New questions rules seem to fly in the face of pledge to listen
DOES it really matter that Rossendale Council is planning new rules to heavily restrict the influence regular members of the public can have at meetings?
In a world with so many other problems, it would be easy to answer with an emphatic ‘no.’
But the more I thought about the council’s proposals last week, the more I realised their proposal couldn’t fly more in the face of previous promises to listen to people if they set out to do just that.
Under the plans – which the ruling Labour group are at pains to stress has come from a crossparty working group – people wanting to ask a question during the public questions parts of a meeting would have to submit them in writing, in advance.
Regular members of the public – also known as taxpayers, remember – would also be banned from asking a follow-up question.
Quite what the motive for this change is, I’m not sure.
Rossendale Council argues that it is just following the lead of other councils – a kind of grown up version of the defence a child uses when they’ve been caught out.
But it is very disappointing that, less than 18 months after council leader Alyson Barnes pledged to make the council listen more to people, it appears determined to do the opposite.
Coun Barnes’ pledge followed howls of protest at the attention – or lack of attention – to the public’s view on the Bacup heritage project, the Rawtenstall town centre project and the closure of Haslingden baths.
The council, she promised, would make a better job of listening to people.
Recent full council meetings have been quite fractious affairs at times, sometimes involving people using public question time to ask questions.
I’d go so far to say that some of the most effective scrutiny of the ruling Labour council has come from the public questions.
Labour argued in last week’s Free Press that people who want a question answering can ring their local councillor, or email them, or knock on their front door.
Which is, of course, true but misses the point somewhat.
My local councillor may not be the councillor who made a decision which really upsets me.
I may want to hold the councillor who has the ‘special responsibility’ post – and receives an additional income for holding that post – to justify the decision they have taken.
As we saw with the Empty Homes Scandal last year – during which the council became the social landlord of last resort for some of the area’s most undesirable properties after the contractor appointed to do the work went bust – getting a straight answer out of the council can be hard work.
Even councillors discovered that.
The council carried out various investigations, and concluded some things could be done better in the future.
And the issue came up at full council, with members of the public asking questions too.
Those questions may well have embarrassed those on the receiving end of them, but as the opposition Tories pointed out, if you’re claiming a responsibility allowance, it’s not too much to expect you to accept responsibility for something which has happened on your watch.
Let’s not forget that voter turnout at local elections is incredibly low.
Council meetings might only get a handful of members of the public in attendance.
Surely those attending should be rewarded for their interest in democracy, not relegated to pre-scripted shows of pseudo-accountability.
The council’s restrictions on how the public can get involved smacks of attempts to stage manage the image of the council, just months after they launched their own news website to make sure we all got chance to read their press releases.
Councillors should have no fear of facing questions on the spot from members of the public – but presumably you’ll need to put it in writing now if you want to know why Rossendale Council has gone down this route.