are some points I would like to answer. I don't remember ever saying that I wanted an elected mayor — what I want is the opportunity to vote for one.

I will accept the majority decision of the democratic vote. I asked, what number of voters would be acceptable for the council? No answer. I don’t want to know what the Labour Party would have done many years ago.

Mr Johnston is entitled to his view, but not to say that most of the population is not interested in such an idea. How does he know?

I presume that this senior colleague from Yorkshire he speaks of actually means, The Mayor of Doncaster. This colleague of his says, “we’ve got one and you can’t keep tabs on the blighter, and if we can’t keep tabs on him, what chance has the ordinary punter?”

It looks to me that Yorkshire have the same “I know best” attitude that Bolton Council has. Classing the voter as an “ordinary punter” — how condescending. Unlike Mr Johnston’s colleague, The Mayor of Doncaster is probably out working for the council taxpayers of Yorkshire, trying to make savings and get value for money.
Great Britain was built on democratic values which are now being denied us by Europe, the Government and local councils.

James Birch - Sharples

..................................................................................................


The maths proves a lack of interest

Thursday 10th December 2009


JAMES Birch (Letters, December 7) asks how I know that the majority of the population are not much interested in the notion of an elected Mayor.

Simple.

There are, give or take, about 100,000 households in Bolton MBC. I do not know the precise circulation of Bolton Scene, but it is a fair working assumption that it reaches at least half of them.

Assume an average of two adults per household, of whom only one actually reads the paper.

Assume further that half of those who do read it are too busy, too overburdened, or have more important things to do than to respond to the question about whether there should be a ballot.

That leaves an electoral base of 25,000 of whom only 700, or 2.8 per cent, were sufficiently interested to reply. That hardly suggests a high level of general interest.

If that is insufficient proof, remember that, when the Anti Congestion Charge campaign was at its height, the opponents of the charge attempted to raise petitions for elected mayors in several of the Greater Manchester authorities. In none of them were they able to secure the required 10,000 signatures.

I do not anyway believe in governance by plebiscite, for the simple reason that, for any complicated issue, a majority of the electorate will be ill equipped either by training or experience to reach an informed conclusion.

But as to democratic accountability. If this means anything at all apart from the occasional opportunity to reject our chosen representatives at the ballot box, it surely means that we can from time to time challenge them as to their activities, and hold them accountable.

And if, in any specified political framework, it is difficult for experienced politicians to hold a Mayor accountable, it is bound to be 10 times as difficult for anyone else, without experience or understanding of the way local government works.

Peter Johnston Kendal Road Bolton

.......................................................................................................

An elected mayor would be sensitive to public opinion

Saturday 12th December 2009

PETER Johnston is not in favour of an elected Mayor (“An elected Mayor is not a good idea”, Letters, November 18).

He backs up his view by citing a comment made to him by a “senior colleague in a Yorkshire authority” who claimed that it was difficult to keep tabs on the mayor.
This statement got me wondering.

Was this senior colleague of his an elected official of this Yorkshire authority, or one of the unelected officials who believe that it is their God-given right to rule over us?

Having an elected executive mayor is by no means perfect (Ken Livingstone’s regime in London is a prime example).

But, for example, if Bolton had had an elected mayor at the time of the market hall episode, I would very much doubt we would have the market hall like it is today.
An elected mayor would be far more sensitive to public opinion than the present administration which, overall, would not be a bad thing.

Stuart A Chapman Patterdale Road Harwood

.......................................................................................................

And finally, one I have submitted on 10th December which has yet to be printed.

...........................................................................................................

Dear Sir

So, Bolton Council has succeeded in passing the resolution required to change its governance arrangements.

Up until now your correspondents (including myself) have concentrated on the quality of the Consultation.

It seems to me that for the Council, it was never about elected mayors, but, in order to implement the changes they wanted, the Act required them to go through this rigmarole.

Resting upon the assurances of their top legal officer they have done, in my view, the minimum consultation they think they can get away with.

It might be appropriate to examine what is actually going to change.

This is laid out in the required publicity for the proposals on page 2 of November's issue of Bolton Scene.

Basically, from next May, instead of the full Council choosing the Executive Members and determining their roles and responsibilities, this power will now be given to the 'new style' Leader. He will have the same powers as would have an elected mayor.

The Leader will be chosen by the whole Council after the local elections next May and will serve until he or she, personally, has to face their own ward election - up to a maximum of four years.

