So I think you pick a weak example there.
I didn't really "pick" it - I just went to the first executive meeting listed and picked the first document listed. I accept it isn't typical, but while it is more complex than normal also not many (any?) projects have a vote organised like that either. I would welcome anyone providing a more typical example, but I still think the points I was making apply.
...there are as you say plenty of complex reports where I'd accept there are councillors who don't follow the decisions they make.
In which case what hope does the average member of the public with no specialist knowledge, guidance or training have?
You might be too cynical to accept that this issue is something I do worry about in spare moments (not that there are many of those right at the moment).
No - I am happy to see that I am not completely wrong in my impression, although in some ways I would feel even happier if someone had come back and explained to me all the ways people can get information and participate in decision-making that I had overlooked and how there were local groups and local media that follow developments and provide good explanations, about how officers are helpfully explain compex issues and make these explainations publically available, about how there is a healthy and robust political debate within Lambeth which people can follow and how the issues get a good airing in a democratic and public forum.
When the council had traditional committees - Environment, Housing etc - they built up a following of interested poeple who were regular attenders and speakers. Now those committees are gone (thanks to Govt. rules) and we have the Executive and scrutiny committees.
The Executive is building a following of interested people but it is smaller than the number of people who went to service committess. And scrutiny committees are often very poorly attended.
My conclusion is that for the short term this means that more reliance has to be placed on effective consultation before the report reaches the Executive - something we all know can't really be relied on.
I have the same general issues with the old system as far as small groups of people who acted as a kind of 'lobby' are fair enough - but I always felt that the general population in Lambeth would have trouble walking into this kind of scenario and knowing what was going on or know how to contribute. The effort and information barrier - and also the 'cultural' barriers (in a loose sense) would mean that either you were the kind of person who would take to it or (more often than not) someone who at most would go once then decide that it was either pointless, incomprehensible or totally alien.
Furthermore I don't really see how the executive could be the same as the old committees which had a balance of councillors from both the ruling party and the opposition: what kind of debate or disagreement are you going to get within an exective that is all singing from the same sheet - that is in effect a private cabinet? It simply isn't the same dynamic - the public can't go in there and hear any kind of argument - the members of the committee can't "play to the gallery" (in a good demcratic sense) so what is the point of people going there if their arguments can't be aimed at one side or the other? They are talking to a group of people who have already decided what their policy is, don't have to win any argument and aren't faced with an organised opposition putting embaressing point forward.
As for scrutiny committees - do they really have any power once the executive has decided? If they are just powerless talking shops what motivation have people got to attend and try and make a point one way or the other?
Regarding "consultation" - even the word is worrying: participation implies an input, whereas consultation implies a survey of a passive population rather than a two-way debate. I agree that the final decision making is rightfully vested in elected councillors, but "participation" means engaging. "Consultation" makes me think of yet another expensive private market survey company sending people questionaires which get turned into powerpoint slides or cherry picked for suitable quotes before going in the bin. This to me is not healthy democratic participation or a two way process of debate, development and 'partnership'.
Even the more formal 'partnerships' that I have been involved with (1997 -2001) have been massive disappointments - with virtually zero budgets for advertising, not much help beyond a free meeting room from the council, the interest of only some officers and councillors (all credit to them but they seemed as depressed about the situtaion as us) and four years of seeing promise after promise broken and deadline after deadline pass on policies, plans, consultations - pretty much everything - only for everything to be ripped up and a new set of forums replacing the old ones. I don't get the impression that the new ones achieve any more than the old ones (I hope I am wrong) - they seem to be a way of "selling" council policies more than developing them, of coopting and diffusing anger and opposition instead of allowing it to build its own momentum and engage with directirates and the executive - keeping it at "town centre level" (for example) or wrapped up in another level that stands between local and community groups and actual decision makers.
But for the medium term I think we have to find a way to build back up the number of people who regulalry participate in decision-making at the council becuase the subjects under discussion are both interesting and intelligible.
I agree but it isn't just getting larger "lobby" - it is making things more transparent - which councillors and officers are actually responsible, where councillors actually stand on issues, when and how people can express opinions - and having comment and analysis of what is going on in the public realm rather than people just 'being in the know' and using their knowledge to push for their own pet ideas or projects.
cllr said:
...the Exec Summary on the first page of the report is actually a pretty good summary of what the report is about and doesn't have all that much jargon in it.
To quote:
Executive Summary
The Clapham Park NDC Masterplan requires Lambeth to deliver its part of the community partnership. The implementation of the Masterplan relies on the transfer of the Council owned stock. The Masterplan includes a whole new road layout; it provides for housing estate roads to become adopted roads which will be managed and maintained by the local authority. It also builds a new school, a new park and a library, all of which LBL has agreed to fund and maintain. The report seeks final approval for the implementation of the transfer of the housing stock and delivery of the Masterplan. It reports on the proposed option to close the funding gap arising from reduced cross subsidy from market sale units. It explains the benefits of including the Clifton House site at Nos. 42 and 46 Clarence Avenue in the stock transfer package and seeks delegated authority to the Chief Executive to negotiate a final position on the Business Plan and to dispose of the Clifton House site...
Recommendations
(1) That the final negotiation on the business plan and the decision to implement the stock transfer be delegated to the Chief Executive upon receipt of consent from the Secretary of State.
(2) That the Chief Executive is authorised to negotiate and implement the disposal of Clarence Avenue and Clifton House site (42 & 46 Clarence Avenue) at best consideration, in accordance with the principles at paragraph 2.12 of this report, to Clapham Park Homes for the purpose of providing a mix of affordable rented and private sale units – the affordable element being provided for Extra Care and Sheltered Housing units for the frail and elderly as specified by Lambeth Housing and Adult and Community Services.[/I]
(And just because I have an interest in these kinds of things
6.2 Equalities impact assessment:
The impact of this project on BME communities is great in that the proposed works programme would significantly improve the prospects of the BME resident population which accounts for approximately half of the total population.
6.4 Environmental implications:
As part of the planning process, an Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken by Clapham Park and submitted to Lambeth Planning.
Sorry, but this is the kind of **** makes me see red. I don't really know where to start commenting about this ... I will leave it 'till another time.
[goes to look for tinfoil hat]
