Forum topic: Councillors welcome new mayor, but scrutiny changes provoke dissent
Councillors welcome new mayor, but scrutiny changes provoke dissent
PGC Webmaster
08 Jul 2020 17:55 #5405
Share
Share by email
[Original article]
Read more
Mayor and young mayors elected for Enfield (Enfield Council 2 July 2020)
Enfield mayor offered factory to help in coronavirus crisis (Enfield Independent 6 July 2020)
Spending hikes on Enfield councillor allowances criticized (Enfield Dispatch 2 July 2020)
Reforms designed to ‘improve’ council scrutiny – but fears some could lose out (Enfield Independent 3 July 2020)
Appeal to contact councillors about proposed scrutiny changes (Palmers Green Community 30 June 2020)
Press release: Enfield Council expands scrutiny and transparency (Palmers Green Community 2 July 2020)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Councillors welcome new mayor, but scrutiny changes provoke dissent
Basil Clarke
08 Jul 2020 22:05 #5406
Share
Share by email
The particular point about these three panels - the conservation advisory group, green belt forum and public transport consultative group - is that they involve a high degree of participation by non-councillors, who provide some specialist input to the meetings. The new arrangement will involve far fewer of these external experts, some well established groups won't be represented at all, and in many cases the single representative of a group such as the Enfield Society or Southgate District Civic Voice won't be the person in that group best placed to input on a particular subject. The person who knows about conservation and heritage may know little about public transport, and vice versa.
Members of the various civil society groups in the borough have between them hundreds of years of living in the borough - they know its history, they can remember what worked well in the past and what didn't, they use the trains and buses, they volunteer in parks, wetland projects etc etc. It's a slap in the face to exclude these people from the forums, even more so when it's been done without any public consultation whatever.
There's a lot of unfair criticism of the council and of councillors. People have unreasonable expectations of what the council can do and how much it has to spend. Many people think that because they pay council tax they can shift responsibility for everything that happens in the borough onto the council, who'll go round after them clearing up their mess (both figuratively and literally). I've made myself unpopular more than once by defending the council, but I don't think that the council is helping its own reputation by moves like this.
For the council to run the borough successfully in these crisis-ridden days - coronavirus, gross underfunding by the government, homelessness, people on starvation wages etc - it is more than ever essential that they work in collaboration with as many of us as possible and that they let us know in good time what they have in mind, ask our views, discuss them with us, explain why when they can't go along with them, acknowledge the amazing input of groups like Love Your Doorstep, ask us to help - in a word, partner with us. To my mind, these changes are going in the opposite direction.
Members of the various civil society groups in the borough have between them hundreds of years of living in the borough - they know its history, they can remember what worked well in the past and what didn't, they use the trains and buses, they volunteer in parks, wetland projects etc etc. It's a slap in the face to exclude these people from the forums, even more so when it's been done without any public consultation whatever.
There's a lot of unfair criticism of the council and of councillors. People have unreasonable expectations of what the council can do and how much it has to spend. Many people think that because they pay council tax they can shift responsibility for everything that happens in the borough onto the council, who'll go round after them clearing up their mess (both figuratively and literally). I've made myself unpopular more than once by defending the council, but I don't think that the council is helping its own reputation by moves like this.
For the council to run the borough successfully in these crisis-ridden days - coronavirus, gross underfunding by the government, homelessness, people on starvation wages etc - it is more than ever essential that they work in collaboration with as many of us as possible and that they let us know in good time what they have in mind, ask our views, discuss them with us, explain why when they can't go along with them, acknowledge the amazing input of groups like Love Your Doorstep, ask us to help - in a word, partner with us. To my mind, these changes are going in the opposite direction.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
"A sad day for democracy in Enfield"
PGC Webmaster
13 Jul 2020 22:55 #5424
Share
Share by email
Another civil society group in Enfield has expressed its unhappiness about the new environment forum and the abolition of the separate forums discussing green belt issues, conservation and public transport.
Enfield Road Watch Action Group (a rather misleading name, they don't monitor traffic speeds but campaign to keep the green belt) has published the following comment on its website:
A sad day for democracy in Enfield.
The Council has voted to abolish the Green Belt Forum and two other statutory committees dealing with planning in conservation areas and public transport. The administration sent out the agenda last Friday for a virtual Council meeting on July 1 including a change to the constitution to replace the three committees with one tightly-controlled Environment Forum, which will meet monthly but with restricted participation from outside groups. Only 21 groups and one rep per group. We don’t know yet which the groups are or how badly you have to behave to be excluded. For many groups which rely on specific volunteer expertise in different areas, one representative to cover all these very complex issues is totally inadequate.
It seems to be a blatant move to reduce democracy in the borough and cut out public input. The small Conservative group voted against it but the Labour councillors supported the change and there was no time to get an email-your-councillor campaign going. All very concerning! But it’s never too late to express an opinion. Let your councillors know what you think about this – and anything else. Find Your Councillors
Here is how they justify the constitutional change:
Environment Forum
Separate Boards deal with issues affecting the environment and local areas under the current structure. To avoid an inconsistent approach to these issues, it is considered that an overarching Board with local interest groups feeding into this Board would be an effective way for all interested parties to liaise and consider issues together. This Board would deal with issues that currently are undertaken separately by Green Belt Forum, Conservation Advisory Group, and Public Transport Consultative Group. Membership of the Forum would consist of 7 Members of the Council with up to 21 representatives from local groups with an interest in the natural and built environment.
Enfield Road Watch Action Group (a rather misleading name, they don't monitor traffic speeds but campaign to keep the green belt) has published the following comment on its website:
A sad day for democracy in Enfield.
The Council has voted to abolish the Green Belt Forum and two other statutory committees dealing with planning in conservation areas and public transport. The administration sent out the agenda last Friday for a virtual Council meeting on July 1 including a change to the constitution to replace the three committees with one tightly-controlled Environment Forum, which will meet monthly but with restricted participation from outside groups. Only 21 groups and one rep per group. We don’t know yet which the groups are or how badly you have to behave to be excluded. For many groups which rely on specific volunteer expertise in different areas, one representative to cover all these very complex issues is totally inadequate.
It seems to be a blatant move to reduce democracy in the borough and cut out public input. The small Conservative group voted against it but the Labour councillors supported the change and there was no time to get an email-your-councillor campaign going. All very concerning! But it’s never too late to express an opinion. Let your councillors know what you think about this – and anything else. Find Your Councillors
Here is how they justify the constitutional change:
Environment Forum
Separate Boards deal with issues affecting the environment and local areas under the current structure. To avoid an inconsistent approach to these issues, it is considered that an overarching Board with local interest groups feeding into this Board would be an effective way for all interested parties to liaise and consider issues together. This Board would deal with issues that currently are undertaken separately by Green Belt Forum, Conservation Advisory Group, and Public Transport Consultative Group. Membership of the Forum would consist of 7 Members of the Council with up to 21 representatives from local groups with an interest in the natural and built environment.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: PGC Webmaster, Basil Clarke
Time to create page: 0.655 seconds
