The Dragon Says: We Voters Were Promised Openness – It’s Time to Deliver

Published on: 23 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 25 Aug, 2019

During the May election campaign, a major pledge from both the Liberal Democrats and the Residents for Guildford and Villages (R4GV) was to improve the transparency and openness at Guildford Borough Council.

Such a policy was laudable. And necessary. Transparency and openness are not options for councils: they are part of the Nolan Principles to which all our politicians are duty-bound. GBC has adopted openness as a core value.

But we have seen council officers persuaded to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to secure payouts and leave without explanation, untrue reasons given for councillor dismissal from appointments, inept investigations with results withheld and ready acceptance of commercial-in-confidence status for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment formula.

One major investment decision, relating to a student housing project, was designated entirely commercial-in-confidential so even the principle of the investment could not be discussed publicly.

And these are just some examples we do know about.

An over-cautious culture of risk aversion has been created at GBC concerning confidentiality. This must change. They are not running a military operation; the “need to know” principle must not apply. We voters have a right to learn what is going on unless there is a demonstrable reason why not.

Of course, there are some clear needs for secrecy. Commercial confidentiality is required when letting contracts or considering acquisitions. Personal information relating to employees or the council’s clients is another obvious example.

But they should be the exception, not the rule. And political embarrassment should never be a reason to withhold information.

So how is the new council doing? Cultural change is the most difficult to effect. Yes, there does seem to be a change of atmosphere at Millmead and, granted, these are early days.

Embarrassingly perhaps, Jan Harwood (Lib Dem, Merrow) lead councillor for planning could not give any examples.

Joss Bigmore (R4GV, Christchurch) lead councillor for finance, admitted: “I don’t believe there has yet been made any formal changes in policy or procedure to increase openness and transparency.

“That being said, my personal experience over the last few months has been positive and talking to experienced councillors and officers there has been a marked change in culture.

“However we have a long way to go to ensure this improved internal environment grows to include everyone in the Borough. R4GV campaigned on a ticket to improve the openness, transparency and reputation of the council and we are yet to make good on our promise.”

But some good news is that, with the zeal of converts, Conservative members are now taking up the openness cause over the second legal opinion obtained by GBC on the defence of the council’s Local Plan process at the Judicial Reviews. The hearings, The Dragon has been told, are to be heard over Oct 22-24.

Former GBC Conservative leader Paul Spooner has tweeted:

Geoff Davis, his former special adviser and lead councillor, has written to leaders of the Lib Dems and R4GV groups: “I understand, from various sources, that the second QC Opinion was received by the council over a week ago.

“We are told that the contents are ‘private’, which is most odd as us ratepayers have funded that operation.

“You were all elected on a ticket of ‘greater transparency’, so where is that? What has been going on for the last week?”

Some might say: “There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one who repents…” but one councillor quipped: “There can be no panes left in their glasshouse now.”

What the second QC has told the group leaders, including Mr Spooner, at GBC has still to be announced because it is “subject to legal privilege”. GBC’s press release indicates that nothing has changed, so presumably he has agreed with the first QC.

The press release states: “The council submitted its detailed grounds of defence about the Local Plan statutory challenges, in accordance with the court’s direction to do so by the deadline on 14 August.

“Following completion of the action agreed by the Executive to seek the opinion of a second QC, the council’s position in defending the claims remains the same.

 Counsel’s opinion is subject to legal privilege and has been shared with all the council’s elected members on a confidential basis.”

But why should it remain confidential? The onus of confidentiality is on the QC, not the council, as his client. What damage would be done by revealing the advice?

Cllr Hodge’s letter in support of GBC’s Wisley garden village proposal

Then there is the unfinished matter of the Surrey County Council’s “letter of support” in a bid to obtain government money to make a proposal for a garden village at Wisley The letter apparently represented a U-turn in SCC policy. They had previously opposed the plan. It was presented as evidence backing  GBC’s decision to make the bid.

But a Freedom of Information request revealed the letter, although signed by the outgoing SCC leader had, in fact, been written by Savills, acting as agents of those wishing to develop the site, Wisley Property Investment Limited.

SCC’s deputy leader, Cllr Colin Kemp, wrote to “apologise for the distress” caused by Cllr Hodge’s letter.“

“In terms of due diligence, I know Cllr Hodge would have put a lot of thought into agreeing the letter, and in addition to him no longer being leader or even a councillor, the senior officer he contacted to seek her view is no longer employed by SCC so, regrettably, I have been unable to get her take on the letter.”

They couldn’t be contacted? Really? We dare say they could have been if they wanted to say something. That’s not openness.

Former GBC leader Cllr Spooner has said he and his then deputy, Matt Furniss, were unaware of the letter’s provenance but it came through the GBC planning department. Someone must have known. That gun is still smoking.

The email trail showed Mr Furniss, who lost his GBC seat in May, took it to SCC. Even if he was unaware of its inappropriate authorship it should not have been presented as an unsolicited letter of support from SCC.

So what is the new “open and transparent” Guildford council doing about this? Months have passed. The matter must not be brushed under the carpet.

But for the diligence of one concerned citizen, we council taxpayers could have remained misled. At a point of history when few have much faith in our political processes, it is even more important that practices such as this are called out. How else will standards improve?

So we move to a third issue, voting accountability.

Knowing how our representative councillors have voted at council meetings should be the norm, one would think. But not so. Unless a councillor, backed by at least four others, proposes that a vote is recorded, it isn’t. This is simply not good enough. We should all be able to see how councillors voted. It could affect future decisions at local elections about who has kept their election promises and who voters should support.

Unfortunately, it is not usually possible to see on the webcast all the voting councillors at once. Often, it cannot even be discerned how many councillors have voted which way. This must be wrong.

An electronic voting system was installed when the council chamber was refurbished a few years ago at considerable expense. Why can’t it be used?

Finally, there is the hoary chestnut of politicians’ expenses claims. A quick search on the internet reveals quite a bit of detail of expenses claims made by any MP. Here is an extract of the submissions of Guildford’s Conservative MP, Anne Milton, showing her biggest and smallest items. The level of detail is laudable, even a claim of 60p is shown:

But the policy at GBC is for only the yearly totals claimed by a councillor to be published. It’s time to catch up with Westminster.

More openness leads to more honesty; more honesty to more trust.

Share This Post