The Kintyre Forum

Did anyone see this posted on the Forargyll.com website
=
Argyll First wastes no time in making major reform proposals

newsroom published this on 10:30 pm, Sunday, 4th July, 2010
Community News| Local Government| Politics | Comments (rss) | Respond | Ping |

‘Hitting the ground running’ may be a cliche but it describes accurately the speed with which the councillors who have formed the new political group, Argyll First, have got moving in identifying specific targets for change.

Looking at what they propose gives an insight into the shape and direction of their political thinking. This would seem to major on addressing democratic deficits and moving away from over-centralisation, particularly in planning decisions.

The group wants to see:

the abolition of the ‘cabinet’ - the small 16-Councillor-strong Executive Committee of the Council, where most Council decisions are made
the replacement of the Executive Committee with a return to full monthly Council meetings, where all elected representatives have the opportunity to speak and vote in the decision-taking process on issues affecting Argyll and Bute
The decentralisation of the Planning Committee in devolving to the four Area Committees powers to decide – in a return to monthly meetings – on local planning and local issues.
The Executive Committee is chosen by the ruling party, currently the coalition between the largest group, the Alliance of Independent Councillors and the SNP.

It is made up of 12 chosen members from the ruling coalition, 4 members of the opposition and 6 lay members. The lay members have a limited voting capacity, restricted to issues in their own area of expertise - so lay member who are teachers can only vote on school matters and members from the religions can only vote on religious issues.

The 16 elected members vote on all matters.

While any ruling group will still win in full Council on what can virtually be a whipped vote, Argyll First believes that decisions made in full Council allow Councillors to contribute to a full and open debate which can be witnessed by interested members of the public.

Speaking for Argyll First, one of its two founding members, Councillor Donald Kelly says: ‘Along with my colleagues in Argyll First, I see many challenges ahead. The first is to campaign to change the current setup within the Council’.

The taking of decisions by the Executive Committee is seen by the new group as restricting the ability of any councillor not a member of the Executive, to represent their constituents fully.

The group views the geography and uniqueness of Argyll and Bute as dictating that each of the four council areas require a strong Area Committee.

All of this is in tune with the movement of the time – towards smaller government and greater responsibilities devolved to local level.

This thinking develops logically from the greater empowering of community councils, still in its infancy but an initiative which has a lot of fruit to bear – most of it probably not anticipated by those who set the the change in motion.

Interesting times.

I think its an excellent initiatative and hope its well supported - it is just what is needed in my view

The down side of this is, that given the 3 councillors come from the MAKI Area of the council, it will put intense focus on the fortunes of this area compared to the others. That might not be so good for Kintyre or indeed some of the projects you yourself are working hard to promote as pressure mounts on budgets.

3 councillors without any support from the other 33 are not going to change anything, although it will conveniently allow them the opportunity to absolve themselves from the difficult decisions that are going to have to be made this year. It will also give them a platform for publicity -But I’m sure these are not actors. I look forward to hearing from one of them directly on here.

Reminds me of this sketch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sG ... re=related

what ever happened to the Popular Front of Judea ? - he's over there

Three members of Argyll and Bute Council have formed a new political group.

‘Argyll First’ has been set up by Councillors Douglas Philand (Mid Argyll), Donald Kelly (South Kintyre) and John McAlpine (Kintyre and the Islands).

A report to full council in August will formally recognise the group.

The political make-up of the council is now as follows:

14 Alliance of Independent Councillors

9 SNP

6 Liberal Democrats

3 Argyll First

2 Conservative

2 Other Councillors

As a young person in the Kintyre area, I have came to notice a couple of things recently. There are some people who get on with the work needing done, and others who prefer to slate those actually doing some work.

Argyll First seem to me as a very positive thing. And im pretty sure that out of the 33 other councillors, they will gain support from some of them - from the more savvy councillors that is.

I would like to see some more of our local councillors actually doing what they are being paid to do - helping the local community and making changes for benefit of the community- rather than wasting both their time and the community's time writing silly things on forums and networking sites!

I'm glad to see that at least some of our councillor's are puttin Argyll First for a change.. instead of there own egos!!

Good to see some young people airing their views. Something we need more of.

I was surprised to read in last week's Courier that the Campbeltown Community Council has agreed to support the First Argyll group. Why would a community council do that?

WeeTownWeeYin wrote:As a young person in the Kintyre area, I have came to notice a couple of things recently. There are some people who get on with the work needing done, and others who prefer to slate those actually doing some work.

Argyll First seem to me as a very positive thing. And im pretty sure that out of the 33 other councillors, they will gain support from some of them - from the more savvy councillors that is.

I would like to see some more of our local councillors actually doing what they are being paid to do - helping the local community and making changes for benefit of the community- rather than wasting both their time and the community's time writing silly things on forums and networking sites!

