The thorny subject of committee memberships is likely to provoke yet more animated debate at next week’s (November 4) full meeting of Guildford Borough Council (GBC).
Councillors will be presented with two options for a new share-out, following the defection by Colin Cross (Lovelace) from the Liberal Democrats to the new Independent Alliance.
The move leaves the GBC party standings at GBC as: Cons 32, Lib Dems 8, GGG 3, Ind Alliance 3, Lab 2. But the increase to three members in the Independent group, and commensurate decrease in the Lib Dem number, requires a re-allocation of committee seats, allotted proportionally.
The agenda states: “… the Democratic Services Manager will submit a report to the council showing what allocation of seats would best meet, as far as reasonably practicable, the requirements for political balance”.
The political groups at Millmead seem to value membership of the Planning and Overview and Scrutiny committees most highly, so Independent members are likely to be dissatisfied with the first option presented which keeps them off both, retaining the previous allocations to the Lib Dem and Labour groups.
The Conservative council leadership seems determined to keep the Independents off the Planning committee, in particular. At the full council in October, when the allocation was last made following Cllr Bob McShee’s (Worplesdon) defection from the Tory group, Council Leader Paul Spooner (Ash South & Tongham) admitted that the leadership had preferred the Labour Party membership on the Planning Committee because it was one of the main, established political parties.
But Cllr Nils Christiansen, speaking freely since his deselection as a candidate for Holy Trinity in next year’s council election, criticising the reduced size of GBC’s Planning Committee in an opinion piece earlier this month, wrote “… local representation is at the whim of party leaders who carve up the Planning Committee between them “to ensure political balance”.
“This is no longer democratic accountability, it is political patronage.”
A second option to be offered would give the Independent Alliance a seat on the Planning Committee at the expense of the Lib Dems but is less likely to be supported by the Tories or, of course, the Lib Dems themselves. Executive members will almost certainly reject this option but how the Tory rank and file vote will be of interest.
Additionally, Lib Dems and Labour group members are likely to prefer Option 1 which retains their representation on the two more sought-after committees.
Amendments to the proposal may be put forward before and during the debate.
Tony Rooth (Pilgrims), the leader of the Independence Alliance said: “The Planning Committee is usually regarded as non-party political and often referred to as ‘quasi-judicial’. We three Independent Alliance councillors have all sat on the Planning Committee before and have 25 years combined experience but none of us has ever been on Licensing.
“The Independents have the same number of councillors as GGG who have a seat on planning and more than the Labour Group who could nonetheless retain their membership. If we are not allocated a planning seat it will show that, once again, party politics will have played in keeping us off a committee for which we are well qualified.”
See also: Full Guildford Borough Council Meeting Round-Up and Guildford’s Planning Committee is Not Democratically Accountable
This website is published by The Guildford Dragon NEWS
Contact: Martin Giles mgilesdragon@gmail.com
Log in- Posts - Add New - Powered by WordPress - Designed by Gabfire Themes
Jeff Hills
November 30, 2018 at 2:28 pm
It seems that the Executive Committee cannot stand any opposition at all. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their power.
Maybe people will remember this and vote accordingly at the next local elections in 2019.
I wonder what will happen if we have a General Election forced on us and a Corbyn government is forced on us, will that change things.
John Perkins
December 1, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Option 1 shown here is clearly not compliant with Section 15(5) of the 1989 Act and so Section 17(1) must be applied, allowing any member to veto it.
Julian Lyon
December 1, 2018 at 6:50 pm
I assume Cllr Furniss as the lead member for governance will be fair and even-handed (with no hint of political gamesmanship) as would befit an honourable person in such a position. There should be nothing for the Independent Alliance to fear should there?
Perhaps we need to see the weight of evidence, since the 2015 local elections and Cllr Furniss’s appointment to the Governance lead role, of any matter where he has been less than utterly scrupulous and reasonable in his approach. Perhaps anyone with any such query over the fairness of governance and similar protocols at Guildford Borough Council over the past three and a half years would respond to this comment?