VOTE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM

This Page -

Let's Start with Oxford City Council - What's Wrong

Programme for the Reform of Oxford City Council - How To Put It Right

North Ward LGR Candidate - About your candidate

LET'S START WITH OXFORD CITY COUNCIL - elections as they are arranged at present don't result in citizens getting what they want

The Ruling Group - Did you know that the men and women you elect to represent you are frequently prevented from doing their job as they would like to? The Council is not run by a co-operation of all elected candidates but by a small ruling group (as it happens, Labour and from East Oxford) plus unelected and unaccountable council staff.

The Ruling Group -
1. Doesn't represent the wishes of the people because there is no means for the people to raise issues important to them and have a vote on it.
2. Is largely unelected - our Councillors say their officials sometimes keep the information they need from them, the minority parties have no power, the main party obeys the party line and sometimes they all just do as the staff tell them.
3. Is unaccountable - the staff are not accountable to the Councillors and the Councillors are not accountable to us.
4. Is unclear - they invent and enforce rules based only on their opinion.
5. Is unfair - they discriminate against various groups - for example, house owners, traders and those who wish to choose their children's schools.
6. Is secretive - they make and withhold secret reports on us.
7. Misuses our money. They spend without our permission and don't really tell us what has happened to the money.

Half your income now goes to local and national government but you don't notice it's going. It's just included in your bills. Are we getting good value having this spent by other people over whom we have no control?

The ruling group rearranges other people’s lives without their permission and uses other people’s money (representing other people’s work) to do so. They also prevent the electors from discovering whether that money is well-spent. It is difficult to find out the expense of council projects before or afterwards and almost impossible for the people of Oxford to prevent them if they disapprove. If the officials do know how they've spent the money they should tell us when asked and in a way we can understand. After all, it’s our money. If they can’t, they are not suitable for the responsibilities under their control.

The ruling group say they welcome ‘discussion’and ‘consultation’ but, if you disagree with them, they first ignore you and then try to shut you up. No wonder we think we have no influence and cease to participate – only about a third bother even to vote. If you are a councillor of the ruling party, you can't put your views, or those you represent, forward properly because you have to stick to the party line, decided by a minority at the top. On the other hand, how are you going to get elected if you don’t belong to a party ? . If you don’t stick to the party line, you are liable to be ignored or slung out. If you belong to any other party than that of the rulers, you have little control in what happens to you at all.

It's no good only working within the system, disguising our views in the hope of a few crumbs. We need to change the system and give as much control to local people as possible.

PROGRAMME FOR THE REFORM OF OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

Given below are examples of the way the present system is wrong and what we could do to put it right. I have taken only a few of the more glaring items, principally from North Ward, where I am standing. I’m sure, wherever you live, you can think of examples in your area.

For you who live here in North Ward – Control over major changes in your area

End the charade of ‘consultations’, which are used to justify what the authorities have already decided. If (say) a hundred people in the ward petition to query extending Waterside and other building blocks all the way up the Canal to St Edward’s and beyond – there should be a ward vote on it, with the result binding on the Council. They slid Waterside past you when you weren’t looking and they’ll do the same with this. It’s not too late.

Control over major changes in your city

If a hundred people in any ward query the contradictory council policies of drawing more people into the city and then making it difficult for them to get there, there should be a vote. The general infilling and the proposed 24 hour entertainment area (miscalled a leisure village to disarm you) in the centre at Oxpens, is being decided by a few people with no mandate for doing so. As it happens, there is an alternative with easier access and less likely disruption at Minchery Farm. We should decide.

For you as a parent –

Whether St.Philip and St. James school moves should be your affair and not in the hands of a small group of your employees. You should be able to vote on it rather than have it imposed on you by your employees with your money but without your permission.

If a school of your choice is willing and able to take your child, there shouldn’t be a secret council imposed limit on numbers. If there is a limit, it should be acknowledged openly, together with the reasons and subject to the people’s reversal if they wish. I have two reports of this at another school. The objection really is that it looks as though the school authorities have been secretly ‘leaned on’.

