Community Chest Funding

Back in September my son, who is studying media journalism at Staffs Uni, told me how he had approached Stoke on Trent Unitary Council and asked them for details of the councillors' community grants. Stoke Council provided the information immediately and even went on to put this information on the internet for all of Stoke's people to view.

In Cornwall we have a similar system, called the Community Chest. Cllr Alex Folkes has recently blogged about this here. Alex mentions a recent FOI about this subject which, I guess is mine.

All Cornwall Councillors have £2195 available to them to spend on grants for community organisations within their electoral district. I believe that this is a great scheme and a great way to allow councillors, who obviously know their local communities well, a chance to make a positive difference in their locality.

Back in September I asked Cornwall Council the same question that my son had asked in Stoke. Two FOI requests later (both of which have taken longer than the time that they are supposed to be dealt with) and I have been promised the information on Monday.

I have asked for this information to be posted on the Cornwall Council web site because I think it is a brilliant scheme that could do with some publicity. I guess we have to wait and see about that.

Posting the details of the kind of things that councillors and the council have been able to do to help local groups can only be a positive thing - can't it?

In Stoke no FOIs were needed to get the information, the request was dealt with speedily and efficiently and the information was made available to the public in general very quickly. I despair that, in Cornwall, where we have a council that purports to be open and transparent, things take so much longer and are so much more difficult.

Reviewing remuneration - but what about perusing performance

At the full council meeting tomorrow (Tuesday 17th Jan) councillors will be asked to approve the convening of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP).

It will also be proposed that the council adopts the position of calling for a legally binding statutory independent review system to be created.

This current council has a record of voting against awarding themselves pay rises and as a consequence councillors have seen an effective decrease in their allowance of some 24% compared to what it might have been if previous independent recommendations had been accepted.

Of course the matter of how much politicians are paid is an issue which can become very emotive and it is easy to see why councillors would vote against giving themselves a pay rise.

One of the reasons given for convening the IRP is to asses the remuneration of councillors following the 2013 elections - thereby removing the need for them to have to do it for themselves and be put in the same position that the current council has been. This would also provide up to date information for potential candidates in the 2013 elections.

I believe that a completely independent review process is essential for good governance.

One problem that adds to controversy surrounding how much councillors are paid (and who decides it) is the dichotemy between councillors doing the job as a public service and the need to attract people capable of performing what can be a very technically demanding role which can have a massive impact on personal quality of life.

Although it may be very commendable for the current councillors to vote themselves an effective substantial pay decrease over the term of the council's life is this actually good for Cornwall?

Look at the make up of the council and (without any intention to be rude) you will see a lot of middle aged and retired people. This is because people who are retired, or have reached a position in their career that they can afford to take time off from work, are more likely to be the sort of person that has the financial security and time that this brings to be able to put something back into the community.

If we want a council that is more in touch with real life in Cornwall isn't it about time we made it possible for a wider diversity of people to consider standing for election? We need to encourage people to stand who want to contribute to public life but are not able to because of financial reasons.

As I understand it (and in very simplistic terms), when allowances are reviewed the review is based on looking at what councillors are required to do at a basic level to perform their role satisfactorily. This is converted in hours which can be translated into a monetry remuneration.

As I see it there is one big problem with this approach. Not every councillor is 'average'. Some councillors do a massive amount of work above and beyond what has been calculated that they need to be doing. A few councillors seem to do a lot less and are able to claim exactly the same allowances for simply turning up to a few meetings every year. This situation can't be right and is surely not good for Cornwall.

As well as an independent review of remuneration we need an independent review of exactly what councillors should be doing and how councillors perform their role. We should expect to pay for a good job but then have a mechanism (besides the ballot box) for ensuring that councillors are performing their responsibilities and, by so doing, justifying the payment of their allowances.

We need to pay councillors more for performing a very demanding role in society - but we should expect to scrutinise whether the people we have elected, and entrusted with that role, are actually doing what they were elected to do.

The Silence is Deafening

Loathe as I am (not!) to keep going on about Cllr Dr Loveday Jenkin's spectacular win for MK the other day, I feel I have to say that I think that some of the most telling comments are those that have not been made.

For example, when Jude Robinson won for Labour in Camborne North there were loads of news stories and even TV and radio features. This time round, however, almost nothing - even from Cornwall's own, Graham Smith (maybe he's on holiday). Perhaps it was the fact that Jude is the only and first Labour representative at Unitary level that made her election such a special occurrence that warranted the (proportionate) media hype that accompanied it?

When Loveday was elected she became the fifth MK Cornwall Councillor - five members - a bit old hat now I suppose - and not so newsworthy. I mean I'd hate to think that the BBC and establishment media could be in any way biased.