The governance will mimic the Westminster set up with the difference that after the following local elections in 2011 it would be theoretically possible to have, say, a Conservative Leader in a Council that has a majority of Labour Councillors. Sounds great fun!

It seems to me that power will have shifted even more towards the 'Elite' of the town hall (including officers) away from the backbench - foot soldier - dare I say lobby fodder of the people you and I elect.

More democracy - I think not.

To Mr Johnston (Letters 10th Dec) I say - try keeping tabs on this Cabal at the top after next May.

Paul Richardson etc.
....................................................................................................

More very soon on who runs the Town Hall.

Paul

Bolton Council - 9th December -

Well, the Council met on Wednesday 9th December to consider its proposals for the new form of governance.

These proposals, as required by the Act, were published in the November issue of Bolton Scene in an article on Page 2.

The article read as follows:-

Bolton Scene Nov 2009. Publication of proposals.

How Council Decisions will be made

The way the Council is governed is to change next year

Proposals to have the Council directed by a 'new style' leader & cabinet have been approved by the Councils Executive

They will now go to the full Council next month

the 'new style' leader and cabinet will see a councillor elected as leader of the executive for up to four years by the full council

The length of term of the leader will be determined by how long is left before he or she has to stand for election again.

Between two and nine councillors will be appointed to the executive by the leader who will also decide their roles and responsibilities

The leader will also appoint a deputy leader

There will still be a ceremonial mayor

At the moment the council is governed by a leader and an executive.

The full council (a meeting where all the councillors can attend) decides who the leader is, who the members of the executive are and their roles and responsibilities.

The system was introduced in 2000 following national legislation to change the old committee model of government.

Voters will still elect councillors to represent them and their areas.

New national legislation - the Local Government and involvement in public Health act 2007 - means the Council has to change the way it is governed by May next year.

End of Article

......................................................................................

Actually, quite a lot happened on the day of the Council Meeting.

Having been thwarted by Alan Eastwood in communicating with all 60 Councillors through the Town Hall distribution system, I re-hashed the e-mail and painfully sent it to each individual e-mail address.

This went as follows. Most of this is known to you but I record this so that it is known what information the Councillors had prior to the meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION 7th Sept -4th Oct 2009

Dear Councillor

May I bring the following to your attention and would you forgive me for the detail - that is where the devil is.

Firstly, may I state that I could be wrong in what I am asserting in this e-mail since I am no expert at wading though Acts of Parliament. I leave that to your judgement.
.....................................................................................

This Wednesday, recommendations will be put to the full Bolton Council meeting on the form of Executive that it proposes to operate after next May.

.....................................................................................

The Primary Legislation upon which this is based is the Local Government Act 2000. This Act required a change from the previous Committee system to one of three options.

Elected Mayor + Cabinet
Leader + Cabinet
Elected Mayor + Council Manager

I am not privy to the details, but as a consequence of this Act Bolton Council adopted the option that it currently operates.

Section 25 of the Act lays down a procedure to be followed.

Section 25, Sub Section (2) states the following:-

"Before drawing up proposals under this section, a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

Section 38 Subsection (1) requires:-

"A local authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part."

The guidance for this purpose was issued by the then Department of Transport Environment & Regions in October 2000 under the heading ' New Council Constitutions - Consultation Guidelines for English Local Authorities'

This can be downloaded from the following Government Website.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/newcouncilconstitutions3

This document comprises 58 pages.

Again I assume that the public consultation at the time of the original change was in line with this guidance.

.....................................................................................

In 2007, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 amended and added to the provisions of the 2000 Act.

First of all, for English Authorities, it removed the third option of Elected Mayor and Council Manager.

Secondly it introduced the means by which an English Local Authority could change from the Executive Arrangements it had introduced following the 2000 Act to a different form.

This was done by amending the 2000 Act by adding the following- Quote

.....................................................................................

Section 64 Changing governance arrangements
After section 33 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) insert—
“Changing governance arrangements: general provisions.

.....................................................................................

There then follows Sections 33A to 33O which are added to the 2000Act

Section 33A states:-

.....................................................................................

Executive arrangements: different form of executive
A local authority in England which is operating executive arrangements may—
(a) vary the arrangements so that they provide for a different form of executive, and
(b) if it makes such a variation, vary the arrangements in such other respects (if any) as it considers appropriate.

.....................................................................................

