EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 22 October, 2014
It was a bad night yesterday for Uttlesford’s ruling Conservatives. The council meeting descended into chaos, confusion and nit picking over membership of the planning committee. The result was a third defection from the Tory group in as many days. The Tory group leader, Cllr Howard Rolfe, ended up losing his cool and demanding resignations and by-elections – “follow Carswell” was the cry!
Cllr Keith Mackman had already resigned from the Tory group to become the first councillor in the Residents for Uttlesford party, which is being launched today. He has been joined by another Tory defector, Cllr Heather Asker and Cllr Joanna Parry from the Independents. The Tories decided they couldn’t keep Keith Mackman on the planning committee so voted him off to be replaced by Clavering’s Cllr Edward Oliver. Several Tories attacked their leader for pettiness. Cllr David Watson was so incensed he resigned on the spot and (I think) became the fourth member of the new Residents’ party. Turmoil is a mild description.
What is so stupid about the Tory leadership’s tactics is their committee changes will all be undone on November 11th when they lose committee places owing to the new political balance – which may not have stopped changing. I told Cllr Rolfe to hold off, but he wouldn’t have it.
I can just imagine next week’s newspaper headline: “SPITEFUL TORY LEADER SACKS SUCCESSFUL PLANNING COUNCILLOR (but Mackman back on committee before November meeting)”.
The council remains under unstable Tory control: Con – 31, Lib Dem – 7, R4U – 4, Ind – 2.
The meeting descended into further recriminations from the start to finish after a public statement by Mr Matt North. The subject? Actions by Cllr Andrew Ketteridge to cut a walnut tree in defiance of a Tree Preservation Order accompanied last night by cries of cover-up and feelings of deception. More on that another time.
10 Comments
I’ve just spent thirty seconds doing the maths that was apparently beyond the ability of officers last night. Based on the current party representation the new group Residents4Uttlesford is entitled to a place on the planning committee; there should also be a place for two Lib Dems and one independent. If one more Tory were to defect to R4U there would need to be two places on the committee.
I look forward to Councillor Mackman regaining his well-deserved place before the next Planning Committee meeting.
However, it is worth noting that the rules didn’t say that committees had to be representative, just that if they weren’t the decision could be made by the majority party. The fact that Rolfe was so keen to cram the Planning Committee with loyal Tories lays bare the political bias that has dogged planning issues in Uttlesford over the last four years.
It was made abundantly clear to Rolfe last night that his attempt to interfere with the planning committee was ill-conceived, untimely and unnecessary but naturally his partisan spite trumped common sense.
And on November 11th at the extraordinary council meeting I shall restore Heather to the licencing committee and myself to the planning committee, just in time to be available for the planning meeting on the 12th.
It is troubling that Rolfe behaves in such a petty manner, unable to recognise the limits of his authority. I take comfort in the thought that we only have to tolerate him until next May at worst and in the meantime it would only require a handful of members to vote him off.
It’s beginning to sound as though the council will shortly become unable to discharge its statutory duties – if it is not already. Planning aside, what about all the other business that has to be conducted routinely for the benefit of our residents? Beware lest a different set of councillors, i.e. the senior officers, should become involved. And we still have to deal with the financial time-bomb that is the massive financial surplus the council has managed to accumulate. No wonder Cllr Robert Chambers is lying low: he has a good deal of explaining to do!
In fairness Geoff, I think the council fulfils the bulk of its statutory duries perfectly adequately.
The problem arises with matters like the CEO involving himself inappropriately in an enforcement matter. I am puzzled that John allowed himself to be drawn into this, I expect better judgement from our chief officer.
The matter was clearly mishandled, a councillor was not properly admonished for a criminal action. The correct course would have been to recommend prosecution and subsequently a standards board.
It remains the case that standards should be involved, also that Jim Ketteridge should be arraigned. Nepotism and abuse of office should not be tolerated.
On Tuesday Cllr Rolfe made the pious suggestion that the members who had declared for the new party ought to resign and put themselves up for a bye election.
Aside from the obvious irritation I feel at being lectured on principle by a man who attempted to deselect the local MP, my integrity is totally uncompromised by leaving a party that I consider to have betrayed local residents.
As to the thought of wasting £16000 of taxpayers money on a set of bye elections that will be repeated in less than 6 months, I think the council can decline that luxury. It would be little more than gesture politics, something I am not prone to.
Cllr Rolfe would do well to consider that in one evening he has lost some 10% of the Tory group and there is every chance that more will follow.
R4U is an inclusive group, we welcome any candidate who genuinely puts the concerns of residents ahead of narrow party political point scoring.