Then again, unless I have missed it, the Tories seem to have gone deathly quiet. Perhaps they are still shocked that they didn't win a seat that seemed to be there for the taking. After all they were in 3rd place back in 2009 and this time around, while there was MK and two other supposedly left of centre parties standing, there was no UKIP candidate to drag their vote down. So how come the Tories still ended up third? (... and worse still for them, I'm sure, behind the Lib Dems). I imagine that Alec Robertson and his team of bloggers and tweeters are too busy occupied worrying about what will happen if they take the government up on the offer to subsidise council tax payments to try and spin the MK triumph in Wendron as a Conservative moral victory.

It's also strange that Jude Robinson hasn't produced yet another spreadsheet that shows how Labour are making a strong comeback in Cornwall. I suspect the last few election results have rather dented her statistics - is she holed up in an office somewhere working out how to justify leaving out the last few results from her mathematical calculations?

MK isn't about to start making wild claims about taking control of the Unitary Authority in 2013. To put things in perspective Loveday was an exceptional candidate, well respected and known for her hard work in the area. If we had lost then then we would have had to re-evaluate a great many assumptions and policy foundations. As it is Loveday won and this was on the back of an excellent conference and several other encouaraging events in November discussed by Rob Simmons here. So no extravagant claims and spin from MK - just a promise of a positive outlook and hard work developing policies that will put Cornwall, and her people first, from Parish ward to Westminster constituency.

...... and then there were five

Congratulations to Dr Loveday Jenkin who won the by-election for Cornwall Council in Wendron yesterday.

The results were:

MK 427 36.4%
LD 262 22.3%
Con 227 19.4%
Ind 177 15.1%
Lab 80 6.8%

Not just a win but a bit of a landslide really. Many congratulations Loveday well done!

A brilliant finale to an excellent month for MK. We have gained one parish, two town and now a unitary councillor - bringing MK's total of Cornwall Councillors to 5.

To echo a sentiment expressed by Cllr Jenkin just after her resounding victory, who's up next for MK? Let's get to work!

Save £1.1 Million or Spend a Penny?

Today Cornwall Council voted to reccommend dropping funding for 114 public toilets in order to save £1.1 million.

Before, during and after the debate, leading members of the twitterati and blogosphere had a field day - mainly opposed to the idea.

I, for one, am all for it. In fact, I don't think the proposal goes far enough.

Some claim (including me) that the Unitary Council has been a complete disaster for Cornwall. Some of its misdemeanours have ranged in cost from a few hundred pounds to possibly millions include: ordering silk ties to improve the 'corporate image', helping to fund Devon in a wasted bid to bring world cup football to Plymouth and the on-going incinerator debacle.

In the meantime Kevin Lavery's salary remains extortionate, Officers pay is out of control (while normal people face redundancy) and CC Cabinet members claim huge allowances.

I strongly believe in subsidiarity (in the true meaning of the term) rather than the ideological cost cutting that forms the basis of Tory 'localism'. This is what makes me think that Cornwall Council should stop funding all public toilets and leave it to local communities to manage.

The Unitary Authority should be there to make high level, strategic decisons that affect the way that Cornwall operates as a complete entity. It should be responsible for things like education, healthcare and the co-ordination of emergency services.

In my mind there is no justification for Cornwall Council to micro-manage thing like public toilets. I believe that there would be many benefits, both financial and organisational, if they were managed by towns and parishes.

For example the local community could decide if it wanted the toilets in the first place. They could then decide the best way to mange the service and aspects of that service such as opening hours etc. Local councils could join together to share the costs of maintenace, so as to not lose the efficiencies af scale, and yet still make the contractors far more accountable for the service that they provided. Some toilets might be 'pay as you go' (perhaps in tourist spots) while others might be 'contract' for the benefit of locals. Indeed, there could be a mixture of PAYG and contract at different times of the year - the possibilities are endless and would be down to local people to decide what would be best for them.

Now I can hear, some of you saying "This lets CC off the hook. They are just saving money by badgering local councils into taking responsibility." Well, maybe it does - but ultimately the cost of the service is paid for by through the UA portion of council tax or through the local precept. Surely it will work out better value for money if the service is managed by and made accountable to local people.

There should be more services being devolved to local councils - but we have to face up to the fact that the balance of local taxes has also to swing in favour of the local councils in order to allow this to happen.

This does not mean that I believe that Cornwall Council cabinet have brought about this debate because they believe in subsidiarity. Far from it. They have done it because they are driven by Tory cost cutting ideology, however, why not play them at their own game and rise to the challenge.