This is the Section under which the current changes in the operation of Bolton Councils Executive Arrangements are proceeding.

.....................................................................................

Section 33E, Sub section (6) states:-
"Before drawing up its proposals, the local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

.....................................................................................

This is the identical wording to that in Section 25 Sub Section (2) of the original Act.

.....................................................................................

So after 2007, the Local Government Act of 2000, as amended, states both in Section 25 and Section 33E:-

"Before drawing up its proposals, the local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."
It is my contention that tt cannot be the case that the Guidelines referred to previously which apply to Section 25 do not apply to Section 33E - both in the same Act.

The Guidelines which apply to Section 25 ( and in my contention to Section 33E) have not (to my knowledge) been rescinded, deleted or amended.

.....................................................................................

This is the knub of the problem which I bring to your attention.

Should you trouble to read the Guidelines, then it becomes obvious that the recent consultation organised by Bolton Council between 7th Sept and 4th October comes nowhere near to satisfying the spirit or letter of the Guidelines.

Alan Eastwood has stated the following ( after quoting the provisions of Section 33):-

"Despite the above being included within the Act it does not provide either for any specific form of consultation or for any specific consultation period. In addition the department for Communities and Local Government decided not to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what the Department considers would constitute 'reasonable steps'. As a result, each Local Authority has had to reach its own decision as to the form and level of public consultation that it considers to be appropriate."

He is saying that the Guidelines which apply to Section 25(2) don't and were never intended to apply to Section 33(6) in spite of the fact that both Sections are in the same Act and contain the same wording.

I presume that he has received clarification from the Department for Communities and Local Government that he is correct (and thus I am incorrect) and has not, for whatever reason, just assumed that the Guidance doesn't apply .

If, in fact, I am correct, then it could well be that Bolton Council have failed to satisfy the provisions of the Act so far and thus cannot proceed to the next stage.

..................................................................................

In any event, a public consultation method which produces a response from just 0.2% of the electorate must, as a consultation, be viewed to have been hopelessly organised let alone a waste of time and money. The poor response cannot, in my view, just be put down entirely to the apathy of the residents.

The consultation didn't even involve those most important meetings between the Council and public - i.e the Area Forums. (At least not in my locality)

The consultation wasn't, according to the Guidelines, just to do with the electors. How the Council is organised is also important for other 'stakeholders'

Why were not the views sought of the local Chamber of Trade, the local Trades Unions, The Residents Associations, the Council of Mosques, other Church Bodies etc etc??
.....................................................................................

Finally, a point which I most indignant about.

On Tuesday 1st December I tried to send a similarly worded e-mail on this subject to all the Elected Members by the more convenient method of asking Claire Atkinson to circulate it.

Two days later I received a response from Alan Eastwood stating that he was reluctant to circulate my e-mail to yourselves since 'the information contained within it is incorrect'

To put it mildly I was furious - and I still am.

What right has an 'employee' of the Council, of whatever status, to interfere with a communication between a local elector and the elected representatives of Bolton Metro residents.?

Why was this shown to him in the first place?

What other e-mails are you not getting or is it just to do with this subject?

I have no doubt whatsoever that half the e-mails you receive from electors contain incorrect information - but that is for you to judge and if you think, or know, in this case that I am wrong, to dismiss or ignore what I am saying.

.....................................................................................

So, as I said at the beginning - I could be wrong in what I am asserting.

I am confident that you will form your own judgement.

Yours Respectfully and Sincerely etc etc

End of e-mail.

.....................................................................................

On the 7th Dec I received replies from 5 Councillors commenting in various ways but nevertheless thanking me for the information.

A further 3 responses were received on the 9th Dec - the day of the meeting - the last being at 4.29pm.

Within the hour I was informed that Alan Eastwood had circulated an e-mail to all the Councillors at 4.26 pm - two & a half hours before the meeting was due to start.

This e-mail read as follows:-

Dear Councillors,

I understand that Paul Richardson has contacted a number of you regarding the proposals on the new Governance arrangements which appear on the agenda for Council this evening. Please see the e-mail below which I sent to Mr Richardson in response to his request that I circulate his view of consultation and guidance in this regard.

