Community Service Committee Options

[Simon Kirby]

An NTC Community Services Committee tomorrow night.

An item on the agenda notes the minutes of the allotment tenant's meetings from December.

I see that the site associations are still required to make the usual declaration on self-management: "This has been discussed at a recent committee meeting and there was unanimous agreement that we would not want to be involved in self-management."

It was spelled out to me with crystal clarity that the council would only accept "self-help" site associations - the council's phrase - and that any aspiration to involve itself in the council's running of the allotments would cause the association to "lose support at the council" - again, the council's own phrase. After my excommunication site associations are left in no doubt what losing the council's support looks like so it's hardly surprising that none are prepared to investigate the possibility.

However, what is glaringly obvious from the questions the associations ask at these meetings is that there are allotmenteers who most assiduously do want to be involved in the management of the site, and of course the site stewards are already very much involved in the site management, although not with any democratic mandate of course.

I have to say that it is remarkable that the Town Council have never yet tabled a motion to discuss allotment self-management, and in actual fact are still bound by a previous resolution that they would not discuss it.

All the evidence is that, on balance, self-management is good for allotmenteers, and good for the precept-payer too. Allotmenteers benefit from the social side of being self-reliant, but self-management also typically delivers a better quality management. As the NTC budget in another thread demonstrates, the precept-payer also benefits because what is currently an outrageously expensive service is also delivered at no cost under self-management.

At the very least the council need to discuss self-management so that they can at least understand what it could look like. Refusing to discuss it is indefensible when there is so much precept-payer money at stake, and when the advantage to the allotmenteers could be great.

[Cognosco]

An NTC Community Services Committee tomorrow night.

An item on the agenda notes the minutes of the allotment tenant's meetings from December.

I see that the site associations are still required to make the usual declaration on self-management: "This has been discussed at a recent committee meeting and there was unanimous agreement that we would not want to be involved in self-management."

It was spelled out to me with crystal clarity that the council would only accept "self-help" site associations - the council's phrase - and that any aspiration to involve itself in the council's running of the allotments would cause the association to "lose support at the council" - again, the council's own phrase. After my excommunication site associations are left in no doubt what losing the council's support looks like so it's hardly surprising that none are prepared to investigate the possibility.

However, what is glaringly obvious from the questions the associations ask at these meetings is that there are allotmenteers who most assiduously do want to be involved in the management of the site, and of course the site stewards are already very much involved in the site management, although not with any democratic mandate of course.

I have to say that it is remarkable that the Town Council have never yet tabled a motion to discuss allotment self-management, and in actual fact are still bound by a previous resolution that they would not discuss it.

All the evidence is that, on balance, self-management is good for allotmenteers, and good for the precept-payer too. Allotmenteers benefit from the social side of being self-reliant, but self-management also typically delivers a better quality management. As the NTC budget in another thread demonstrates, the precept-payer also benefits because what is currently an outrageously expensive service is also delivered at no cost under self-management.

At the very least the council need to discuss self-management so that they can at least understand what it could look like. Refusing to discuss it is indefensible when there is so much precept-payer money at stake, and when the advantage to the allotmenteers could be great.

Perhaps if Ruwan had asked the question of the Council "Can precept payers pose a question to the council on this forum" as promised he would investigate we would be able to find out why the question of Self Management has not been asked of allotmenteers?

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps if Ruwan had asked the question of the Council "Can precept payers pose a question to the council on this forum" as promised he would investigate we would be able to find out why the question of Self Management has not been asked of allotmenteers?

If it's information you want then you need to make a Freedom of Information request, and if it's information that the council doesn't want you to have then they'll just fob you off and you'll need to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. Don't take anything you're told on trust, insist on seeing definitive evidence and original documents because the council are terrible at spinning misinformation.

Asking a question at a committee meetings is simply a means of engaging publicly with the council, and it's more about putting the council on the spot and holding it accountable, but they won't be held accountable so it's a pointless process. You can't take what they say on trust and asking a question just gives them the opportunity to insult you. I can engage perfectly well with the issues from outside the council offices, and I'm certainly not setting foot in their offices until I have an apology for the vexatious smear, and until that happens it's pretty obvious to the world at large that the council has no intention of engaging with us on anything but their own repressive terms.