There’s no voice for residents

The council leader’s defence of his decision to abolish the area Forums is revealing [‘Public shouldn’t be paying for meetings that aren’t needed’, Gazette, October 29].

He says that he got rid of them because their meetings “aren’t needed”.

That says a lot about his idea of local democracy. It’s essentially a technocratic one. Elections are a sort of job interview to appoint the new boss, and he can then be left to get on with it.

There’s no room, in this idea of democracy, for regular ongoing involvement of local people in discussions about the future of their district.

There’s no place for promoting people’s sense of community involvement – something whose value has become very clear in the current epidemic.

There is no room for local residents to provide feedback, from direct experience, about what is working and what isn’t, to explain what the problems are, or to come up with new ideas and suggestions. They are not needed, it seems.

He claims that the Forums are not needed because local residents have the right to speak at committee meetings before a debate takes place.

That right may be valuable, but it is no substitute for participation in genuinely open discussion and debate.

He claims that when a resident speaks at a committee meeting “it has huge influence”. Those of us who have spoken, particularly at meetings of the three main committees, know

‘Lockdowns are certainly destructive but they can be unlocked and are not necessarily terminal. Death is both destructive and terminal. I know which option I would go for...’

that this is simply not the case. By that stage the ruling group has already decided how to vote, they’ve made up their minds, and speakers are routinely ignored. He says that councillors can talk to residents outside meetings if they wish.

Again he must surely know that this is no substitute for collective debate and discussion.

It is useful, but having individual conversations are not the same as active involvement in the processes of local democracy. One final question. He may say that he values residents’ participation.

If he does, why was there absolutely no consultation or discussion with residents before his decision to abolish the Forums?

Richard Norman

St Michael’s Place, Canterbury

We should always be concerned when those who purport to look after our interests and who hold the pursestrings declare that they are going to reduce the service to us.

For this is what the district council has done by abolishing the area forums. Not just putting them in limbo or using them less frequently, but abolishing them completely.....and this after only two years in being.

The new council leader claims it has been done to save money - but without stating what will have been saved by the cut. Nowhere in the space you afforded him has he even given a hint of what sums he is talking about.

Is it a major sum, the cost of all these forums? How does the cost of a meeting of the forum compare to the expenses of the average district councillor? Parish councillors and members of the public who attended the forums would not get expenses to attend so the costs of forums would probably be the sum of the cost of officer’s time, a tiny fraction of district councillors’ annual expenses and the cost of the Guildhall for the evening. Against the overall expenditure of the council I imagine the total would be a trivial sum. I can therefore understand why it was so important the cost of the forums wasn’t mentioned in the Leader’s article.

The council leader asks ‘What actually is it that district council tax payers should be paying for?’ In response I would ask why the forums were, in his view, such bad value ?

And in the midst of his skirt around the topic he has the gall to remind us that the council is short of funds.

Because who other than

successive governments have imposed the reductions on the Police, the NHS , local government etc.? And aren’t the city council and county council majorities of the same party as those governments ? They collectively bear much of the responsibility for the council’s present economic plight ....which apparently leads them to abolish the forums.

Ray Evison

Former chairman, Kent Assoc. of Local Councils