How best to ensure democracy is the question in the latest row at County Hall, as paperwork for Isle of Wight Council meetings increases.
Some councillors say making all decisions in public wastes time on ‘trivial’ items, while others say it ensures data and information is properly read, considered and understood.
Leading cabinet members will now be required to consider how they make decisions after the Conservative-led Corporate Scrutiny Committee criticised the Alliance administration for ‘wasting officers’ time’ on non-controversial matters.
Conservative councillor Chris Quirk proposed a review of the cabinet’s approach to decision making because he said the scrutiny committee did not have enough time to hold its political opponents to account. He said reports were only available at the last minute and argued there could be a more “effective use of resources, while still enabling transparency and accountability”.
The ruling group hit back. An Alliance spokesperson said leading councillors were ‘greatly concerned’ about being asked to make decisions in private, via a delegated member. The statement said the Alliance approach was about what is in the public interest, not what is more convenient for councillors.
Conservatives argued making every decision in public is an ‘ineffective use’ of council officers’ time – requiring lengthy and late reports to be produced and read.
At Thursday’s cabinet meeting, councillors considered 12 reports, announcements by members and public questions – in a 426-page agenda pack. The pack had to be read, considered and examined by opposition councillors on the scrutiny committee, for which Cllr Quirk is vice-chair. He favours delegated decisions, in the case of matters that are not controversial or financial, which can be then called-in by any Isle of Wight councillor.
The Alliance’s Councillor Michael Lilley said he was ‘uncomfortable’ deciding issues without consideration from cabinet members, however.
In a statement, the Alliance Administration has said:
“Alliance Cabinet Members were greatly concerned at the brief discussion and decision at the Corporate Scrutiny Committee Meeting whereby the Conservative controlled Committee asked that Cabinet Members should make delegated decisions in private on some matters. The concern was heightened when it was also argued that this approach would be a more democratic way of conducting council business.
“This was the way the previous Conservative Administration chose to do things but it is not how the Alliance Administration chooses to conduct itself. The previous Administration was heavily criticised for its lack of openness and transparency, especially on Scrutiny, and we find it ironic that they now seek to impose their heavily denounced and unsatisfactory approach on our administration.
“The main reason as to why the Conservative led Committee seeks such an approach seems simply to be to save them the effort of having to read, consider and understand the papers, data and information given to them.
“Our concerns are added to by the fact that the Scrutiny Committee sought to push their decision through without even allowing Cabinet members to speak or comment. This also happened in respect of other discussions and decisions that took place during the meeting.
“It is perfectly open to the Scrutiny Committee to determine their agenda and to decide what they consider. However they should not try and lighten their workload by imposing a mechanism that restricts openness and accountability and by restricting the openness sought by others so as to satisfy their own ends. The Alliance approach is driven by what is in the public interest, not by what is more convenient for Councillors. The Alliance believe that our Island deserves better than what has gone before.”
Oh dear, toys and teddies flying everywhere again. Better put a road closure in place lest flying teddy hits some poor innocent CT payer.
We will never get anywhere until the term “councillor’ is replaced by ‘repersentative’. In simple words, one who represents those who voted them in and has nothing to do with any political party, group or any other collective name.
Having got there, then the ‘officers’ of the council will do what the residents want. If they don’t like that, the they can go (and the sooner the better).
If it fundamentally alters something that is already accepted, in existence and in the public domain or that it is of public interest, then it should be held in an open and transparent forum. If the proceedings are routine and do not fundamentally alter anything or disclose anything that is not already known, then it can be held without being in an open forum and simply minuted at the meeting, which are then available for public consumption, once the minutes have been accepted as accurate.
Disputes in relation to minuted meetings and decisions over whether they should have been held publicly can be raised afterwards and decisions rolled back
The only problem is who decides what’s fundamentally ‘routine’ and what’s not! If everything was transparent then there would be no argument. However behind closed doors anything goes. I’m with great Alliance on this one. They spout ‘time issues’, well, make time! It’s not like they have a physical job for goodness sake! Time management…
no one individual decides – the answer is within the issue itself – e.g – if the matter being presented, if passed, is likely to change something, that is already in existence, accepted and in the public domain, then it is of public interest and should be held in an open, public and transparent forum.
when are all the prats in county hall going to realise it was us the people of the island who put them in power on behalf of Us to serve if they can’t or won’t hold meeting in public then its time they went the Conservatives argued making every decision in public is an ‘ineffective use’ of council officers’ time and they should know how to waste as much time and money as possible we need to know what goes on behind closed doors if the meeting about the ferry to Nowhere was held we could have stoped it this Council is meant to do what we the people want and not what they want we are not part of North Korea yet
What ‘should or shoudn’t be decided in public’ is quite clear to us all nowadays.
The lies are what is told to the public, the truth is kept between themselves and those who ‘matter’ or from whom they stand to gain the most from.
Essentially the same in as this lot petty politics right to the very top
They are paid to act on our behalf, each and every one of them and NOT to decide things between a few of them and certainly not behind closed doors.
How can they divvy up the brown envelopes if the public are watching.
If they don’t want to do the job properly why stand in the first place my guess is it’s an “EGO” THING
To paraphrase Blackadder, paying my council tax isn’t an effective use of my time or resources but I’m going to do it anyway.
Basic transparency requires that anything not involving sensitive or privileged information should be open to public scrutiny.
Failing to do so will bring the council into disrepute because it will be quite reasonably assumed that devolving decisions is being done to subvert due democratic process.
Convenience is not a valid reason for sidestepping this and may not even be achieved if time is wasted when devolved decisions are challenged.
Nothing should be decided in private. They work for US. The Isle of Wight Council tax payers. End of!
Transparency. Who is the secret Alliance spokesperson?