I'm glad to see that at least some of our councillor's are puttin Argyll First for a change.. instead of there own egos!!

Quite funny as the breakaway struck me as a bit of an ego trip. Not related to any of the Kintyre Three by any chance?

Saw this on the Forargyll website.
"Sometimes you despair.
Thursday was the first formal Council outing of Argyll First, the new cross-party political group in Argyll and Bute Council, arguably the most interesting developments in the summer’s fallow politics.
Argyll First is, for the time being, three Councillors: Dougie Philand, Donald Kelly and John McAlpine and the group is dedicated to ‘doing what is says on the tin’- putting first the interests of Argyll as a whole.
The group, making it mark as a serious initiative, had three motions on the agenda:
that Councillors should, in the present financial circumstances, take a voluntary 10% salary cut;
that the undemocratic Executive Committee of the Council should be closed down and decisions revert to being taken by the full council in plenary session;
that the Council’s constitution should be amended to allow the formation and operation of non-aligned groups.
So what happened?
The entirely predictable happened.
The bully-boys moved in – on cue.
This was a not-unexpected tactic to try to snuff out a new attempt to strengthen democracy in the overheated log cabin of small town politics which, in most local authorities including our own in Argyll, sees democracy as getting in the way of the plans of the few and powerful.
Appointments to working groups
The Planning and Licensing Board
There were a number of places in this group to be filled at Thursday’s meeting. A key issue in Argyll First’s aims and objectives is its opposition to so large a central planning committee and its commitment to campaigning for a return to the area planning committees. Argyll First believes that local people want local councillors to make decisions in their local area.
It is obvious that, with this major plank in their manifesto – to overturn the centralised planning committee – the members of Argyll First could not accept appointment to that committee.
When they did so, they were subjected to howls of how little they do for the Council.
The Social affairs Policy and Performance group
Then there was a position on this group to be filled. Councillor Philand has worked in the health sector and closely with the local authority for the last 31 years. He has a Masters Degree from the University of Glasgow in Community Care. This experience and expertise makes him a natural member of such a group.
His two colleagues from Argyll First proposed and seconded him – but regardless of qualification and reason, the other Councillors ganged up to vote against his inclusion. In this distasteful action the ruling coalition of the Independent councillors and the SNP were joined by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
These behaviours highlight two issues:
the lack of a concern for good governance in Argyll which should always see the most qualified councillors serving in specific roles and business groups;
the bullying purpose – because the two behaviours noted above are contradictory. ON the one hand the Argyll First members were subjected to the insult brigade for lack of work for the Council when they were clear on wy they could not join the Planning and Licensing Board. On the other hand, when one of them was prepared and interested to serve on a working group he is eminently qualified to do, he was voted down.
If anything provided evidence of the need for an Argyll first approach, it is here.
The Argyll First proposal that Councillors take a 10% salary cut
Argyll First’s perspective in making this proposal is driven by their view of Councilors as community leaders. It was also putting before the Council the wisdom of being proactive in making it clear to the voters that councillors and electorate are on the same side and in the same position in the swingeing cut thats here and coming in the public sector.
Many Councillors not avoided the protest outside the meeting by parents whose primary school children are being forced to walk to school on clearly dangerous routes suddenly declared ‘safe’ in order to justify the withdrawal of the free bus service. Had they been outside, they would have heard for themselves the contempt in which they are held – with megaphone catcalls of: ‘Have a good lunch at our expense’ and ‘Don’t forget to put in your expenses’.
But in the sheltered confines of the last chance saloon, the Argyll First motion was dismissed as a publicity stunt and not a principled stance – yet these councillors are very significantly respected as principled people by the electorate.
With individual councillors demonstrating nothing but self-interest in successively wittering on only about how a 10% cut would affect them personally (How about the many who will lose their pub;ic sector jobs?), the motion was unsurprisingly defeated by a mass vote against, excepting only the principled abstentions of Councillors Vivien Dance and James Robb.
The ‘Executive Committee’ cabal
There is already considerable public disquiet at the establishment of an appointed 16-man Executive Committee which makes the actual decisions.
These are put to meetings of the full Council with, where necessary, the leading coalition whipping the vote and the nodding donkeys passing whatever they’re told.
The trouble is we don’t knowingly elect nodding donkeys. We elect people to stand up for our local interests and for Argyll.
When we cast our votes in local government elections, some wards will be casting their vote for one of the powerful inner clique where others will be electing a nodding donkey or a constitutional cypher.
This way of taking key decisions in a cabal means that all of the relevant issues cannot be aired.
At the meeting, the Argyll First motion wa dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds that there was no external concern has been expressed at the Council’s system of governance – and it was also heavily defeated with Councillor James Robb the only member outside the Argyll First group to speak in its favour.
Make no mistake. This will be an issue at the next local government elections and perhaps then an external concern will be expressed at what is, in these circumstances, a clear democratic deficit.
The recognition of non-aligned political groups in the Council
This was the third and final motion put forward by Argyll First. It was not even given the courtesy of a full hearing on the grounds that people had better things to do.
A member of the ruling coalition used the standing orders – simply to put the question. This meant that only Councillor Donald Kelly and Council Leader Dick Walsh could speak at all, as they were respectively the proposers of the motion and of an amendment to it. There was then no opportunity to debate the issue which again was heavily defeated.
The calibre of debate and the level of mutual respect in this process was characterised by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat group referring to Argyll First as ‘a toilet company’.
It is generally accepted that the level of civilisation of any society is determined by how it treats ‘otherness’. On this showing, the society that is Argyll and Bute Council is back there keeping company with the Neanderthals.
The disease
We use the word ‘disease’ here in both of its usages: ‘poison’ and ‘unease’.
The enduring hope is that our Council will grow into statesmanship and altruism, abandoning self-interest, vested interest and petty parochialism.
If this was the case there would be fewer concerns over the role and operation of the Executive Committee – which might, in any case, hear evidence on agenda issues from fellow councillors left outside the group
But in Argyll and Bute, as elsewhere, what we hope for is not the case.
The Council is not seen to be even handed – as in its indefensible discrimination of its unequal support of the Mid Argyll Swimming Pool – ironically the behaviour that led to Councillor Philand’s principled resignation from the ruling coalition.
Neither is the Council believed to operate objectively and put the public interest first.
We are regularly told of the long-time operations of groups of councillors, usually representing a couple of specific major mainland towns and identified by the name of the town followed by the word ‘Mafia’.
While such perceptions of local piranhas in the living room’s goldfish bowl of parish politics are not unusual, some of the stories we are told are of real concern.
In the end what matters more is that this is how the voters see the conduct of some elected representatives. The degree of ultimate substance in this view is less important. The fact is that this Council, like others, does not have the trust and confidence of its electorate. This is the major democratic deficit.
In this context, to redeem politics in operation and in public esteem, every member and every group in the Council must set aside vested interest of all kinds and work with even-handedness and – yes – altruism.
And in this context the existence and operation of an appointed inner cabal – the Executive Committee – can only cause a serious democratic deficit and further confirm the suspicions of the voting public.
Argyll First deserves genuine credit for its emerging political philosophy and for its members’ courage under fire.It is unpleasant – in the manner of schoolyard bullying- to be the few who are made the butt of the many.
In the 21st century we should not be witnessing corporate bullying anywhere – and never among peer councillors, individually elected.
We still hope for better. And Argyll First are unlikely to be going away."

