[tim gilling]

The CfPS response to the consultation is unlikely to be ready much before the end of September. The main reason for this is that we want our response to be informed by the views of the scrutiny community - so, we need to know what people involved with scrutiny (councillors especially) think of the proposals.

[James Walsh]

jmynott Wrote:The key isn't in the roar, it's in the teeth.

Anyone know where we can get a good metaphorical dentist?

Would that not be a dentist that looks a gift horse in the mouth?

[gareth davies]

Nick Beale Wrote:

Adriana Wrote:Nick, have you just done a research assignment on diversity of councillors? Very interesting/worrying that no progress is being made.

Regards

Adriana

Hi Adriana,

I've just been in this job rather a long time, briefing members on developments and I have a reasonable memory (except when I referred to the "1996 White Paper" - it was actually 1998, sorry).

A thought on the consultation ... currently, Councillors are on average older than the general population and more likely to be retired. If they were younger and more often in full-time employment, wouldn't they have less time to devote to Council work than the current cohort? Where would that leave all the proposed additional roles?

My own view is that you can't countenance trying to shape the cohort of councillors (for age and so on) without first strengthening the protections the role enjoys. When I was an elected member on a small(ish) district I found my employers (a third sector organisation, then a major outsourcing company) not especially co-operative. Like a lot of people who face much worse discrimination in the workplace I found the gap between what the law said, what employment policies said, and what my manager would countenance was troublingly large. However, I can't see how we can fix this easily, since the problem currently is not the law but how you enforce a legal right to time off without fracturing the relationship with your employer / boss.

[Nick Beale]

garethd wrote:

My own view is that you can't countenance trying to shape the cohort of councillors (for age and so on) without first strengthening the protections the role enjoys ... However, I can't see how we can fix this easily, since the problem currently is not the law but how you enforce a legal right to time off without fracturing the relationship with your employer / boss.

One way could be to pay Councillors a salary, turning service into a job. However while that might well change the demographics, I suspect that it would only skew them in a new direction rather than align them more closely with the general population. An extension of the "professional political class" could well be the result.

[gareth davies]

Nick Beale Wrote:garethd wrote:

My own view is that you can't countenance trying to shape the cohort of councillors (for age and so on) without first strengthening the protections the role enjoys ... However, I can't see how we can fix this easily, since the problem currently is not the law but how you enforce a legal right to time off without fracturing the relationship with your employer / boss.

One way could be to pay Councillors a salary, turning service into a job. However while that might well change the demographics, I suspect that it would only skew them in a new direction rather than align them more closely with the general population. An extension of the "professional political class" could well be the result.

Nick,

I certainly wouldn't have become a councillor if those were the terms and conditions. When I lost my seat it was just one of those things - i still had a job and an income, and my life wasn't that upset.

[Ed Hammond]

Of course, the issues of councillors' role and renumeration is covered at length in last year's Councillors Commission paper.

Are there perhaps any useful tidbits from that research which could be used to support responses to this consultation?

[Matthew Wallbridge]

If the CfPS are going to produce a response to "Strengthening local democracy" then is there a possibility of circulating it via this exchange and for authorities to sign up to the CfPS response if they want? Judging by this thread and others I feel sure we all have fairly similar views, so this would strengthen the CfPS response and save us all a lot of time having to respond to the consultation document (a non-cashable efficiency saving!).

[Nick Beale]

mattheww Wrote:If the CfPS are going to produce a response to "Strengthening local democracy" then is there a possibility of circulating it via this exchange and for authorities to sign up to the CfPS response if they want? Judging by this thread and others I feel sure we all have fairly similar views, so this would strengthen the CfPS response and save us all a lot of time having to respond to the consultation document (a non-cashable efficiency saving!).

If anyone would like a response to adapt and/or violently disagree with, email me. I've drafted a report for my members which has so far gone no further than the Scrutiny Team. It doesn't represent Council policy or anything, just mine and my colleagues' thoughts so far on the scrutiny bit of the consultation.

[Ed Hammond]

Thanks Nick - I'd be very interested to see that, as I would to see anyone's more detailed thoughts.

[Nick Beale]

DCLG has posted an impact assessment of the proposals on their website:

http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/p...ns/1339805