The Community Forum was very lively during the meeting on the 28th June 2006. The Agenda was crammed with "hot" topics - Town Centre regeneration, Blackhorse Lane redevelopment, community policing - and time for questions and comments was running out. Several residents were anxious to speak, and so were several councillors. In the Chair, I decided to favour residents and declined to take comments on that occasion from councillors
After the meeting, one established local councillor approached me. He'd accepted my decision at the time, but wanted to question this policy, which I know is sometimes applied by other Community Council Chairs. He explained that contrary to widely-held belief, councillors who may not have Cabinet or Committee posts often don't get any opportunity at all to speak publicly on vital issues affecting their constituents. Councillors are elected to represent the views and interests of their ward constituents and have a right and responsibility to do so. The issue on which he'd wanted to speak was of highly-charged relevance to his ward - a ward in which he himself is a resident. Yet, while residents from other wards were being invited to air their views, he had been asked to keep silent.
This is certainly a very reasonable case, and it needs to be addressed. One possibility is simply for Community Chairs to be more aware of which councillors represent which wards, where appropriate to the topic, or to allow councillors to offer a "point of information". Against this there is a need to defend this limited opportunity for residents to voice views and ask questions, and I believe it's important to maintain the distinction inherent in the split between the Community and Formal halves of the meeting. Fundamentally, is a Community Council an appropriate forum for councillors to argue issues of policy?
I've come to the conclusion that it probably is. I'm in no position to judge whether the adoption of a Cabinet-based organisation has made the workings of local democracy more effective, but there are many who believe that it has sidelined many back-bench councillors and so the residents they represent.
The answer, I believe, is to make better use of the Formal part of the meeting. Community Councils are an evolution of "Area Committees" of councillors, with the innovation of a part of the meeting specifically to allow residents a voice. I don't believe councillors (or any other articulate "enthusiasts") should be allowed to dominate that part of the meeting, which must be defended as a unique opportunity for the "ordinary" folk to be heard. Yet the Formal part of the meeting is often under-used, with councillors doing little more than refining and authorising decisions largely thrashed-out by residents. I believe the Formal meeting should have a standing item: "Review", or "Representatives' Forum", in which councillors pick up and argue the issues brought up earlier by residents, and possibly new ones as well. For this to work successfully, we'd have to adhere to the existing guideline that discussion is confined to issues, and should not refer to individuals, groups or parties.
If Community Councils are to be effective there needs to be a clear process of influence, and I believe the right structure is already there. During the Community Forum, and in discussions following presentations, residents demonstrate priorities, with voting as necessary. During the Formal meeting, councillors should have the opportunity to revisit issues raised, using their skills and knowledge to introduce awareness of constraints, and refining priorities in the light of other competing requirements. Finally, it's essential that the designated Cabinet Champion should be heard on our behalf in Cabinet, and we should be entitled to a response from Cabinet when one is formally sought.
Philip Herlihy
Community Chair,
Walthamstow West Community Council
July 2006