At the same time we could throw down a few challenges of our own. Why not transfer car parks to local authorities to manage for the benefit of their residents rather than to (incorrectly as it has turned out) provide funds to subsidise the aforementioned silk ties, Devon football and construction schemes lacking planning permission. Of course, as all these myriad small services that could be provided locally are transferred into local ownership there would be less justification for Kevin Lavery's salary as he would not be resposible for so many different things. There would be less need for so many officers as there would be nothing for them to do. Finally, there would be no need at all for Cabinet Support Members or indeed quite so many Cabinet Members on high 'volunteer' allowances.

Lost Forever

Yesterday I travelled up to Bodmin to check out the location of this year's MK conference MK60 . The Shire House Suite will be an excellent setting for the 60th anniversary conference.

My wife and I had decided to make a day out of the trip to Bodmin and on the way back we decided to go via Porthcothan. This is one of our most favourite places in Cornwall and, before we moved to Cornwall, we used to stay there in a small bungalow. There was nothing special about this bungalow except for its location. It was hidden away from the road and had stunning views out to sea and accross the countryside.

We decided to go and take a look at 'our' bungalow and remind ourselves of some of the good times that our family had had there. We pulled up at the gateway and found, not the little bungalow, but a huge, Mediterranean style 'villa'.

Now, I know there are arguments for and against 'development' and 'progress'. I know that tourism has it's plusses and minuses but seeing this characterless new building, where the small bunglaow had once stood with Cornish character shining from every part of the render, gave me a hollow feeling in my stomach.

I'm not Cornish. I have only been living here for three years, but I think I have just had the tiniest of glimpses of how it must feel for Cornish people, who have grown up in Cornwall, and come to cherish memories of the beauty of the Cornish way of life to be confronted by inexorable and relentless change. To see places where they played as children become concreted over. To see the houses where their families and friends once lived become holiday lets.

Development is not necessarily a bad thing per se. Things can can be changed and improved for everyone. The problem is the speed and scale of change. Communities are being overwhelmed and Cornish culture is not able to assimilate the changes before newer and bigger changes occur.

I feel hypocritical now - having enjoyed many memorable holidays in the little bungalow that was, for a long time, a family home - but I have come to realise that there needs to be a pause in development and change. A chance for Cornwall to reassert herself.

Silk Ties

Following on from the whole (not really) credit card fiasco at Lys Kernow, I just wanted to make a point that doesn't seem to have been raised.

For example - the silk ties thing.

My question is - why is someone 'tying' up their time ordering and admistering the purchase and then distribution of and collection of money for silk ties for councillors? No wonder we need cabinet support members - it's to deal with rubbish like this!

I had this discussion with a customer at my shop. He thought (as a Tory) that the ties would create a good image and that councillors representing Cornwall should present a good image.

Maybe this is a good point but then it should be policy to distribute ties free of charge to councillors and then isist that they are worn in certain circumstances. If the people of Cornwall thought this was a good idea then they would be supportive - but I can't see it myself.

As it is 100 ties have been ordered for 88 male councillors - there is no need for any councillor to buy one so how does this achieve a uniform, smart appearance for Cornwall Council?

There are probably many more examples of silly schemes like this that are taking up time and effort which should be being spent on solving the real problems that Cornwall faces.

Blue Cycle Trail Signs

A week or two ago a whole load of blue cycle trail signs appeared around the Illogan, Pool and Redruth area. Now you might think well ok, we're in the middle of the biggest round of hard hitting cuts in public services for many years - and perhaps there are better things to spend money on - but maybe the money for these signs had already been budgeted and accounted for.

The problem is that many of the signs advertise 'supermarket', and give the length of time it takes to cycle there. So the question is - why is Cornwall Council advertising and promoting 'supermarkets'.

I asked this question and the answer that I received really makes no sense at all. Apparently, the Council believes that, by promoting 'supermarkets' on the cycle trail signs, they are encouraging local people to make shopping trips by bike rather than making a car journey.

Now I don't know about you, but, to me, there are a few things that seem to be a bit strange about this proposition.

First of all, why do 'locals' need to be told where the supermarket is. Surely part of being a 'local' would be to have the knowledge of where the supermarket is?

Secondly, is the Council actually serious in believing that anyone is going to go and do their weekly shop at Tesco on a bike rather than take their car? I can see that the signs might inspire someone to try out the cycle trail as a leisure activity- but going shopping by bike?

Next, the signs direct people past local businesses, where the money generated stays in local, Cornish hands. Why is the Council actively promoting big UK wide, if not multi-national, supermarkets, whose profits flow straight out of Cornwall and into the coffers of big business at the expense of local businesses.

Call me cynical but this justification for promoting Tesco, Morrisons et al by Cornwall Council smacks of being either plain daft or just a cover for something that the Council would prefer not to be known. I don't have a clue which.