Comment. Am I against co-option?

Reply to comment, Am I against co-option?

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident

No I’m not against co-option I happen to think it’s a much needed tool and plays its part in the process we call democracy. I also accept that it may be a tool used more often than the election route in a well managed council, I fully support it in its place.

If you have a council that is open and transparent, involved with and connected to its community I would expect the co-option method of filling a vacancy to be more popular, efficient and cost effective than the election route. This is because many residents would be aware of council activity, actively involved with the council and should a vacancy arise I would expect many people to be aware of it without going to press or other forms of advertising, apart from a notice on the Parish Notice Board of course.

Word of mouth would advertise the vacancy much wider than possible press advertising and in a much more targeted way and in such a mutually beneficial environment I would hope there would be a number of people wishing to take part in the community decision making process by seeking to join the council.

Such councils I’m sure would flourish and the subsequent benefits that would flow in the direction of residents and the wider local community  would be very evident, maybe that’s an ideal world but isn’t that what we should strive for? If not we may as well admit defeat and all go home!

I also accept that co-option can be an effective tool in ‘locking down’ a council and ensuring it stays a ‘closed shop’, this is where I have a problem, co-option isn’t the problem it’s the way some councils use and manipulate the tool for their own purposes and against the interests of residents.

With Preston Parish Council the co-option route is the default mechanism and has been since the mid 1990’s, virtually nothing has been done to alter that and the only promotion of a vacancy is the absolute minimum required by law, this has now been the council standard for more than 16 years and the new administration is simply carrying it forward without any vision, to my mind it’s indicative of a failing council which lacks direction.

Preston Parish Council has alienated it’s local community for more than 16 years and that community is understandably reticent and suspicious of the new administration because it is very evident they are under the wings of the old lot who damaged the relationship in the first place, after almost two years without progress the position of residents is entirely understandable and I’m sure it will remain that way until any independently minded councillors step forward and begin changing things. If councillors take that brave step they may find residents are much more willing to step forward with them.

It isn’t as though alchemy is involved, the council should have one underlying objective, reconnect to the whole community it is there to represent, the only remaining debate is ‘how to achieve that?’ It obviously can’t be done overnight after 16 years of neglect it is bound to take full commitment from the council and be a protracted and ongoing process and that process will require a budget.

Has the council got the commitment for such an effort? If the council and all individual councillor’s have the best interests of their community at heart they should at least try to give some kind of effort and leadership and try over a period of time to bridge the gap between residents and council. If councillors are only prepared to sit on their backsides for a couple of hours each month and say ‘there’s no point residents aren’t interested’ , I would suggest it’s the councillors who aren’t interested. In that case they need to resign and let someone who will do something take their places!

If I can get off that subject and return to the issue of co-option, a very good councillor resigned in June 2012 and the council was looking to co-opt I think the following month.

I strongly protested about that co-option by letter and predicted that a failed candidate at the 2011 election would be the sole person showing an interest in joining the council and that he would be co-opted at the next council meeting. I turned out to be right and that person was a member of the previous administration who failed to get re-elected.

In this case the co-option method was being employed to get all the failed councillors back on board, the residents of Preston obviously didn’t want these people as councillors because they didn’t vote for them in sufficient numbers, residents preferred other people, it’s only certain councillors who want them back and that reason is to boost their own position, it has nothing to do with the best interests of Preston or it’s residents.

How could new councillors allow that to happen, they had already given the old administration one of it’s unsuccessful re-election candidates back through co-option and here they are willing and prepared to co-opt a second. I thought the idea was to get new blood on the council and, have a new beginning not assist the old crew in re-co-opting their buddies, who helped to damage the parish to the extent they did in the first place, it really does defy logic.

Probably as a result of being challenged the council didn’t co-opt that candidate but sought other interested parties. At the following council meeting they informed us there were 3 interested parties and then at the next council meeting we were informed those three people had withdrawn their declarations of interest and there was now no-one. A miracle happened and a new person declared an interest, a person who nobody knew and who had never attended any council meeting that I had ever been to but just happens to live very close to the back garden of someone very strongly connected to the council, this is how the council prefers to operate, a closed shop. I find it difficult to accept that out of about 1860 electors not one of them is willing to take part in representing the village, maybe they don’t come forward because they’ve never been asked to, or informed about any vacancy. In 2011 we had about a dozen new candidates, why, because a wider audience became aware.

