Town Council to set Services Revenues in Secret Options

[Simon Kirby]

At their December 9th meeting the Town Council deferred their decision to set service revenues in public and resolved instead to set the revenues in an Urgency Sub-Committee. The Council publishes neither the agenda nor minutes for Urgency Sub-Committee, doesn't publish the time and place of the meeting, and doesn't recognise the statutory right of the public to attend meetings of Urgency Sub-Committees.

Setting the service revenues is a significant matter, and it is important if the Council are to be accountable to their public that the process is not just right and proper, but seen to be so. Transparency is important in a Council that hides so much and deflects criticism with the excuse that their side of the debate is never heard.

Without public access to the agenda and meeting it is impossible to scrutinise the proposals, ask questions of the councillors, observe the debate, and know the basis on which important decisions were made.

Take for example the December 9th proposal to set the allotment rent:

Allotment Charges - Officers recommend an increase from 30p per sq metre to 31p per sq metre (3.3%) in line with current annual inflation indices.

On closer scrutiny it turns out that the current allotment rent is £7.50/pole, so a rate of £31p/m² is actually a 4.6% increase, not 3.3%.

The proposed 4.6% increase also turns out to be a lot higher than "in line with current annual inflation indices". With the October CPI, current at the time of the meeting, standing at 2.2% (and it's now lower than that) the proposal is more than double the rate of inflation, and it's 15 times the rate of the Index of Labour Costs which measures the service users' ability to pay for their services.

There is a statutory formula for setting an allotment rent and a council is required to decide what an allotmenteer might reasonably pay for a plot. A council may not lawfully set the rent with an eye on the revenue it needs, and you have to be there to understand which factors the councillors considered and which they didn't.

For example you might expect the Council to look around and see what other councils are charging for their allotments. The national average is around £5.21/pole or 20.6p/m², and the upper quartile is £6.07/pole or 24.0p/m², so you can see that Newbury is already an expensive parish in which to be an allotmenteer, but if you don't have access to the deliberations at the meeting you'll never know if the councillors asked about other parishes, and you won't know what they were told if they did.

Urgency Sub-Committees also invites just six councillor, with only three needed for a quorum. This is significantly less democratic than a committee with over a dozen members to scrutinise the business.

Deciding the service revenues in private is unprecedented and dangerous, and the Council needs to re-think and decide the service revenues in a scheduled council meeting with published agenda and minutes and open to the public. There's a Policy & Resources Committee meeting on the 10th February, that would be a suitable scheduled meeting to decide the service revenues, though it really would have been the simplest thing to set the revenues in December and not to dither as they did.

[Cognosco]

Usual NTC Transparency then? About as transparent as watching horse racing at the racecourse through a pair of welders goggles!
They certainly don't disappoint do they....just when you think they can't sink any lower hey presto.....

[user23]

Another allotment thread?

[motormad]

Another allotment thread?

That was just an example
Instead of being idiosyncratic why don't you help out, take part in some actual debate , working at the council you might be able to help..

[Simon Kirby]

Another allotment thread?

Trip trap trip trap.

And like motormad says, I'm illustrating the problem of setting service revenues in public with example pitfalls in a service I know something about.

[user23]

Instead of being idiosyncratic why don't you help out, take part in some actual debate

I am. I'm debating why there are so many allotment threads.

Do you think that's it's the #1 issue Newbury folk have an interest in?

[motormad]

It's probably very important to Simon.
Just like roads, cars etc would be very important to me.
Everyone has their own priorities I think it's admiral Simon keeping on top of his.

Ultimately though I think Simon wants the whole secrecy acts from the council to STOP, as well as them LYING about things.

[user23]

It's probably very important to Simon.

I think this sums up the whole situation perfectly. Thank you very much.

[Andy Capp]

I am. I'm debating why there are so many allotment threads.

Do you think that's it's the #1 issue Newbury folk have an interest in?

I doubt it, so so what? I'm more concerned that our council might be taking secret meetings to avoid scrutiny.

[Simon Kirby]

I am. I'm debating why there are so many allotment threads.

Do you think that's it's the #1 issue Newbury folk have an interest in?

Ah, the old "let's talk about the thread" defence. A deflection everytime, guaranteed.

Seriously though User, if you really want to discuss the discussion can you start your own thread and if it's an interesting debate forumistas will join you there, because your trolling of legitimate debate with meta-discussion is unwelcome.

[Cognosco]

I am. I'm debating why there are so many allotment threads.

Do you think that's it's the #1 issue Newbury folk have an interest in?

You don't have to respond do you? If no one responded to Simon's post then you could rightfully claim there was no interest.
Anyway iIt's not about Allotmentgate but about the secret way most things are discussed behind closed doors in Newbury when the council are adamant that the precept payers don't need to know. After all it is only the precept payers money and that is all that is required of them isn't it?

[user23]

Ah, the old "let's talk about the thread" defence. A deflection everytime, guaranteed.

Seriously though User, if you really want to discuss the discussion can you start your own thread and if it's an interesting debate forumistas will join you there, because your trolling of legitimate debate with meta-discussion is unwelcome.

You're saying discussion about this topic is unwelcome?

[Simon Kirby]

You're saying discussion about this topic is unwelcome?

I'm saying discussion about the discussion of this topic is unwelcome - this thing that you're doing now. It's trolling, designed to disrupt legitimate debate and deflect discussion away from topics that you would rather we didn't talk about.

Discuss the topic, you're not daft, you'll likely have something insightful to say, and if my argument is threadbare you'll poke holes in it.

[Andy Capp]

You're saying discussion about this topic is unwelcome?

Your type is, unless it comes with a rationale justifying its inclusion. Why is the idea that a council are having secret meetings of less importance to you than an repeated example where the council allegedly tabled false information?

[motormad]

I think this sums up the whole situation perfectly. Thank you very much.

You're not welcome.
That is EXACTLY what Government, Councils and local constabularies are there for - to serve the people and what matters to THEM.
Sorry that you and your tin-pot colleagues can't understand that.

[user23]

I'm saying discussion about the discussion of this topic is unwelcome - this thing that you're doing now. It's trolling, designed to disrupt legitimate debate and deflect discussion away from topics that you would rather we didn't talk about.

You've declared me "trolling" and said my discussion is unwanted?

[Simon Kirby]

Actually I need to clarify the OP: I neglected to mention that the Council have resolved to hold this Urgency Sub-Committee within the next week. It was this timing that prompted me to post this today while the matter has some relevance. If User felt the OP was spurious and irrelevant then I'm sorry about that, it would have helped if I'd mentioned the timing.

[Simon Kirby]

You've declared me "trolling" and said my discussion is unwanted?

And you do it very well. Don't think I'm not impressed. But please, would you start that "User's Meta-discussion Thread" where we can talk about talking about things, and let the discussion here get back on-topic?

[Andy Capp]

I think this sums up the whole situation perfectly. Thank you very much.

Do you have any thoughts on the alleged imminent secret council meeting? Or is your only concern that Simon mentions allotments too much for your taste?

[user23]

Do you have any thoughts on the alleged imminent secret council meeting? Or is your only concern that Simon mentions allotments too much for your taste?

I'm interested that he's declared me "trolling", said my discussion is unwanted and that "we" don't want to talk about it.

This reminds me of someone else's situation.