Advice to the Council on councillor numbers.

Yesterday there was a meeting to discuss a letter from the Local Government Boundary Electoral Commission ticking off the Council for failing to get the axe out to councillor numbers.

The Commission watched the Council's last discussion, via the webcast, on why they needed at least 105 to 115 councillors - and was none too impressed. This time the Council whinged in private!

Most councillors could see no evidence as to why fewer were needed. I acknowledge that councillor workloads are a particularly difficult issue in large rural divisions. It is also true that technology can create a lot of work as well as save it. It is much easier for residents to phone, text, email, tweet or Facebook us than have to write us a letter.

However, these are a few excerpts from the experts' report who had a close look at the Council and challenged us to be radical and reduce our numbers.

What the experts (Cornwall Council Strategic Governance Review) said:
1. ' The Council had been given 'a once in a decade opportunity to develop and implement a new model of governance' and 'demonstrates ...that Council taken seriously challenge to undertake a fundamental review of its governance upon which the delay in implementing the electoral review in 2021 was based'. (page 5 )
2.'Within the Council, the large proportion of 'backbench' Councillors has led to an unhealthy feeling of marginalisation and disengagement from decisions made by the Executive' (page 6)
3. Councillors' ways of working were 'arguably unsustainable' and 'outmoded'.(page 7)
4. Many councillors felt 'marginalised' and 'disengaged' and this could 'severely impact the effectiveness of the organisation as well as having serious future implications for attracting and retaining councillors' (page 20)
5. On balance mayoral model was rejected (page 22).
6. Portfolio Advisory Committees created a ' significant bureaucratic burden which is a vast draw on both member and officer time whilst achieving only very limited influence' (page 24)
7. A degree of overlap between functions of committees resulting in arguments about areas of responsibility (page 24)
8. 'We support a reform...which would result in fewer committees' (page 26)
9. 'Very limited use is made of technology to reduce Member time spent travelling to meetings' (page 28)
10. Councillors' 'strategic role should have primacy ' (page 29)
11. 'As budgets are reduced and demand for services increase, ..the way Members are currently operating are arguably not sustainable'   (Page 29)
12. Impact of double devolution and a more strategic role for Cornwall Council, leads us to consider that it will require substantially fewer Members to function effectively'. ( page 30)
13. The Council should 'support members to move role away from an obligation to identify and personally solve all problems to developing community resilience alongside local town and parish councils' (page 30)

Why should Cornish votes be worth less?

After strong criticism from the Conservative Group and having already burned up about £10,000, the 'no money' Council has agreed not to spend a six figure sum of Cornwall's money on a hopeless legal battle to fight sharing an MP with Devon.

However, it will still press on to attend meetings of the Boundary Commission in Devon and Cornwall next week to complain about this. Unfortunately, this is also a waste of Cornwall's money as the Boundary Commission has already explained to the Council.  The Boundary Commission has no power to address this issue.

To continue to protest about this, the Council needs to decide whether it is better to have only 5 rather than 6 MPs representing our interests at Westminster. This would make a Cornish vote worth about 17% less than votes in English counties, never mind other parts of the UK.

This is the plan the Council has currently been working on. Has it got a mandate to do this? It could also have some pretty strange effects on constituency borders within Cornwall.

Or, does it tell the Government that it cannot reduce the cost of politics by cutting MPs from 650 to 600, so that Cornwall can keep 6 MPs? Has it a mandate for what would only be a short term fix for Cornwall?

Would it be better to use the political influence of Cornish MPs to campaign for more money (or powers) for Cornwall rather than pleading a special case that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (total voters about 394,000) should have 6 MPs when we are only 1600 voters over the limit for 5?

So far, perhaps recognising the difficulty, the Council has not discussed it with the people of Cornwall. Consequently the Council has no mandate but is just having a general shout – at the wrong people; because The Boundary Commission has no power to address this issue.

Devonwall

Don’t spend thousands fighting a legal battle that can’t be won

Conservatives urge Council not to continue with Devonwall legal challenge

The Conservative Group at Cornwall Council has always been opposed to the idea of the cross county Parliamentary boundary concept known as ‘Devonwall' and they remain firmly apposed to it.

However, legal advice that Cornwall Council has received from a QC is that a legal challenge is extremely unlikely to succeed as it has been an Act of Parliament since 2011. This decision was made five years ago by a coalition led Government, which at the time saw Cornwall represented in Parliament evenly by three Conservative MP’s and three Lib Dem’s.

In this instance the Conservative Group feels strongly that residents would prefer that public money were spent funding more essential services in Cornwall such as Adult Social Care, Road Maintenance and even Public Conveniences and not funding an expensive legal battle that ultimately only lawyers themselves will win.

Commenting on the issue the Conservative Group Leader, Cllr John Keeling, said: “This isn’t about whether we’re happy with the idea of Devonwall, it’s about whether we’re happy to continue spending public money on a legal battle that we as a council cannot win. We’ve already spent a significant amount of money getting Counsel Opinion so why would you go against that recommendation and start spending thousands more.”

