Council Services - budget cuts

[John S]

I remember when Councillor Semple and I agreed that one member, one vote was a fundamental democratic principle.All councillors can be fully involved in all budget decisions as they eventually come to the full Council meeting. Where the democratic deficit lies is in the three quarters of Council decisons which do not, so 20 councillors are excluded. They do not have the right to equal participation or voting rights at Executive meetings. I would refer readers and Coucillor Semple to Council Standing Orders (rules for meetings).

I believe we still do James – and Argyll & Bute Council is no different than almost every other council in Scotland and no different from The democratic processes of the Scottish or British Governments in that respect. Except in that the decisions that would normally be taken behind the closed doors “in cabinet” are taken in public at Executive Meetings where opposition members are a part of that decision and all councillors are able to make points and representations. If there is a democratic deficit in Argyll & Bute Council then the same applies to government across the country to a greater extent.

As for the opposition - you should ask the LibDem candidate for Holyrood Councillor Alison Hay why they are such a complicit and docile opposition - anythingto do with the extra salary for Leader of the Largest Opposition Group? At the last Council meeting the only dissent from the LibDems was when they put up Councillor Morton for the National Park position (which pays additionally around £7,000 pa).There are only two Conservatives who are now over-represented on the Executive Committee. Do we also have an (unofficial) ConneD'em coalition at Argyll & Bute Council with the Administration. That is not healthy.

I disagree James, What does exist to the credit of this council as a whole is that business over the last 3 years has been conducted on a consensus basis. The PPG’s may have no powers but they scrutinise and develop policy in a consensual manner which is then approved thorough the Executive Committee. Seminars and presentations are provided to councillors to allow them to input to the development of policy.

Argyll First are not prepared to put in the effort in contributing to that process preferring to use public utterance in the press and misinformation to stir up distrust in the hard work put in by your colleagues and council officers – that’s why the motions put forward by Argyll First and yourself were, and will continue to be soundly defeated.

[James]

Hi John
Your assertion about A&B being no different to all other councils in Scotland is simply wrong.
One member, one vote - a fundamental principal of the UK and Scottish Parliaments and a basic tenet of the SNP. Everyone knows that in effect Council decisions are taken in the Leader's office. What democrats would argue, as I do, and the public expects is that all councillors should have the right to fully participate and vote in making those 'decisions' Council policy. At full meetings of the Council where ALL councillors can participate on an EQUAL basis those 'decisions' of the 'cabinet' can be exposed to the scrutiny and approval or otherwise of all Councillors.
I think it is a shameful attack on our open and accountable Scottish Government to suggest it does things in secret.
I note you acknowledge that PPGs have no powers. In addition I note you do not contradict any of my statements which are a fair representation of how A&BC works. I assume from your concluding statement that it is your and the Establishment's policy to simply oppose any motions I or Argyll First may put forward without consideration of their merit.
It is to Argyll First's credit that they have not responded to the personal insults and attacks here and in the Council chamber. It is also to their credit that they continue to work hard to make Argyll & Bute Council an accountable democracy and to question on occasion whether the 'consensus' is actually best for Argyll & Bute and its citizens.
In the final conclusion the Administration has the votes, even without the LibDems and Conservatives in its pocket, to win any motion - that's politics. The Democratic Opposition seek to restore accountable democracy to Argyll & Bute Council.

[John S]

Hi John
Your assertion about A&B being no different to all other councils in Scotland is simply wrong.

In recent years, reviews of local democracy sponsored by the Scottish Government have
prompted a number of local authorities to alter their decision-making structures, in
attempts to achieve more efficient, accountable and transparent arrangements. Some
councils, for example, have streamlined their committee structures, by reducing the
number of service-specific committees, and instead concentrating on broader, more
cross-cutting thematic areas. Others have dispensed with committee structures in favour
of executive structures, in which responsibility for most strategic decisions is delegated to
an executive of between 5 and 13 councillors. In this kind of structure, it is the role of
non-executive elected members to scrutinise the executive’s activities. There is no
requirement for councils to adopt a particular political decision-making and scrutiny
structure: it is a matter for each council to decide what is the most appropriate structure
for its particular circumstances and context.

Improvement Service - Scottish Government "A Brief Introduction to Local Government in Scotland"

No James, you are simply wrong - the role of scruteny highlighted above is one that yourself and Argyll First are unwilling or unable to fulfill.

