Here’s an interesting development to keep an eye on at Colchester Town Hall over the next few months: the ruling LibDem party is considering the possibility of ditching the current Cabinet form of local governance and reverting back to the previous Committee system.
Um… Hurrah!
We think.
Localism is the buzzword up and down the country right now. That nice Eric Pickles is keen for local authorities to press ahead wit a hyperlocal agenda that fits their own localised model.
That nice Eric Pickles is also keen to save cash.
Back in the day and it was Mr Tony’s Nu Labour lot that fell in love with the current Cabinet system.
You don’t say.
This allows for a Leader or political Mayor to be appointed, who is then given the power to appoint a Cabinet. Here in Sunny Colch and we have Cllr Anne Turrell as the Leader of the Council [although strangely not of her own LibDem party...]
The current legislation then allows the Leader to appoint a Cabinet of anything between two and nine Councillors. It’s not quite a Rainbow Alliance, but the curious mix of the LibDem / Labour / Independent Cabinet at CBC has eight members.
Decisions are taken by each Portfolio Holder for their own patch. In theory these can be called in by Scrutiny, but the PH has the final say to override any opposition.
The local LibDems are now circulating internally the idea of ditching this and reverting back to the Committee System, as suggested by that nice Eric Pickles.
In a document seen by The Chronic, the pros and cons of such a Back to the Future move are explained to the local LibDem Councillors:
“Pros:
All councillors would be part of the decision-making process, and responsibility for a decision would be shared amongst more councillors.
There’d be more openness and accountability around decisions, both for councillors and the general public.
Without an administration and Cabinet as such, there may be less ‘them and us’ with the opposition.
Cons:
Depending on how committees are structured, it’s possible for a Finance or Strategy and Policy committee to dominate and override decisions made at other committees.
Decisions may take longer to make, especially if a committee keeps referring back reports.
Committees may seek to avoid making tough decisions in public.”
As for the cost of this switch?
The document seen by The Chronic states:
“Councils that have taken this step have said it will reduce their costs, but that would obviously depend on a number of issues, including the number of committees established and what allowances committee chairs etc would receive. There could be more administration work involved, though there would also be savings from removing the Cabinet and the associated costs of that.”
We’ve blogged before at The Chronic about the current farce that is CBC Cabinet. Public meetings simply pay lip service to observe the incredibly low level of public participation taking place.
REAL political power rests behind the closed doors of the ruling party Cabinet elite. CLOSED meetings take place immediately before any public meeting. It is here where the genuine debate and decisions are made.
The Chronic once mistakenly walked in on one of these.
Whoops.
If the current CBC Cabinet wants to shift back to a Committee system, it would require the support of the other political parties in Colchester. May 2014 could be the earliest that this could be achieved.
May 2014 is also the date for the next round of CBC local elections…
Nottinghamshire County Council, Brighton and Hove Council and the London Borough of Sutton have all already agreed to take up the advice of that nice Eric Pickles.
Should Sunny Colch follow?
Do Turkeys vote for Christmas?
Gobble, gobble.
What do you think, Comrades?
7 Comments
In an interview with blogger Iain Dale in Total Politics, Eric Pickles said: “I don’t care how things are organised. They can have it on the basis of a committee system, on a cabinet basis, on the mayoral system.
If they want to introduce a choral system, with various members of the council singing sea shanties, I don’t mind, providing it’s accountable, transparent and open. That’s all I need to know.”
So.. I suggest that all Committee members make all speeches in proper rhyming verse, or optionally, while wearing a false nose.
That list of Pros and Cons sums it up quite well. On balance I prefer the committee system because it is more open and limits the concentration of power in too few hands. Whatever system is in place though it is how people behave and what they do that matters most.
How odd! I’m known as being in favour of the old committee system so you’d think these Lib Dems who are passing around this document might have mentioned it to me. They haven’t! Because it doesn’t exist – unfortunately. Or does it?
Oh it exists Cllr Hunt. It just appears that you are out of favour right now. I’ve posted it below for your assistance.
Odd that you are against the Cabinet system, yet still choose to sit in Cabinet and cliam your £12k allowance.