A request by the Conservative Group for the meeting to be cancelled was overlooked by the administration. The result is that Tuesday’s extraordinary meeting scheduled for 10.30am in Truro will go ahead creating additional travel expense for all attending councillors as well as significant expenditure on more officer time.

Marsh,Baxter,Hendra Appeal

The appeal made by Marsh & Baxter Developments Limited & Hendra TC & CP Limited
against the decision of Cornwall Council has been allowed. This decision will certainly not help the enabling development for the two stadium applications. Pity!

See the full decision here:   Appeal 27th October 2016

Boundary Review Letters

Kate Kennally Chief Executive
Cornwall Council
The Exchange, County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro TR1 3AY

21 October 2016
Dear Kate,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CORNWALL
Thank you for the Council’s detailed first draft submission on council size along with the copy of the Cornwall Council Strategic Governance Review Report. It was helpful to receive this material in time for the Commission to consider it at its meeting on 18 October. The purpose of this note is to outline the Commission’s initial observations.
I should start by saying that the Commission has asked me to convey their appreciation for the considerable work that is being put into the exercise, both by members of the electoral review panel and by officers. From the outset, the Council and the Commission committed to working together closely in order to achieve the best outcome for the future of Cornwall and that remains our shared objective.
It is evident that much effort has gone into this initial analysis, largely by way of comparisons with other councils. Also, there is much helpful material in the survey of existing members. However, whilst such data is useful in a contextual sense, the Commission was surprised that the opportunity had not so far been taken to address fundamental issues about arrangements concerning governance, accountability, and community leadership for the new Council in order to understand the level the elected member capacity required in what will, essentially, be a very different kind of authority.
As was indicated at our initial briefings, the Commission views each authority as a distinct political entity and, consequently, regards comparisons with other councils as being of limited value. This will be particularly true in the case of Cornwall with the exciting and ambitious plans set out in your devolution deal. However, the Commission felt that the work so far has used the current council size as its starting point with relatively little apparent movement away from a ‘business as usual’ approach.
For the next submission, therefore, the Commission anticipates that the panel will wish to explore the opportunity provided by the review to go back to ‘first principles’ to suggest what number of councillors might be required under the new arrangements. Requirements to meet governance, accountability and community leadership needs are
the three aspects that inform the Commission’s judgment when setting the number of councillors.
In encouraging the panel to take this approach, the Commission notes the preface of the Council’s Strategic Governance Review Report. which observes that the Council is being presented ‘with a once in a decade opportunity to develop and implement a new model of governance over the course of the next four years……’. Also, it will be expecting to get a better understanding of how the Governance Review Report’s reflections and recommendations on the role and number of councillors has informed the panel’s view about council size.
In addition, the Commission would find it helpful to see how the proposal for a more strategic role for Cornwall Council working alongside town and parish councils under a devolution arrangement impacts on councillor numbers.
We hope that the Council will address these aspects explicitly in drawing up its next submission for December. At that point, I should stress that we are not expecting to see a fully worked up submission but rather an assessment that addresses these points and what they suggest for council size. We note that it has already observed that the next stage might point to a different range than that identified so far. The Commission can then reflect further and, informed by our comments, the detail can then be worked up for the final submission.
Finally, the Commission recognises that there are a range of views about how Cornwall could be governed going forward and it acknowledges that there may be more than a single view presented to it. Alternative submissions could come from groups of councillors, or a single councillor. It is content to accept more than one submission and none of them are required to be endorsed by full council. As with all of our electoral reviews, every submission is judged on the basis of the evidence provided, irrespective of its source. Also, the Commission can consult more widely on the most appropriate number of councillors for Cornwall, including a full public consultation if necessary.
Separately, the Commission has received a request from the Leader of the Council requesting a slight delay in the warding phase of the review in order to allow for the new Council elected in May 2017 to settle in and I am pleased to confirm that the Commission has agreed to this request. This does not change the schedule for the council size submission.
I hope that these observations are helpful and will assist the panel in taking forward their work. Needless to say, Commission officers will continue to help in any way they can. I look forward to receiving the next view on 16 December.
Yours sincerely
Jolyon Jackson Chief Executive
Local Government Boundary Commission for England
0330 500 1290
_________________________________________________________

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

John Pollard Leader of the Council
Cornwall Council
The Exchange, County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro TR1 3AY
21 October 2016