[Asymetric]

that’s why the motions put forward by Argyll First and yourself were, and will continue to be soundly defeated.

This statement is very worrying indeed as it sounds like pre-meditated agreement by Cllr Semple and others.
Surely if Cllrs are representing their electorate and put forward motions on behalf of their constituents then these motions should be heard and discussed with due care and diligence, if this is not the case, or ever going to be the case then there is real substance in what Cllr Robb and the Argyll First group are saying.

Do the electorate therefore now only raise issues with 16 members of the executive commitee due to the apparent undemocratic ongoings within the Council as alluded to by Cllr Semples above statement ? To say that motions from Cllrs were and will continue to be soundly defeated lends itself to the "schoolyard bullying" within the Council chambers as intimated previously in local press and other websites.

This thread has certainly been an eye opener in terms of the way the Council conducts/plans to conduct it's business.

[John S]

that’s why the motions put forward by Argyll First and yourself were, and will continue to be soundly defeated.

This statement is very worrying indeed as it sounds like pre-meditated agreement by Cllr Semple and others. :

Yip fair do's Asymetric, welcome to the Kintyre Forum BTW, could have qualified that a bit better.

There are 32 Councillors on Argyll & Bute Council. The Council is run by and coelition of Independent Councillors and the SNP Group which has a comfortable working majority. I think it is fair to say that, so long as the motions which come from Argyll First and Councillor Robb, are seen to be little more than self-serving by the majority of councillors then they will be soundly defeated.

Pre-meditated agreement is a feature of most decisions taken in government local or otherwise. Argyll First will have pre-meditated agreement on how they will vote on particular motions and indeed in what motions to propose. It is only common sense that other groups will do likewise.

[John S]

Worrying times, indeed. I was going to ask where we, the public, can find out more information but can see there is alot of detailed information at

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/d ... l/3309797/

Is it normal for Councils to have an annual spend of £30 million alone on loans? That is rather alarming to say the least!!

David, the councils borrowing is well within the its allowable parameters, borrowing for capital projects is essential as these could not normally be funded within the council’s budget allocation.

[Asymetric]

Thanks for your prompt reply John S.

Yip fair do's Asymetric, welcome to the Kintyre Forum BTW, could have qualified that a bit better.

There are 32 Councillors on Argyll & Bute Council. The Council is run by and coelition of Independent Councillors and the SNP Group which has a comfortable working majority. I think it is fair to say that, so long as the motions which come from Argyll First and Councillor Robb, are seen to be little more than self-serving by the majority of councillors then they will be soundly defeated.

Pre-meditated agreement is a feature of most decisions taken in government local or otherwise. Argyll First will have pre-meditated agreement on how they will vote on particular motions and indeed in what motions to propose. It is only common sense that other groups will do likewise.

I understand that political parties will have agreement on how to vote as they will meet and vote on the policies they put forward etc, but are you saying that a group of Councillors meet before meetings and employ tactical voting when an item is yet to be discussed? If so then what is the point of the meetings and how can others outwith the group influence anything?

Another thing which has annoyed me is how a proposed 10% pay cut for Councillors can be seen to be self serving? With the impending cuts in public spending and job losses/pay reductions throughout Argyll & Bute Council, I personally think it is a noble and refreshing proposition and was surprised to read that our elected members were not willing to share some of the burden being put on the rest of the employees in Argyll & Bute Council and beyond. Many people are going to be losing their jobs and having their salaries reduced but for the vast majority of Councillors to class sharing some of the burden facing families in Argyll and Bute as a 'self serving motion' is a slap in the face to those families looking at unemployment and reduced salaries.

[kintyre56]

I think Councillors who accuse other Councillors of being self -serving are on very boggy ground! Particularly when they themselves are living off others and refuse to take a 10% pay cut! We all know that the stories featuring various "mafias" within the groups of Councillors are not entirely fictitious - its time for some honesty, integrity, openness and above all democracy.

[John S]

Good morning Kintyre56, I wondered when you would put in an appearance; honesty, integrity, openness and above all democracy - ABSOLUTELY....SO let’s have some.

Like the sniper you are a longterm detractor of me on this and/or other forums. I think it would bring some honesty, integrity and openness for the people and voters of Kintyre if you put your personal reputation in this community behind the discussion we are about to have, after all if you want to hide you can invent another one.

So - out yourselves, and let’s get the debate underway. I will be back on here tomorrow at some point to begin.