********
Switching to the committee system
The Localism Act gives all councils in England and Wales the option to go back to a version of the old committee system. This was the way that most local authorities operated until 2000 when the Leader and Cabinet (or elected Mayor) model was introduced. At that point, most councils switched to the new systems, though some (in areas with a population below 85,000) were allowed to retain the committee system. For instance, in Essex, Brentwood kept its committee system, and Uttlesford only switched to Leader and Cabinet in 2011.
Since the ability to change systems was announced, several Councils have either changed their system or announced their intent to do so. This includes Nottinghamshire County Council, the London Borough of Sutton, Brighton and Hove Council and South Gloucestershire District Council. LGC reports that 40 other councils are looking into changing.
The Leader and Cabinet system
At present, Colchester operates on a system where most of the decision-making power – except for decisions made by quasi-judicial committees like Planning and Licensing – is directly given to the Leader., who is elected by the Council. They then appoint a Cabinet (they’re allowed to appoint anything from two to nine other councillors to it, and it’s solely their decision) to whom they can delegate some of their decision-making power in certain areas. Decisions made by the leader and cabinet members can be called-in by scrutiny committees, but even if they vote to refer back the decision, change it or add parts to it, the cabinet member can still go back to their original decision, if they so wish.
(The elected Mayor system works in a similar way, except that the Mayor is directly elected by the people, not the Council)
The Committee system
Under the committee system, decision-making power is not given to individuals. Instead, powers are given to a range of committees, which can either be relating to a specific area of council operations (for instance, a street and waste services committee) or covering strategic decisions for the whole council. These committees are subject to the same political balance regulations that we operate under now, and elect a chair and deputy chair.
The key difference is that instead of decisions being made by a portfolio holder who can then be called to account by a scrutiny committee, the committees have to make their decisions in public (subject to the usual commercial sensitivity restrictions) which means that councillors and members of the public get to see the background to decisions before they’re made.
Councils are free to choose which committees they create, and what powers each one has.
If we want to switch
The regulations state that if a council wishes to switch its system of operation, it’s a decision that has to be taken by the full Council. Once the initial decision is made, the Council has to publicise this change and consult with partners, and the change can take place after the next annual meeting of the Council (in our case, that would be in May 2013). If the decision is made to switch, then the council can’t change back to the leader and cabinet system for five years. The only change that could be made in that period is if there was a successful referendum for an elected mayor.
Pros and cons
Pros:
All councillors would be part of the decision-making process, and responsibility for a decision would be shared amongst more councillors
There’d be more openness and accountability around decisions, both for councillors and the general public
Without an administration and cabinet as such, there may be less ‘them and us’ with the opposition
Cons
Depending on how committees are structured, it’s possible for a finance or strategy and policy committee to dominate and override decisions made at other committees
Decisions may take longer to make, especially if a committee keeps referring back reports
Committees may seek to avoid making tough decisions in public
Costs
From what I can tell, councils that have taken this step have said it will reduce their costs, but that would obviously depend on a number of issues, including the number of committees established and what allowances committee chairs etc would receive. There could be more administration work involved, though there would also be savings from removing the Cabinet and the associated costs of that.
Conclusion and next steps
It’s up to the Group to decide if they want to take this forward. If we do, then the next step would be to inform the other groups that we want to go in this direction and to see what their opinion is. If all of them are totally opposed, then it would be unlikely we’d be able to take it any further.
However, if we do get agreement to go further, we would then have a decent period of time to examine the options before any final decision would have to be made, as the change itself couldn’t happen until next May. This could be something for the group leaders to discuss, or could be given to a task and finish group to look at and report back.
My personal opinion is that we should go forward with it, as it fits in with liberal principles as it disperses power amongst more people, rather than centralising it in a handful. A system where decisions are made in the open by councillors of all parties would be much more accessible and understandable to the public. As the public have spent the last decade or more of elections not giving any party an overall majority on the council, perhaps we should follow their lead and adopt a more co-operative system?
I have to work with the system we have – and as it’s my only job I’m grateful for the allowance. Did you know, by the way, that most executioners were actually against hanging people?
PS – yes I do recognise it now. It is not a Lib Dem document. It is a document written by the appropriate officer for consideration by all four groups. I think I recall from that consultation that the view across all 60 councillors was generally against change.
LOVE the executioners metaphor for the CBC Cabinet.