Torfaen Democratic Forum presents:
Democracy in Torfaen 2008-2012
(Is Torfaen CBC undemocratic and if so how could it be improved?)
"A draft document for discussion"
Please scroll down to see draft document, for entry archive click here |
This is meant to be your Document! |
Please feel free to make any suggestions. Contributions are particularly welcome from the labour coalition and their supporters in the hope that this document will be a balanced view. If you wish to become more involved in the editing of this document please get in touch. Anonimity is fine, if your contribution is relevant and lucid it will be discussed here maybe and included, whichever "side" you are on! Alternatively you can email us your contribution. |
|
The Document Draft 1
| 1.0 | Is Torfaen County Borough Council Democratic? |
|
| Yes (no change is necessary) | No (Change is required to improve matters) | |
| 1.1 | Every democracy is a compromise and the cabinet system operated in Torfaen is as good a system as you can get and still get decisions made efficiently. |
|
| 1.2 | The system is proven and has given stable government in Torfaen for many years |
It would be difficult to argue that the system could not be improved. |
| 1.3 | A cross party cabinet or Board would make decision making difficult. |
|
| 1.4 | more suggestions by you? |
|
| 1.5 |
|
|
| 1.6 |
|
|
| 1.10 |
|
The cabinet system was bought in undemocratically (The council did an part survey by sending out forms to only some households in Torfaen. The majority of the form returned voted against the cabinet system, but the labour party still voted for it.) |
| 1.11 | If you disagree suggest what should go here |
The cabinet system excludes the vast majority of councillors from participating in the decision making process |
| 1.13 |
|
The leader makes all the decisions and everyone who is in the leading group always back him up and votes for him |
| 1.14 |
|
Discussions in council meetings are a waste of time because decisions are made in the leading group meetings, from then on the labour whip ensures that all of the leading group vote and only speak in support of the leader. |
| 1.15 |
|
The leader and the leading group whip have far too much power |
| 1.16 |
|
The Leader decides who gets what committee chair and therefore who gets the Special Resposibilty Allowances |
| 1.17 |
|
In the current Labour/Plaid/Independent leading group majority of 23 all of them have SRA's. |
| 1.18 |
|
It is wrong for every member of a group to have an SRA |
| 1.19 |
|
The payment of an SRA of at least £5000 per annum based on a position allocated by the Leader must have an influence on how some councillors vote |
| 1.20 |
|
The leader is in a job for life and it is very difficult for him or her to be removed from office |
| 1.21 |
|
The council is to a great extent officer controlled and the democratic processes are just an expensive charade |
| 1.22 |
|
The position of leader and of many cabinet members does not change over the years and the long term friendly relationship prevents the leadership being publically critical of officers. |
| 1.23 |
|
It is wrong for Scrutiny Chairs to be from the leading group and to be appointed by the Leader of that group. (Some councils in Wales only allow scrutiny chairs from the opposition. It would be very difficult for a Chairman of a scrutiny Committee to seriously and in public criticise their leader and paymaster) |
| 1.24 |
|
The Special Responsibility Allowance is a leash by which the leader maintains loyalty and a carrot awaiting those that show loyalty to the party. |
| 1.25 |
|
Add more comments here |
| 1.26 |
|
|
| 1.27 |
|
|
| 1.28 |
|
|
| 1.29 |
|
|
| 1.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.0 | How can Torfaen CBC become more democratic? |
|
| Change suggested, and reasons for change | Arguments against this proposed change | |
| 2.1 | Scrutiny Chairs should not be appointed from councillors supporting the leading group This happens in other boroughs and is an obvious improvement as it is very difficult for a chairman effectively appointed by the leader to critisise the decisions made and risk losing his SRA. This would reduce the number of SRAs available to the Council Leader as rewards for loyalty from his supporters and reduce his almost dictatorial influence on decisions.
|
|
| 2.2 | The Leader should serve a maximum of 4 years in office At present the leader is in a job for life and this is not good for democracy. Why? Contributions invited
|
|
| 2.3 |
|
|
| 2.4 |
|
|
| 2.5 |
|
|
| 2.6 |
|
|
| 2.7 |
|
|
| 2.8 |
|
|
| 2.9 |
|
|
| 2.10 |
|
|
| 2.11 |
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| log |
|
|