For you as a tax payer –

The Council’s vendetta against the Well-Being Clinic against the wishes of the local councillors and the letters of over 100 neighbours should be brought to an end by being voted on. It has cost you 8 years of your money so far and it’s not over yet. Do you want to go on paying to try to stop a group many of you find desirable ?

Are you happy about over £100,000 being paid over to the Council in relation to Planning permission for Waterside ? Wouldn’t you prefer to decide these things locally on their merits ? If the money is to make up for local disruption, then we, locally, should decide how it is spent. Incidentally, where is it ? And, if we are to have a ‘tariff’, then none of our dream improvements of which we have said ‘they’ll never agree to that’ is barred. It’s a question of money. To get some cars off the road, for instance, we could have a car park under St Giles at the coming together of the 2 major roads at the entrance to the pedestrianised city. How much for permission ?

The city newspaper, produced in colour at your expense, is effectively a propaganda sheet applauding everything the ruling group does and encouraging people to vote for one particular party, although we are all paying for the one sided propaganda. These costs should be charged up to the Labour Party as election expenses.

We would like to know the breakdown of the traffic regulation expenses - so we can see whether it is worth it and close it down if it is not. We would like to know the annual cost of the legal department and see evidence as to whether they take all reasonable steps to avoid acrimonious legal disputes. We would like an annual inspection and questions by the public for each Council department. That's fair. They keep on questioning us.

For you as pedestrian, cyclist or motorist

– are the ‘Traffic Aggravation Schemes’ (miscalled ‘Traffic Calming Measures’ – I’ve yet to see anyone looking calmed by them) worth it at £2,000 a disruptive, fume producing hump ? If you are worried about speedsters, then a camera would identify them and the rest of us could proceed at a reasonable speed in peace. Each area should decide on its own measures.

For you - suffering from traffic congestion

This is best dealt with by removing, where possible, the need for travel. Few people actually want to travel - they just want to arrive. Why not move the City council first, to set an example, out from the centre to Risinghurst Park and Ride - easy of access and near most of their work. Park and Rides could be turned into local village centres - cars underneath, shops on the ground floor and offices on the first floor - serving the people close by and reducing traffic to Oxford City.

For you, as an elector – proper representation

· Your Councillors should be allowed to discuss anything they wish in council. They are sometimes effectively forbidden by the staff. They were, for example, stopped from discussing whether citizens should have the chance to have their views considered before the Councillors' employees start litigation against them. This is often in the name of the Councillor but without their knowing anything about it. It is not a minor matter, considering individual lawyers' fees are £120 an hour upwards.

They should have access, without question, to any council documents they feel they need to do their job, which is to represent your views. Members of all parties have complained to the ‘Oxford Times’(March 98) that their staff (your staff) withhold information they need and that the Councillors can apparently do nothing about it. Who is in charge ? Our representatives or the staff. If it’s the staff, we could save money by not having representatives.

The work load should be reduced by deciding some things – for example – schools, planning and traffic, at ward level so your representatives have time to consider them properly.

They should have their own up to date equipment and staff chosen by them. It is not reasonable to expect them to exercise a supervisory function on our behalf when they are in the hands of people they don’t control – exemplified in ‘Yes, Minister’, when the Minister’s wishes were actually being undermined.

For you – as a house owner – an end to Council intrusion

There are secret inspections when you aren't there.

There are secret letters to your mortgage society, effectively throwing doubt on your ability to pay your debts. You remain unaware that you have been undermined.

There are unaccountable and not very knowledgeable council officials deciding that you should alter your house according to their opinion, not according to any laws or common sense. If you do not obey, they are not obliged to justify their position but can ensure you are fined as if they were a properly constituted court of law. They behave as petty tyrants, not accountable to you, their employers.

They misuse and misrepresent Health and Safety Requirements to impose their own conditions, which are sometimes not only silly and inconvenient but dangerous. All houses really need is an alarm system, reasonable maintenance and facilities the occupants can get at easily.