Mr Rolfe has been exposed as the local playground bully; when you stand up to them and they’ve run out of ideas and are no longer able to get there own way they start to throw their toys around. The next few weeks and months will, regrettably, be disastrous for democracy within our district council, but will strengthen the hand of R4U and the opposition groups. What we have been witnessing is an abuse of council procedure over a long period and a distortion of the democratic process, where established practices of local government have been subverted. Unlike you, Keith, I have to be very critical of the role (some) senior officers have played in these developments because they have allowed themselves to become implicated in the erosion of the tenets of the council’s constitution, cutting corners and preparing a less than complete and accurate picture of the ‘goings on’ within the council for public consumption and seemingly acting at times as tools of the administration Keith Ivory, the council’s former chief executive, who was in post when I became a councillor 20 years ago, would never have allowed the management of council business to deteriorate in this fashion; he was always punctilious with regard to the rules governing working relationships between elected members and senior officers. That demarcation line has become more and more blurred within UDC over the past 6-8 years, to the point where the two groups – officers and executive members – are inextricably entwined. There is no doubt in my mind that this situation has come about largely because of the decision to opt for a cabinet administration. We cannot simply blame Tony Blair’s government for this, because there is no doubt that in many LAs cabinet administration
has, sensibly implemented and properly managed worked well on the whole and led to more efficient decision-making, if not always liked by rank-and-file members. In UDC’s case the cabinet structure was implemented in a rush, without proper planning and without any understanding of its ramifications. We now have a situation where a large number, even a majority, of elected members are unable to exercise their role as councillors and participate meaningfully in the business of the council. The debacle within Planning is a prime example.
I could weep with exasperation, and I’m sure I am not alone in thinking this.
You will appreciate that it would be improper for me to criticise officers regardless of any views I might have.
Regarding the cabinet system, I believe the problem at UDC is the people in the cabinet rather than the system itself. If the cabinet operated properly it has the potential to be more efficient than a committee based system.
I agree with you that the current administration did not properly implement the cabinet system (and this has been commented on by the Independent Remuneration Committee).
Yes-men and limited vision are never going to make for good governance. Throw in pettiness and the mix hardly improves.
The new administration in 2015 will have the opportunity to review the cabinet: there is a time frame and nothing will be done until the first year is over. My preference would be to overhaul and improve cabinet rather than dumping it but I will abide by the majority decision.
Of far more importance will be dumping the emerging local plan and replacing it.
Bad decisions are more likely the result of bad structures, rather than bad people. The substance of the criticism of Howard Rolfe or other cabinet members is not structural but is aimed at the fact that some people feel aggrieved by their behaviour. This is just populism.
The Local Plan is a product of a top-heavy cabinet system, not just some malign intentions. The concentration of power always leads to the removal of power from the people and resulting in lack of accountability and erosion of public trust. It was inevitable that the exclusion of the public from most or all of the decisions would enrage people.
A reform of the constitution is as important as rethinking the Local Plan. This not only means ending the cabinet system, it also includes strict guidelines relating to council meetings – including working groups – so that only information relating to staffing matters is discussed in camera. Otherwise, we’ll find a new Local Plan will be as controversial as the current one and the council will be brought into further disrepute.
I’d also go further and ask what are those who wish to replace the Tories all about? How do they relate to the communities they seek to represent? Where are the minutes of their meetings and how are they appointed? I paid for membership of “We Are Residents” and I don’t recall receiving any information on electing representatives or any meetings – I may well have overlooked an email, but I can’t find anything going through my email archives. I also don’t understand the relationship between this residents’ group and the new council group, which is largely comprised of disaffected Tories – people who joined the Conservatives because, presumably, they share those ideological values that I oppose.
Gandhi said “Be the change that you wish to see in the world”. Likewise, an opposition must have the attributes of accountability, transparency and democracy that it wishes to institute when in power. Otherwise, it’s just a change of faces representing another face of the same elite.
Dan is right to say that the cabinet structure has not helped, but I contend that the Conservatives have practised an exclusive ethos since much earlier. One could say it started on 7th September 2007 when they produced “Hellsenham” out of a hat at a few minutes’ notice before a crucial meeting in complete contradiction of the then all-party LDF working group.
It was in line with an ethos that gained strength before the 2010 general election that their right to rule again would exclude all contenders.
I told the full council meeting which agreed to the cabinet that it could be made to work if the lead up to decisions were inclusive and transparent. Instead exclusivity bred the greatest distrust I have come across in over 25 years a member of Uttlesford.
Much of the incompetence has stemmed from a weakness of leadership to confront uncomfortable evidence such as the demand for future housing. This resulted in a failure to make hard decisions without months of delay.
If there is a new administration from next May, it will be faced with hard decisions such as the continued quest for a local plan as I doubt this will be settled before the elections. Opposition to most housing proposals will no longer be an option.
This is something that the Liberal Democrats will not be able to avoid. They will have to turn their broad principles of a different dispersal solution into reality. The Lib Dems have the advantage of shared values that will be of benefit.
The Residents4Uttlesford party will have a greater challenge facing them if elected in sufficient numbers to be part of a new administration. The biggest challenge will be their individual roots, which are likely to derive from a diverse range of values and approaches to community and democracy. Whilst united in opposition to the local plan, reaching agreement on an alternative plan may prove very hard going.
I think it is a mistake to identify new R4U councillors simply as ‘disaffected Tories’
I stood as a councillor because I wanted to represent residents at UDC, regardless of their political views (I never lose sight of the fact that most of the people in my ward did NOT vote for me and I am in any case a district councillor)
I went onto the planning committee particularly because it is non-political and I think my track record readily demonstrates that I have always put the interests of residents first.
I transferred to R4U because I genuinely believe that the group exists to represent residents rather than some political agenda. To be frank, I think party politics should be excluded from local government altogether, all councillors should share the same basic aims and we should be working together to achieve them, not scoring tuppeny points off one another.
I am confident that R4U will be the majority group next May and I look forward to being involved in the schedule of works/policies that will restore respect in the council and begin repairing the harm done over the past 4 years