Is the City preventing our elected members from representing us?

Of late the City has been interpreting and applying rules which have the effect of preventing our elected members from representing their constituents.  The BA is arguing that these rules are being applied excessively, with the effect that residents of the City are being disenfranchised.

Currently, members are being prevented from speaking and/or voting in decision making meetings where they are deemed to have a pecuniary interest.  For example, if a common councillor  lives in a Barbican flat they are prevented from speaking or voting at meetings which affect the estate ... which means that our elected representatives are prevented from contributing to issues which matter greatly to the people who elected them.

Of course the City disagrees with this.  They say they are only doing what they are required to do.

Here is the most recent message from the chair of the BA to the City.  The first two were effectively "we think you are disenfranchising us" and the City saying "oh, no, we're not".

____

Subject : Re: Your email dated 24th September 2018

Dear Mr Greenbaugh

Thank you for your letter. We have read it carefully and also considered the paper put before the Standards Committee on dispensations at its meeting last week. At this stage we are responding only to your query about the practice in other local authorities.

We, of course, accept that a potential conflict exists if a councillor owns a flat in the City. We also accept that it is important to preserve public confidence in local government, but from the point of view of that part of the public that are your residents, that also means that we need to be confident that our elected councillors can adequately represent our interests - by at least speaking and sometimes voting - on matters which affect some or all of their constituents and do not relate in particular to their own DPI.

The act provides a mechanism for balancing DPIs against the need for citizens to be represented though requiring declarations but issuing a dispensation where it is "in the interests of persons living in the authority's area." Our argument is that this provision is widely used by councils throughout the UK, and we would like the City to also apply this common practice. There is plenty of evidence that local authorities grant dispensations to councillors who are tenants or leaseholders of council property and do so on a "blanket basis" for a councillor's term of office. Certainly an application has to be made, but the policy then says that it should be granted.

I refer you to a paper presented to Manchester's council in 2017 which asked the Standards committee:

"To agree that it is appropriate for any Members of the Council who are

tenants of Manchester City Council to be granted a dispensation

pursuant to section 33(2) (e) of the Localism Act to allow them to

participate and to vote on matters in relation to housing (provided that

those functions do not relate particularly to the tenancy or lease of the

Council Member concerned). Such requests should be submitted in

writing to the Monitoring Officer."

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2973/standards_committee

[The Manchester Standards Committee did agree at its meeting on 15 June 2017.]

Tower Hamlets has a similar policy:

https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s128383/Dispensations%20under%20section%2033%20of%20the%20Localism%20Act%202011.pdf

As does Oxford:

http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/documents/s44063/Dispensations%20-%20Localism%20Act%202011%20Section%2033%2011092018%20Standards%20Committee.pdf

So do Wakefield, Ipswich, Barnet  … and many other local authorities.

We are not asking for special treatment – only standard practice within local authorities throughout the land.

Best wishes

Chair, Barbican Association