A good write up of the proceedings. I also gather that after the meeting several Councillors not already in the group were very positive about it and felt that they had credibility - I think more will join in due course.

Did you write it Mary?

Only the last two lines!

Mary - it’s just that neither you or For Argyll ,who's article you endorse as accurate, were at the meeting - so how is that a fair account? I think the article in this week’s Campbeltown Courier was nearer to balanced reporting. I don't know how For Argyll takes its copy but it is certainly not professional reporting. Opinions in newspapers are always accredited - For Argyll articles are often opinionated and never accredited.

You are right that I was not at the meeting. Perhaps you could advise whether, had I wished to attend, I would have been allowed in? I may be wrong but I understand that these meetings are not open to the public - that seems wrong to me! Another question for you is this: are the press allowed in to these meetings?
As for the standard of reporting, more than one attendee of my acquaintance told me that the article by Forargyll was a fair account of the proceedings. You might also note that I actually said that it was a "good account of the proceedings". I did not go further than that and I pasted it onto the forum because I thought it would be of interest. If you have a problem with the content of the article, you should take it up with Forargyll.

Hi Mary, I can advise you that the afore mentioned meeting was indeed open to the press and public, as are all constituted council meetings except when discussing matters of a confidential nature...please see the attached page with further information and calendar should you wish to attend in future.

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov ... aspx?bcr=1

Well in that case I'm sorry I missed the meeting in question! Perhaps times have changed since I had the temerity to turn up at a local council meeting in order to be able to attempt to ask a question at the end. Although the meeting was open to the public, the councillors and council officials present appeared to be aghast at the surprise intrusion of a member of the public and there was certainly no welcome on that occasion!

Perhaps our 3 Councillors should be concentrating on "KINTYRE FIRST"?

Might be me but judging by the letters from two of our Councillors in the Campbeltown Courier in recent weeks that isn't the case. That isn't any type of personal dig at anyone, just feel that things are too personal when we, the electorate, vote for people to do the best for Kintyre. First.

Well said Ship!!
We vote for our councillors to represent the area they are elected to support. Sometimes they seem to be more interested in the "Bigger Picture"and self promotion. This is, in my own opinion of course, all well and good, but protection of local issues should surely be their first priority.