To top it all they illegally co-opted the new councillor in October 2012 so that person is not actually a councillor (see ‘Illegal Councillor’ posting), the council have never challenged that view with any alternative explanation.

If my accusation is wrong they should have contacted me and clarified their position explaining why I am wrong and cleared the matter up. That would have been done by any caring council in order to spare the feelings of a new and possibly vulnerable councillor, by failing to do so I believe the council is doing a great disservice to that council member and therefore shows little regard for her wellbeing.

If the council would like to put an alternative case forward I am open to their explanation and if they are right (it can easily be confirmed) I will apologise not only to the council in writing (and on this Blog) but also in writing and in person to the councillor involved, as that council member is an innocent party and deserves better consideration than the council is currently giving her. I do know councillors read this blog and will therefore be aware of this posting when it is published.

Preston needs new councillor’s who are visionary and prepared to stand behind their principles and give the village a desperately needed new start, discarding the old ways of doing things which very clearly did not work and have no hope of ever working, their methods belong in the dark ages.

I have included the letter to council that has been referred to in this posting. In addition to the normal removal of names I have removed a short paragraph at the end to protect an individuals identity, the council do have the full text.

Chairman Preston Parish Council

                                                                                                            04/07/12

Dear Councillor ************

Re. Council vacancy.

Thank you for contacting ************* who has now furnished me with the information requested. I presume this subject is yet another for which the council has not produced a Policy or Guidance procedure? So no one is sure how the council should deal with it, so its left up to the leadership *** ***** to decide how best to bury it.

The ****** ***** informs me that the vacancy has only been advertised in the Parish Notice Board, expressions of interest will be given during the coming council meeting and a co-option will take place. This may well be strictly within the legal definitions covering Parish Council Vacancies but it is extremely restrictive and can in no way be described as inclusive, democratic or reaching out to the wider population of Preston.

Is the council suggesting all residents  read notices in the notice board making this the most effective way of communicating the message, or, the vast majority of residents read the notice board or, maybe just a simple majority read the notice board? We could stroll down the scale but we are all aware none of those statements would be accurate, there is at best a mere handful of residents who read the notice board, I would suggest less than 30 during the display period, we have approximately 1860 voters on the electoral register. That strongly suggests the council have effectively ‘buried’ the vacancy in the best place they know and relabeled it ‘advertising’,  we really do deserve better than this.

We could argue another way considering this action, the council, given the circumstances are withholding information from the residents relating to a vacancy for a councillor and consequently denying the public the opportunity to be included in the democratic process. I believe that to be a reasonable argument because the council will be aware of the number of ‘hits’ the notice board gets but if not, lets carry out an independent survey to establish the facts for future reference.

I would have thought Council vacancies should at the very least be advertised on the Councils web site (as poor as the site may be) and in the local press, this could have been included in the ‘New parish office flies in’ article in The Gazette on 28/6/12,  a golden opportunity! But, the council chose not to. 

This suggests the council have ‘buried’ the information in order to access the preferred default process, co-option. The council was elected a little more than 13 months ago and to date we will have had 3 councillors co-opted representing 23% of the council. There appears to be a pattern emerging that’s very similar to the wilderness of 1997 to 2011, 13 years without an election.

It is very clear from the councils action on this item that the council have no inclination or enthusiasm for observing the ‘spirit’  of the democratic process such as encouraging involvement from a wider audience to ensure all residents are given the opportunity to be included. Instead, the council adhere to the methods enthusiastically adopted and promoted by the previous council leadership. Those methods are restrictive, non-democratic and non-inclusive, intentionally operating just within the legal framework to ensure their continued control or in this case regain their control.

This is the very opposite to what Preston and its residents need at this time.

I believe the co-option process should be halted and delayed in order that a full campaign be undertaken to inform residents and seek candidates for the post.

Residents are understandably distrustful of the parish council and councillors because of this kind of behavior and because of their relationship with the council over 13 years, in order to reverse this situation a sustained programme of consultation, communication and involvement is required…not a blatant continuation of the same old neglect that had been dished out and thrust upon residents for 13 years.