If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

Alan R Eastwood

As stated above this e-mail included the original reply to me on 3rd December as follows:-

Dear Mr Richardson,

I refer to your e-mail which you sent to Claire Atkinson dated 1 December 2009 requesting that the information you have provided be circulated to all Elected Members. I am afraid that I am reluctant to circulate your e-mail, as the information contained within it, is incorrect. The guidance to which you refer was issued in respect of new Council Constitutions which came into force in 2000 and brought in the initial Cabinet/Executive Model along side others. This guidance does not relate to the current consultation and in fact, no guidance was issued in this regard. I hope this clarifies the position.

End of e-mail

.....................................................................................

A classic move to shut down any doubts in the Councillors' minds at the last minute!!

I thought 'two can play at this game' and duly flashed off the following to all 60 Councillors:-

Dear Councillor

I have just had sight of the e-mail Mr Eastwood has circulated to you which includes his response to the e-mail from me that he felt unable to circulate.

May I also thank each of you who have taken the time to reply to me.

Regarding the matter of the Consultation, in the e-mail to yourselves, Mr Eastwood merely states his position without responding to the detail or logic of my argument, Frankly, I don't think he has answered the any of the points I have made.

Beyond this, I have had some indication that it is not universally understood amongst all Elected Members what the purpose of the changes is or what the implications of these changes are on the ability of 'backbench' Councillors to influence decisions on behalf of the electors of their wards might be.

I assume that every implication has been adequately explained to you.

All I can say is that, where I in your position, I wouldn't easily support anything that I didn't fully appreciate the consequences of and perhaps would consider withholding my support or opposition until such time as I did.

May I wish you all the best in your deliberations.

Yours respectfully

Paul Richardson

End of e-mail

.....................................................................................

One of the responses I had received was from the Liberal Democrat Councillor Barbara Ronson who included a copy of the Amendment to the motion to be debated in the name of her colleague David Wilkinson. The amendment read as follows:-

Amendment in the name of Councillor D A Wilkinson:

Addition of paragraph

"That in approving this Motion, Council wishes to put on record that constant Government inspired tinkering with local democratic processes does nothing to improve Council performance and merely serves to erode local decision making.”

I was informed on the 10th December that the Proposals and the Amendment were passed unanimously by the Council.

.....................................................................................

Next Blog - More correspondence in and to the Bolton News.

After that - Was this change of governance demanded by the Government or was it the choice of the Council.?

Paul

Good News + Good News

Whadya Know !! The Bolton News printed my letter today. (The short one) Let's see what response that gets.

Good news 2 -

Precinct Planters in place. Piccys as follows.








Well, it's a start.

Plastic Litter bins on square have been replaced with cast iron ones. I've not bothered taking photographs of those.

Paul

Elected Mayors - The Treacle Thickens

Since the Bolton News chose not to print my overly long letter, I submitted a shorter letter on the 26th November as follows:-

.....................................................................................

Dear Sir
Should any of your readers still feel disenfranchised or un-consulted over the matter of how the Council executive will operate in the future, perhaps they would care to read the document entitled ' New Council Constitutions - Consultation Guidelines for English Local Authorities'

This can be downloaded from the following Government Website.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/newcouncilconstitutions3

After reading this, they can then make a judgment as to what extent Bolton Council's Consultation measured up to these guidelines.

Interestingly, Bolton Council are adamant that no such guidelines were ever issued by the Government.

End of letter

.....................................................................................

By Tuesday of this week , this letter still not having appeared, I was starting to worry that maybe there is some agenda going on here to block discussion. (It's easy to get paranoid).

Anyway, faced with the prospect that the Proposals for change are going to be submitted to the full Council on December 9th and knowing that once it gets past there it would be even more difficult to undo, I formulated an e-mail to send to all 60 odd Councillors of Bolton Metro.

The e-mail read as follows:-

.....................................................................................

Dear Elected Member of Bolton Council

Forgive me for communicating with you in this way.

As you are aware, the officers of the Council have recently conducted a Consultation with the residents of Bolton Metro with respect to new arrangements for the Executive and a choice of two options.

As a result of this, out of a population of 240,000, 622 replies were received.

The Local government Act of 2000 requires that "before drawing up proposals under this section, a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

The Act also requires that "A local authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part."

The guidance for this purpose was issued by the then Department of Transport Environment & Regions in October 2000 under the heading ' New Council Constitutions - Consultation Guidelines for English Local Authorities'

This can be downloaded from the following Government Website.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/newcouncilconstitutions3

This document comprises 58 pages

A comparison of these guidelines with the actual consultation carried out by the Council strongly suggests to me that the consultation comes nowhere near to satisfying the requirements of the Act.