Dear John,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CORNWALL
Thank you for your letter of 14 October requesting a delay to the start of the first consultation phase on warding patterns that will form part of the electoral review of Cornwall. The Commission has considered this request and appreciates your desire to allow time for the new Council to settle and have sufficient opportunity to consider options for warding following the May 2017 elections. Like you, we want to ensure that there is full participation in the process and, therefore, recognises that this is a sensible proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission will accept your suggestion and amend its programme to the following dates:
Warding pattern consultation 25 July – 2 October 2017 Draft recommendations LGBCE meeting 21 November 2017 Draft recommendations consultation 18 December 2017 – 26 February 2018 Final recommendations LGBCE meeting 17 April 2018 Final recommendations published 15 May 2018
We anticipate that it is likely that we will receive more than one submission for warding patterns during this phase – both for the whole of Cornwall and for various localities. This is commonplace and will allow both the councillors and the people of Cornwall to give them full consideration.
Finally, you also refer to the work of the electoral review group and indicate that it would be useful to have feedback on their early thoughts on council size. It was helpful to the draft submission from the group in time for the Commission to consider at its meeting earlier this week. Jolyon Jackson will be writing to Kate Kennally in the next day or so setting out the Commission’s observations.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0330 500 1525; reviews@lgbce.org.uk; www.lgbce.org.uk
I hope that this is helpful and, of course, fully reciprocate your view about the importance of the Council and Commission continuing to work together closely in order to achieve the best outcome for the future of Cornwall.
Best wishes
Professor Colin Mellors
Chair

Councillor Numbers

Today members of the Council meet to have a first stab at what the number of Cornwall  Councillors should be in 2021.
As an 'urban, indeed Truro,  member' I recognise the difficulties members face managing large divisions. Division size ranges from 0.7 sq kilometres in Penzance to 137 sq kilometres in Poundstock. Some rural members are looking after, perhaps, 7 parish councils.
Many members also have a very long journey into Truro and therefore spend many hours travelling.  As each division must have the same number of electors so that everybody's vote is worth the same,  I think members with large geographical divisions will need to be compensated for that.
Many people may not appreciate that members do not receive their travel costs for visits within their division - only for certain official meetings, which are mainly in Truro. 
If a councillor has to bear their own travel costs for travelling around even bigger divisions then we can assume that only well off people will be able to afford to be councillors.
With that caveat, my personal view is that the number of councillors needs to be radically reduced:
1. A lot of the meetings at Cornwall Council are laid on to involve all the councillors, rather than them being useful in themselves. That is the tail wagging the dog.
2. The external group who reviewed the Governance of the Council said that the current number of members is 'unworkable'.
3. The Council has persuaded the Boundary Commission to put off until 2021 the correction of the electoral imbalances on the basis that the Council has a fundamental review of its numbers. Tweaking them to 105 or 115 (as is proposed) is not going to cut it.
4. The administration has persuaded the Government to devolve powers to Cornwall without a mayor on the basis it would have a fundamental review to ensure visible and accountable leadership . Tweaking the numbers of members will not be acceptable.
5.  The public want the number reduced.
The Council say they have no evidence  to support a smaller number. True, but that is because they are not looking and listening. They need to start.
I suggested 100 to the Panel to show all interested parties we were moving in the right direction.   We could then work up a lower number with all the bells and whistles.
That was rejected.  So let's get serious. I think a credible case may be made for, say 70.
It could be something like this:
9 Cabinet members including the Leader
3 Planning Committees of 15 each (no Strategic planning committee)
1 Licensing / miscellaneous licensing committee of 15
4 Scrutiny Committees to cover the 4 directorates (each directorate to have 2 Cabinet members)
Audit Committee of 9 which would also have oversight of the Council's pension scheme
Constitution Committee (to incorporate the Electoral Review Panel)
Plus one or two other committees such as Cornwall Harbours Board and the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
This would half the number of positions that needed filled.
As the Council is cutting services, has been told it is too big by a group of external experts and has made no effort to work more efficiently,  it is going to have to reduce the numbers.
The fact that it is making such a meal of its governance review, and is even proposing to continue this review for years, means it has not a leg to stand on.

What the Council does on a nice morning in August (18th) what a shambles

A few lowlights. There were no highlights:

1. Complaints tabled about councillors not turning up to meetings to discuss how the Council is governed. Concern expressed that the process of reviewing how the Council is governed is taking place too quickly and we need more meetings! There are too many already (in my view).  4 in August alone.

2. The Steering Group held a meeting on 14th July (its role is to steer 2 committees working on this so that they are both going in the same direction) but the Chair and Vice Chair of  the Constitution and Governance Committee did not turn up to be steered.

2. Report on how the Leader got on with his public meetings on governance of the Council (Who Decides). There were seven meetings fronted by the Leader, Deputy Leader and senior officers. . Only 240 people attended in total. These were described as the 'usual suspects- Cornwall Councillors and Town/Parish Councils with very few members of the public present' .

3. Only 3 out of 200? Parish councils attended the sessions with the GREG (the external group of experts looking at governance of the Council.

4. Only 30-35% of Parish Clerks had actually opened the recent newsletter from the Council which told them about all the sessions on governance (never mind circulated to their members).

5. Complaints tabled about central government and lack of funding for the Cornish language. Fears raised that Cornish minority status endangered. However, Cllr Dolphin (Lib Dem Chair of Committee) wants to stand down from the working group dealing with this as she is too busy. No member of the Committee would volunteer to replace her. So it is mainly the Bards who are left.

6. But I imagine that the Committee did approve the 13th version of the Terms of Reference of the Health and Well Being Committee (committee established in 2012). I had to leave before that vote.

What sort of message can we learn from this and will we?