It could have been an excellent opportunity for a Special Bulletin Newsletter, as they seem to be few and far between these days.

1. Covering the election process and seeking candidates from a wider base, I know many residents      would like to see a return of openness and democracy to Preston. Something that has been lacking for many, many years.

2.  Inviting any prospective nominees to a ‘Council Seminar’ for briefing and Q&A session.

3      Telling residents of the councils success with the Village Hall and New Council Office.

4      Cover the successful Jubilee Celebrations

5      It would have been ‘visionary’ to declare on ‘Open Day’, at the new council office when it opens officially with most if not all councillors in attendance to greet and engage with residents, supplying ‘tea and buns’ (I’m sure residents would have done the baking! And supplied the ingredients!) as refreshment for your Parishioners while you ‘get to know each other’? Maybe find out what ‘real’ residents are thinking and how residents and council can join forces to improve life in the village.

       6.  Get the press onboard and make a splash. Maybe invite a ‘special guest’? Be seen region wide!

What a Newsletter that could have been! with a follow up nearer the opening date to galvanize attendance, you even have a child minder in your midst to help with children but, the most important of all, especially to residents…your actually taking the time and trouble to engage with us, how refreshing………..Such a missed opportunity!

It goes without saying that there are a number of councillors who do not buy into this ‘open’ process and will boycott any such moves and try to derail them, let that be as it is, you won’t change them. Please start engaging with residents, who should always be the most important consideration to our elected representatives in whom we placed our trust. Your real responsibility is to 3,000+ residents and not 4 councillors!!

Of course wider advertising and publicity might not bring additional candidates forward but no-one would be able to say they didn’t know! Nor could anyone fault your efforts and good intentions. After 13 years of neglect it may cost a couple of quid and take a little time and effort to re-engage with residents, regain their trust and reignite their enthusiasm for participation and, such rewards are only possible if you are sincere in your efforts and not seen as puppets continuing much as before under the guidance of the previous council leadership whose sole aim is to have a return to things exactly as they were.

You must remember that from 1997 to 2011 there were no elections in Preston only co-options resulting in an unelected council that represented no one and was in office without a mandate. Essentially a group of people who managed to actively alienate residents over many years, and waste 10’s of thousands of pounds of our precept money. Apparently advised by *** ****** ***** who it would seem has not learned any lessons from his past experience. The same people who are now making a resurgence and without decisive action now, I would predict they will be back in full control in May 2013, your ‘caretaker’ administration will no longer be tolerated and you will be disposed of, their work is not yet finished.

I have no problem with co-opting as a tool and I support co-opting in its place, but when it becomes the default process there is reason for concern, especially as I believe it becomes an engineered process for the benefit of a minority element that do not have Preston’s best interests at heart.

In May 2011, I predicted to a number of people including some new councillors that in May 2012, if the new council did not achieve certain goals (it didn’t) the old administration would have licked its wounds and again be exerting its influence, would be represented in a senior position and from there would regain full control within another year, they are on course. They will move decidedly ahead of the game if they can control certain events.

 A taste of these events are,

1.          Advertising for any vacancy fits the bare minimum required by law, severely restricting access and opportunity.

2.          Limit expressions of interest, increasing any possible outcome to be favourable to the old administration.

3.         ‘Preferred candidate’ such as a member of the previous administration, at

least as a ‘Front Runner’.

The old administration have now built up sufficient numbers (without been noticed or rumbled) to ensure a successful co-option of their candidate, a walkover, increasing their overall numbers still further, the old administration are now ahead of the game and on course to make a clean sweep in May 2013.

At least two councillors have told me, “no *** that can’t happen, we have things in place”, this looks like a no contest to me!

Preston will again be returned to the Armageddon of pre May 2011, to the old administration, they have merely suffered a hick-up. I for one will keep fighting to stop them!

It is absolutely essential that strong procedures and working practices are put into place before its too late! *** ***** should in my view be actively pursuing this as a matter of urgency, he seems not to be, nor does he appear to have any enthusiasm to do so.

‘Short paragraph removed to protect the privacy of an individual.’

I don’t expect a response, this is merely an observation that hopefully may strike a chord.

Yours sincerely

*** *****

cc.            All councillors.