This is re-enforced by the statement of Alan Eastwood on the 17th November that -

"........Despite the above being included within the Act it does not provide either for any specific form of consultation or for any specific consultation period. In addition the department for Communities and Local Government decided not to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what the Department considers would constitute 'reasonable steps'. As a result, each Local Authority has had to reach its own decision as to the form and level of public consultation that it considers to be appropriate."

If it is the case that the Council has not recognised the existence of such guidance, let alone designed its consultation in accordance with such guidance, then it would appear to me that the requirements of the Act have not been fulfilled and the matter cannot proceed to the next stage.

In any event, the response of only 0.2% of the population amply demonstrates the inadequacy of the consultation method.

You may therefore, after confirming to your own satisfaction that which I have laid out above, feel that these matters are likely to further re-enforce the perception of the public that their views are not being sufficiently taken into account on this most basic matter of how we are governed locally.

Accordingly, you may wish to make representations in the appropriate places.

I remain
Yours sincerely etc

End of E-mail

.....................................................................................

Now I reckon that this is a respectful communication between a local resident and elected representatives on an important issue. It does not demand that the Councillors agree to what I am suggesting, it only asks that they look at the matter, come to their own conclusions and act accordingly (or not as the case may be).

A councillor friend of mine suggested that instead of sending 60 e-mails it would be easier to simply send it to Claire Atkinson, the Members Secretary and with the push of one button she could distribute it to them all. As this councillor friend of mine has demonstrated today, this is not an unusual occurrence when a resident wants to bring something to the notice of all the elected members.

This I duly did on Tuesday 1st December.

Yesterday I received the following e-mail from - who else but the above named Alan Eastwood - saying :-

.....................................................................................

Dear Mr Richardson,

I refer to your e-mail which you sent to Claire Atkinson dated 1 December 2009 requesting that the information you have provided be circulated to all Elected Members. I am afraid that I am reluctant to circulate your e-mail, as the information contained within it, is incorrect. The guidance to which you refer was issued in respect of new Council Constitutions which came into force in 2000 and brought in the initial Cabinet/Executive Model along side others. This guidance does not relate to the current consultation and in fact, no guidance was issued in this regard. I hope this clarifies the position.

End of E-mail.

.....................................................................................


To put it mildly I was bloody furious - and I still am.

What right has an 'employee' of the Council, of whatever status, to interfere with a communication between a local elector and the elected representatives of Bolton Metro residents.

Why was this shown to him in the first place?

If he had 'allowed' circulation of the e-mail with a rider stating that in his (and the Councils) view I was incorrect in some of the things I was stating, then to me, that would have been understandable and acceptable. If I was so wrong then the 60 Councillors would have been able to dismiss and ignore what I was saying.

What is it that Alan Eastwood and the higher echelons of the Town Hall are afraid of?

All this is starting to raise the cynic in me and causing me to ask ' Who is running this Town Hall, - the Councillors or the Officers????????'

What part of Democracy don't they get?

.....................................................................................


Anyway, back to the point.

Either Alan Eastwood is right or I am right. - Straightforward.

.....................................................................................

In doing a little more digging I have discovered the following. (this includes a refresher course)

The Primary Legislation to do with creation and change of Executive Operations for Local Authorities is the Local Government Act of 2000.

.....................................................................................

The Local Government Act 2000 initially dealt with the creation of the Executive operations with a choice of three options.

Elected Mayor + Cabinet
Leader + Cabinet
Elected Mayor + Council Manager

Section 25 - PROPOSALS - of this act deals with procedures to be followed and Sub Section (2) states:-

"Before drawing up proposals under this section, a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

This is the subsection which without doubt is the subject of the Guidance ' New Council Constitutions - Consultation Guidelines for English Local Authorities' mentioned before.

One assumes, in the absence of information, that the Public Consultation which took place prior to the creation of the existing Executive Arrangements for Bolton Council some years ago conformed to these guidlines.

.....................................................................................

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act of 2007 amended and added to the provisions of the 2000 Act.

First of all, for English Authorities, it removed the third option of Elected Mayor and Council Manager.

Secondly it introduced the means by which an English Local Authority could change from the Executive Arrangements it had introduced following the 2000 Act to a different form.

This was done by amending the 2000 Act by adding the following- Quote

.....................................................................................