[Asymetric]

Thanks for your prompt reply John S.

Yip fair do's Asymetric, welcome to the Kintyre Forum BTW, could have qualified that a bit better.

There are 32 Councillors on Argyll & Bute Council. The Council is run by and coelition of Independent Councillors and the SNP Group which has a comfortable working majority. I think it is fair to say that, so long as the motions which come from Argyll First and Councillor Robb, are seen to be little more than self-serving by the majority of councillors then they will be soundly defeated.

Pre-meditated agreement is a feature of most decisions taken in government local or otherwise. Argyll First will have pre-meditated agreement on how they will vote on particular motions and indeed in what motions to propose. It is only common sense that other groups will do likewise.

I understand that political parties will have agreement on how to vote as they will meet and vote on the policies they put forward etc, but are you saying that a group of Councillors meet before meetings and employ tactical voting when an item is yet to be discussed? If so then what is the point of the meetings and how can others outwith the group influence anything?

Another thing which has annoyed me is how a proposed 10% pay cut for Councillors can be seen to be self serving? With the impending cuts in public spending and job losses/pay reductions throughout Argyll & Bute Council, I personally think it is a noble and refreshing proposition and was surprised to read that our elected members were not willing to share some of the burden being put on the rest of the employees in Argyll & Bute Council and beyond. Many people are going to be losing their jobs and having their salaries reduced but for the vast majority of Councillors to class sharing some of the burden facing families in Argyll and Bute as a 'self serving motion' is a slap in the face to those families looking at unemployment and reduced salaries.

Hi John S,

When you are back tomorrow and just incase you forget could you reply to my previous post as we seemed to be wandering off the topic with your last post.

Many thanks

[James]

Councillor Semple said "...it is the role of non-executive elected members to scrutinise the executive’s activities" - a two tier democracy. QED
I know that one member- one vote is a basic tenet of the SNP.
I would interested to know if there is one voter out there who voted for their councillor to be a scrutineer. I suspect everyone thought they were voting for a councillor to make decisions in the best interests of their community and Argyll & Bute at large. As I have said before and it has not been disputed; the 'decisions' are really made by the Leader, a handful of Senior Councillors and senior staff - the rest is window dressing, much like the endless consultations.
It is part of my motion to examine councillor pay and perks to abolish additional payments for Senior Members. That would remove the block vote with a vested interest in supporting this un-democratic system.

Councillor James Robb

[Sweltered]

I think Councillors who accuse other Councillors of being self -serving are on very boggy ground! Particularly when they themselves are living off others and refuse to take a 10% pay cut! We all know that the stories featuring various "mafias" within the groups of Councillors are not entirely fictitious - its time for some honesty, integrity, openness and above all democracy.

Does anyone know if the councillors who proposed the 10% cut handed back 10% when they were paid?

[mary]

This is a question I asked earlier but received no credible answer. As he is Chair of the CHORD project, perhaps we could have some answers from John S and a full explanation, or even better a look at the accounts? And no, I haven't gone off topic - this is another issue that spans more than one thread!

This is on Forargyll website today:

"So what HAS happened to the CHORD cash?
newsroom published this on 4:55 pm, Thursday, 16th September, 2010
Community News| Local Government| Regeneration | Comments (rss) | Respond | Ping |


Today’s Oban Times has a front page article whose opening paragraph says: ‘Cash-strapped Argyll and Bute Council will have to borrow the £30 million allocated to pay for Argyll’s CHORD programme’.

The point being made is that there is no pot available to pay for the waterfront regeneration projects adopted by the Council for each of the five major towns: Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay and Dunoon. With no reserves left, these projects are to be funded by ‘prudential borrowing’.

But borrowing was always openly in the frame, for £7 million of the total.

The question now is, with the Oban Times quoting a total figure of £30 million to be borrowed, what has happened to the money that was already set aside in the capital budget for the portion of the total not be achieved through loans?"

Time for some answers - shouldn't be too difficult!

[WeeTownWeeYin]

Does anyone know if the councillors who proposed the 10% cut handed back 10% when they were paid?

Hi, there was an article in the Campbeltown Courier which stated that the three members did take the 10% cut. Hope this answers your question Sweltered!

[Sweltered]

Does anyone know if the councillors who proposed the 10% cut handed back 10% when they were paid?

Hi, there was an article in the Campbeltown Courier which stated that the three members did take the 10% cut. Hope this answers your question Sweltered!

Thanks