FURTHER to the subject of local government re-organisation. The voters do not want 'directional information' or personalised point scoring. They want factual information. Let me explain.
At present, the elected councillors have two primary roles: deciding council policy for the various council responsibilities and ensuring that the executive carries out those policies. The chief executive officer and his heads of department perform the day-to-day administration in accordance with the elected representatives' policy decisions.
We are going to be offered two choices for a new organisation. One choice will involve an elected executive. It is not clear if both mayor and cabinet will be full-time executives, nor is it clear what will happen to the current executive. Will we by paying for both?
If the 'cabinet' is not executive why should they have special access to the mayor? If they are executive, does this imply full-time? How could any councillor carry out such a job part-time?
If they are all elected as full-time executive councillors how does that impact the jobs of the current executive?
Some may argue that a full-time elected mayor may be more democratic. Who would take such a job? Would a local businessman or woman be able to leave their business for five years to do this job? If not, who would?
A full-time politician who, when he loses the next election puts himself up for election in another area? Or retired or out-of-work people or housewives with nothing better to do?
Before arguing democracy we should think very carefully about which names might appear on such a 'democratic' ticket and which names, for business and other reasons, would not.
But, more important than anything else, is the question of cost. What would be the extra cost and would the democratic gain measure up to it? We are not being told the cost so how can we make a decision about the democratic gain.
K Crispin
Glenard
Midella Road
Yelverton