Section 64 Changing governance arrangements
After section 33 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) insert—
“Changing governance arrangements: general provisions.

.....................................................................................

There then follows Sections 33A to 33O which are added to the 2000 Act

Section 33A states:-
.....................................................................................

Executive arrangements: different form of executive

A local authority in England which is operating executive arrangements may—
(a) vary the arrangements so that they provide for a different form of executive, and
(b) if it makes such a variation, vary the arrangements in such other respects (if any) as it considers appropriate.

.....................................................................................

This is the Section under which the current changes in the operation of Bolton Councils Executive Arrangements are proceeding.

.....................................................................................

Section 33E, Sub section (6) states:-

"Before drawing up its proposals, the local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

.....................................................................................


This is the identical wording to that in Section 25 Sub Section (2) of the original Act.

So after 2007, the Local Government Act of 2000, as amended, states both in Section 25 and Section 33E:-

"Before drawing up its proposals, the local authority must take reasonable steps to consult the local government electors for, and other interested persons in, the authority’s area."

It cannot be the case that the Guidelines which apply to Section 25 do not apply to Section 33E - both in the same Act.

The Guidelines which apply to Section 25 (and in my contention to Section 33E) have not (to my knowledge) been rescinded, deleted or amended.

It is therefore my case that because Bolton Council's recent Public Consultation under section 33E patently did not satisfy the guidelines, then the Council has not satisfied the requirements of the Act.

.....................................................................................

At the end of the day it will be the Secretary of State, John Denham, who decides who is right and who is wrong - that's if I can get through to him.

.....................................................................................

One final point - This, to me, is not about wanting an elected mayor, even though I think that such a culture shock is required to get the Town Hall back in the real world. This is about the day to day, week to week interaction between the governed and the governors and particularly to make sure that the people we elected, irrespective of party, are the people who decide and are in control. From my experiences on different matters with Bolton Council over the last twelve months, I'm not sure that that is the case.

Paul

Bolton News

I read an interesting article in the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago and was prompted to send off a letter to the Bolton News as follows:-
.....................................................................................

Dear Sir,
Perhaps your readers would be interested in the recent comments of The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, to the Conference of the Society of Editors.

He said that people should get their information about what local Councils are doing from independent sources.

Quote "I don't want the proceedings of the local Council to be reported to the public by an employee of that Council." Unquote

He further said that local papers that used to report fully on what town halls are doing have been weakened by the recession and the growth of the internet and in some cases Councils have launched their own expensively produced papers to rival the independent press.

In addition he said that some local weekly newspapers are relying on Council press officers for the information they print. Quote " If that is true it should send a shiver down all our spines. Unquote.

I am sure that the Bolton News is not one of these papers. If it is not already, the Bolton News should be the major campaigning organ holding the Council to account in terms of prudence, efficiency and competence. In the unlikely event that anyone ever read the Bolton Scene they would think that everything in the Bolton garden was lovely - as opposed to the reality that it is not.

By all means the Council are entitled to publicise its achievements but it should also honestly own up to its shortcomings, the catalogue of which grows longer by the week.

The public would respect them more for that.

As Lord Judge said - 'Spin is neither a cornerstone or a bulwark of a free society'.

End of letter.
.....................................................................................

This was duly printed.

I'm posting this on the Blog in view of my being unsuccessful in getting the Bolton News to print my last two letters about Elected Mayors. ( See next Blog)

Incidentally, Alan Calvert has been commenting again as follows:-


...................................................................................

I’m no dummy . . . now who wants a gottle of geer?

I cannot remember being compared to a ventriloquist’s dummy before.
Mr P. A. Williams of Northwood, Harwood suggested in a reader’s letter that I was one of those when I said that the very idea of an elected Mayor for Bolton is plain daft. He thought I was toeing the ruling party line on this issue — presumably he meant the Labour-led council. Here in Bolton there was a consultation of sorts that failed to suggest that there was any popular groundswell of opinion along those lines. Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders agreed to kick the idea in to the long grass.

Mr Williams challenged me to “speak for the people and champion real democracy”. I like to think I do that in my quiet little way — there is no evidence that “the people” want affairs to be dictated by an individual.
Should this version of “real democracy” ever come to pass, I will gladly buy Mr Williams a celebratory gottle of geer.

End of Article.
..................................................................................

Does this represent the Bolton News policy on Elected Mayors?

Paul