THE recent public outrage at revelations of parliamentary expenses in the media has demonstrated that we can force change. There have been suggestions of public involvement in the scrutiny of the expenses of Members of Parliament and this has an echo in our local District Council.
I have noted that the most dynamic and interesting meetings at the FoDDC are those devoted to development control and planning matters and I suspect that this is because members of the public who have specific interests in various applications are allowed to put their case by speaking, for or against, for three minutes. It is surprising how often, when the officers' recommendation to grant or refuse permission appears likely to be carried, councillors are persuaded by the eloquence of speakers and the emergence of a detail hitherto overlooked, that the entire debate changes and the recommendation is overthrown. Officers, knowledgable as they are, are constrained by policy and guidelines, sometimes to the detriment of common sense, but the intervention of the applicant or an opposer can alter the perspective. Not only does this make the meeting much more interesting because the results are not foregone conclusions, but the public can feel that at least they have put their case.
I have suggested to the Leader of the Council and relevant committee chairmen that questions from the floor are allowed at Cabinet and Corporate and Community Scrutiny Meetings. Cabinet meetings are often bland recitations of the recent work by portfolio holders, interesting enough, but it is the decisions taken by the Cabinet following their discussions with officers that should be questioned. Why, for example, should Cabinet overthrow a recommendation by Scrutiny or Full Council? There may well be good reasons, but without the ability to question, the public will never know. Questions from the floor during a meeting, under certain constraints, should not be looked on as a privilege to be granted or withheld, but as a basic right. Every one of us is affected by decisions taken by Cabinet and the money they are committing, that Scrutiny examines to ensure that we are receiving good value, is ours. As we have seen recently, a recommendation by Scrutiny can be reversed following a public question.
I am not holding my breath, however, as the council is resistent to change. I have already received one response to my request for more public particiation from which I quote: "It is important to remember that the electoral mandate given to members affords them certain privileges and responsibilities that are distinct from those enjoyed by members of the public". For breath-taking arrogance this takes some beating. In my innocence I had considered that the only privilege allowed to members was that of service to the community and that their responsibility was to exert stringent economy on the public purse and spend public money wisely. Who elected the members and whose money are they spending? Like Members of Parliament in Westminster it is too easy for them to consider themselves part of an elite club, detached from those they profess to serve.
I will allow that there is a degree of ignorance among the public regarding the responsibilities of the different layers of government. For example, it is the County Council and not the District Council that repairs the roads and thence the potholes, a distinction often misunderstood. The FoDDC could provide a service by holding an informal seminar to explain to members of the public exactly how local government works and how it fits into the network of national government. Naturally, there would be questions from the audience so perhaps this could be an initiation for the council into the engagement with the public that it purports to desire.
Watch this space! – Daphne Pearson (Dr), Redbrook.