Elected Mayors. Alan Eastwood. The Mystery of the Missing Paragraph.

So you thought the Elected Mayors saga was over with. Not yet it isn't!

I'm the first to admit that I hadn't got much of a clue when I started investigating this subject but as time goes on I find out a little bit more and learn even more than that.

Just to refresh the memory.

I said in a letter to the Bolton News that I would contact the Secretary of State to see if the Consultation Guidelines (58 pages) applied to the 2009 Consultation and this I duly did by e-mail. I also circulated this to the Local MP's.

My MP, Dr Brian Iddon replied with a copy of a letter he had received from Alan Eastwood in answer to a similar query from another of his constituents. Since this contained the stock answer that the Guidelines didn't apply I asked Dr Iddon to chase this up with the Secretary of State.

This he did and I duly received a letter from the Minister for Local Government, Ms Rosie Winterton which effectively just stated the position that Bolton Council was maintaining. She said it was a legal matter and it would not be appropriate for her to intervene.

This being completely unacceptable I wrote back to her saying that I knew what the 'Law according to Alan Eastwood' was but wanted to know what the 'Law according to the Secretary of State' was.

Not yet having received an acknowledgement or reply I have just re-approached Dr Iddon to see if he would be so kind as to chase it up.

In the meantime I ploughed through the Bolton Council Website and came up with the following.

__________________________________________________

On 24 August 2009, Alan Eastwood submitted a report on 'Executive Arrangements' to the Executive which laid out the requirements of the 2007 Amendment to the 2000 Act.

In relation to Consultation he wrote the following.

3.1 The 2000 Act provides that “before drawing up its proposals” a change to the form of the Executive, the Council “must take reasonable steps to consult with the Local Government electors for and other interested persons in” the Council’s Area.

3.2 The Department for Communities and Local Government has confirmed that it does not intend to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what will constitute “reasonable steps” to consult Local Government electors, and since the 2000 Act does not provide for “specified period of consultation, nor detailed requirements – the Authority has the flexibility to decide the appropriate level of consultation”.

Paragraph 3.2 above is basically stating the Council's stance on Guidance with which it persists.

But he also wrote this.

"3.5 It is proposed that the consultation should include the following:

• Send a copy of the consultation document to Members of the Citizens Panel.Putting an article in Bolton Scene outlining the Consultation and inviting responses.

• Putting a public notice in the Bolton News announcing the beginning of the consultation period and inviting a response to the document.
• Putting copies of the consultation document in public buildings such as local libraries, area offices and One Stop Shops.

• Putting a copy of the Consultation document and on-line response form on the Council’s website.

• Using any existing forms where the Council communicates with local electors and other interested persons (including Area Forums, CBS and Community Groups. Particular attention should be paid to hard to reach groups to ensure that the consultation does not exclude them."

The report amongst other things recommended that the Executive -

"1. Delegate the drawing up of a consultation document and the finalisation of the consultation process to the Director of Chief Executive’s in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Leaders of the opposition parties."

The Executive approved the report.
_________________________________________________

The report was then submitted to a meeting of the whole Council on 2nd September on a motion that was passed by the Council.

This, I suggest, was passed by the Councillors on the basis that should all of the above means of Consultation be incorporated into the Consultation Process then indeed the Council would have done all that could be reasonably expected of them.

Five days later the Consultation started using all the above means except those in the last paragraph.- ie

"• Using any existing forms where the Council communicates with local electors and other interested persons (including Area Forums, CBS and Community Groups. Particular attention should be paid to hard to reach groups to ensure that the consultation does not exclude them."

Now forgive me for thinking that although drawing up of the Consultation document and finalisation of the process was delegated, it was delegated on the basis that all the proposed methods would be included.

To my mind, the passing of the motion by the whole Council endorsing the whole report was tantamount to an instruction to Mr Eastwood and the Leaders of the party groups to implement the entire contents of the report - not to leave out bits they didn't like.

It wasn't a lack of money. The Council had approved a budget for this of up to £20,000. According to Alan Calvert the figure actually spent was £4,300.

The amazing thing is that had the means of communication contained in the last paragraph of the proposals been incorporated in the Consultation Process, then the original Guidance would have damned near been met.

Why was this paragraph left out????

Surely there was no intention to mislead the entire body of Councillors._

___________________________________________________

Note also that Mr Eastwood in his report refers only to the 2000 Act and the 2000 Act as amended. So, in his own words he is agreeing with me that the legislation is the 2000 Act.

There is no doubt that the Guidance (58 pages) applies to the 2000 Act so how can he say it doesn't.
___________________________________________________

As above he says:-

"The Department for Communities and Local Government has confirmed that it does not intend to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what will constitute “reasonable steps” to consult Local Government electors, and since the 2000 Act does not provide for “specified period of consultation, nor detailed requirements – the Authority has the flexibility to decide the appropriate level of consultation”.

When he reports back to the Executive and subsequently the Council on the results of the Consultation on 28 October 2009 he again states

1.2.2 However, the 2000 Act does not provide either for any specific form of public 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”. In relation to the public consultation required by the 2000 Act. 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.