They send round a politically motivated campaign group to intimidate private householders who let rooms, while they do nothing about those who do so in their own property, which a Council survey (1995) declared as 11% unfit. This is an attack on the rights of all house owners, whether they currently let rooms or not. It is unfair discrimination against a particular group, resulting in 850 houses (Council figures) being withdrawn from the market, presumably mainly because of the trouble the Council staff causes. The resulting shortage puts the price up, which we no doubt have to pay out in increased benefits.

All residential housing should be subject to the same rules. If everybody is affected, the rules will have to be clear and reasonable. The concept of 'Houses in Multiple Occupation' should be abolished. Unless you live on your own as one person, they are all in 'Multiple Occupation'.

For you as a human being – human rights

Council staff should not be permitted, in any circumstances, to try to prevent citizens complaining to their elected representatives about the staff’s conduct or to give those representatives the false impression that the law doesn’t allow them to listen and give a considered and sympathetic response which is their duty. Nor should normal council services be withdrawn in the event of a dispute between an official and a citizen. In fact, both of these have happened to me and they are illegal.

Codes of conduct should be introduced for Council employees, particularly for the legal and environment departments, who have so much power over us, similar to those already introduced for many central government departments. This would provide an automatic curb on excesses.

For you in relation to your councillors

They do work hard in a very frustrating job but gradually get drawn into the system, so they often eventually represent the staff rather than you. Follow the American Presidential system – only two terms, and a handsome retirement present. They can go on to similar work in a different field.

The following Councillors have supported the ruling group or been part of it for some years and seek re-election. Since the Council only operates as a corporate body, each of these councillors is the representative of all the electors in the city not just in their ward – just as well, because otherwise it would mean if your ward councillors weren’t in the ‘right’ party you wouldn’t have any effective representation. I have written to all of them several times while they were in office and have not received a reply. Since they were largely responsible for running the place, I suggest that when they come round asking for your vote, you challenge them and bring up some of the points I have mentioned. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, vote for someone else.

Councillors : Sarah Margetts - who was one of those who did publicly complain about Council staff withholding the information she needed to do her job, so her heart is at least partly in the right place.
The others are Cllrs. Val Smith (Blackbird Leys), Alex Hollingsworth (Headington), Beryl Keen (Iffley), Gill Sanders (Quarry), Bill Baker (South), Robert Evans (Temple Cowley), Susan Brown (Wood Farm).

What Can We Do About It ?

How much does it matter to you that we are not in control of our own affairs ? Would you gamble part of your time to try to put matters right ? It would mean a few hours each week chatting our rulers up. Phone 516157 or write to Local Government Reform at 127, Botley Road if you would like to help.
We could lobby for a means for individual members of the public to ask questions. We deserve an opportunity to challenge something we think is wrong. It is extraordinary that we haven't this right already.
It seems that we have to ask a Councillor to place the matter on the agenda of the relevant committee, which meets at intervals of one to three months, between which times affairs are in the hands of the ultimately unaccountable staff. The Councillor will do this if he considers it appropriate, probably after discussion with the very official being challenged. This system places almost unlimited power in the hands of the official or Councillor to stifle discussion of an important issue. Members of the public should have the right to ask questions themselves and have the answers within a reasonable length of time (two weeks?) and, most importantly, publicly.

North Ward LGR Candidate

John Rose is standing as Local Government Reform candidate for North Ward. He was educated at St.Edward’s School, Oxford and Edinburgh University. He served as an Army officer before going to Pembroke College, Oxford and then into the pharmaceutical industry. He has run his own schools in Oxford and abroad and has been a teacher at Carmel College, Wallingford. He has also worked in the NHS. He is married with two daughters. He founded and still works at ‘Daily Information’.

You can compare the Party manifestos and make your own comments at 'Democracy In Action', http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk.

Produced by John Rose, 127 Botley Road, Oxford.