(First of all the 2000 Act does provide for the public consultation to follow the Guidelines (58 pages))
_________________________________________________

In regards to the statements above (that the DCLG has confirmed that it doesn't intend to issue Guidance) and (the DCLG decided not to issue any Guidance) I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to Bolton Council in relation to the above as follows.


"Could you please provide me with copies of any communication, printed, written, or in e-mail form, or details of any verbal communication by any means, between the Department for Communities and Local Government and Bolton Council which conveys and confirms to Bolton Council the following information :-

1) ....... "that it (the DCLG) does not intend to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what will constitute “reasonable steps” to consult Local Government electors" as stated in Paragraph 3.2. above.

2) that it (the DCLG)...... "decided not to issue any guidance to Local Authorities as to what the Department considers would constitute “reasonable steps In relation to the public consultation required by the 2000 Act”. as stated in Paragraphs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 above."

I await the reply with interest.

As a belt and braces approach I intend to submit a Freedom of information request asking for the same information from the Department for Communities and Local Government since the odds are that Bolton Council will try to block the first one.
__________________________________________________

Area Forum.

At the last Area Forum for Little Lever and Darcy Lever I submitted the following question (or rather statement).


"That the Area Forum, as one of, if not the, principal means of connection between the Council and the Electors, regrets it was not included in the Consultation on change of Governance in Sept-Oct 2008 (Elected Mayors). Further to this could the Area Forum request that the author of the Consultation, the Director of the Chief Executives Department,Mr Alan Eastwood, attend the next Area Forum to explain why this was the case and why he felt that our Area Forum wasn't important enough to be included."

The minutes of this meeting have yet to appear and have to go through an 'approval' process and I am uncertain whether the above statement will get as far as being included.

If it does then I will suggest that other Area Forums should act in a similar fashion.

If it doesn't, I'll be bloody annoyed.
___________________________________________________

This got me thinking about the status of the Area Forum so I went back to the Council Constitution.

In Part 7 of the Constitution - The Council's Management Structure, we find the following.

Area Forums

(1) To encourage and promote discussion on and involvement in the way in which
Council and other services are planned and delivered within the area.

(2) To positively engage local people, organisations and businesses in the work of the area forum and to ensure that their views are represented to the Council and other partners.

(3) The provision, management and review (in accordance with approved Council
policy, standing orders and financial regulations) of those services activities and
resources allocated to the Forum by the Council.

(4) To refer to the Council (or Executive, Executive Member, Scrutiny Committee or
other committee or group, as appropriate) any matter concerning the Council which
has been raised at a meeting of the Forum and is not within the responsibilities
allocated to the Forum.

(5) To be consulted in relation to the exercise of any function of the provision of any service (by or on behalf of the Council, or in partnership between the Council and any other organisation) which specifically relates to or affects the Forum area and (where appropriate and practicable) the impact on the Forum area of any corporate
policy or other matter.


Firstly it could be argued that Paragraph 5 requires that the Area Forum should have been included in the Consultation .

It could further be argued that my question/ statement should be included in the minutes and acted upon by virtue of possibly Paragraph 2 and certainly Paragraph 4.

Let us see what all this flushes out.

Paul

Bolton Council - An idiots guide to Local Democracy - Part One

Bet you've been wondering what I've been up to. No?. - you should have been.
Unfortunately I can't Blog about this at the present time.

When I started off my little campaign for stopping and reversing the decline in Little Lever Village Centre, I really and naively believed that Bolton Council was run by the 60 Elected Councillors, - whichever party having the majority being 'in charge' at any particular point in time.

So, if the Labour lot were in charge we could expect a dose of Labour policies etc.

Perhaps this perception arose from my memories of the halcyon days when it seemed that Councillors were from the 'great and the good' of the Borough, selflessly giving their time and energies from a sense of civic duty and pride.

More than this, the Aldermen were, amongst the Councillors, the 'wise men' of the town whose prudence, self discipline and moral rectitude was reflected in the decisions made on our behalf, thus allowing us all to sleep soundly in our beds in the sure knowledge that all would be well in the Town Hall.

My contacts with everything 'Town Hall' over the last eighteen months have only confirmed to me that whilst I have spent the last forty years believing the above, things have been ' a-changing'

This is not to say that any of today's Councillors have fewer good intentions for the well being of the town and its inhabitants or are more self serving. No - I can't say that.

What does appear to have changed however, as with National Government, is the pernicious introduction of the structures and strictures within which the Elected Members operate and the plethora of rules, regulations, protocols, concordats and such like straight-jackets which, having forced out common sense and invited in political correctness and all the elf'n safety nonsense, leave the poor ward Councillor as emasculated as a eunuch in a knocking shop.

So, I thought I would take the lid off the Town Hall and, in an occasional series of Blogs, investigate and examine how it operates today and where the centre of power lies.

I don't know where this will lead me but I'm pretty convinced that should the Town Clerks of old trouble themselves to read the end result, they will be spinning in their graves.

Paul Richardson

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