Local Government is full to the brim with jargon, management-speak and TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms). One such is Cornwall Council’s ‘Forward Plan’ - a Parish Councillor once asked me if there was any such thing as a ‘Backward Plan’ - and this has been a staple of Full Council agendas since I first became a councillor in 2005. Essentially it lists, portfolio by portfolio, the Cabinet Members’ plans for the coming months and, as a Full Council agenda item, gives members the chance to ask questions of the executive and hold them to account. Or at least it used to.

At the last Council meeting the Forward Plan had disappeared, supposedly to streamline the meeting. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, we’re back to the ruling group’s obsessive culture of secrecy again. At the previous few Council meetings (as had always been the case in the past) tough questions were asked of the Cabinet and they were made to account for their actions or, in many cases, lack of them. It has been very clear to anyone who has attended recent meetings of the Council (or followed proceedings on Twitter) that one or two Portfolio Holders have particularly struggled at this part of the meeting, not least because their part of the Plan has been almost totally empty.

What better way to deal with the awkward silences than to remove the entire item from the agenda? Never mind those distant promises of “transparency and openness”, if you can close debate down completely that will surely make life much easier for the elite ten who make nearly all of Cornwall Council’s decisions. Imagine the uproar if Prime Minister’s Questions were removed because Gordon Brown didn’t fancy it much.

We can all still see the Forward Plan (such as it is) we just can’t ask any questions on it in Full Council any more unless those questions have been tabled a few days in advance - hardly a model of openness.

You may have seen an item in this week’s Cornish Guardian about Councillors (myself included) who send messages from Twitter during Council meetings. What I think might have been intended as a light-hearted commentary on what was an excruciating, over-long debate on Members’ allowances seems to have become (at least in its online version) a story about Councillors not concentrating when they should be.

Just to be absolutely clear, the messages used in the article were sent during a three-hour debate on that topic which is so dear to elected representatives’ hearts - our own remuneration. The result of the debate was a foregone conclusion from the moment the two main party leaders stood up and announced they would be voting for a freeze, yet councillor after councillor felt it necessary to regurgitate what the previous speakers had said. (Interestingly the Council spent around half an hour discussing the Housing Strategy - no-one ‘Tweeted’ during this item.)

The charge laid in the ‘news’ item was that councillors were not concentrating on the job at hand. Let’s be clear on this as well - some councillors take longhand notes during meetings, some doodle in the margins, some slip out for a cup of tea and yes, some have even been known to fall asleep. Others, myself included, take short notes in an electronic form and pass them on to the public forum of Twitter. Many seem shocked that those outside the four walls of County Hall might actually be interested in what goes on in the Chamber but the reaction is almost universally positive with most people feeling that it’s probably a good thing to have councillors of all parties who are willing to pass on information which might be important to the people who pay for it all.

Yes, some of what I wrote was a touch flippant and I dare say my friend Pat Harvey, Chairman of the Council, will slap my wrists when I next see her, but I make no apology for not being a robot. Parts of the meeting were humourous and I tried to reflect that in my comments.

Those who don’t ‘do’ Twitter may wonder what the fuss is all about, and you’re probably right. There was, in the end, no harm done. Evidently today was a slow news day.

What the others say:

Steve Double

Alex Folkes

Andrew Wallis

At short notice a public meeting was held in Wadebridge this morning to give members of the public a chance to have a say on Cornwall Council’s plans to reduce the number of office buildings it uses, and in particular to discuss the proposed sale of Higher Trenant. This meeting wasn’t arranged by the Cabinet, who will have the final say on any proposals, instead it was called by John Keeling, Independent Chairman of the Corporate Resources Committee. This committee is going to make recommendations to the Cabinet on its approach to these issues, and the Chairman and membership clearly felt there was something to be gained by listening to the views of the local population. They should be applauded for that.

I’ve covered many of the arguments against the sale of Higher Trenant here before, so I won’t go down that road again, but what came up time and time again at today’s meeting was how flimsy the business case for a sale looks. The Council believe that the former NCDC offices could raise up to £10 million (in other words that would be at the top end of their expectations) whereas they estimate the cost of a replacement building in Bodmin to be £12.5 million. (The £10 million figure would appear to relate solely to the offer from Sainsbury’s.)

Those figures are enough to make you scratch your head, but what happens to those numbers if (as some would say is looking increasingly likely) Morrison’s pip Sainsbury’s to the post? Morrison’s have already stated publicly that, based on their market research, they would withdraw their plan if Sainsbury’s got the go-ahead before them, as they don’t feel there would be room for two new supermarkets. Presumably Sainsbury’s market research has given them a similar picture, and if they withdrew what would the Council do then about a property they seem desperate to declare surplus to requirements, but which would suddenly have no buyer?

In such a scenario (which is not wildly far-fetched) how much could they expect to recoup from the sale of a building that they would already have announced to the world that they didn’t want? You can insert your own figure here but you can be sure it won’t be anywhere near the £10 million that they’ve bandied about at today’s meeting, and it will be even further away from the £12.5 million (at least) that it will take to build a replacement in Bodmin.

It’s no wonder the public raised questions about the business planning and lack of basic mathematics behind this plan. The question now is will they get any answers?

Don’t be put off - the Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee is a good deal more interesting than it sounds. I attended today’s meeting of that committee to have an input on Item 7 (see previous post) but also found myself drawn to the final item on the agenda, which was Cornwall Council’s draft policy on the use of social media.

Social media - Facebook, Twitter, blogs and so on - may seem frivolous to some (although the chances are, if you’re reading this, you’re at least partially au fait with some of these different media forms) but businesses, government departments and local authorities are increasingly viewing these methods of communication as important ways to connect with their ‘customers’ and the world outside.

The Communications Department at Cornwall Council (sounds Stalinist but isn’t) have produced a good working document in this new draft policy which demonstrates a willingness to engage with those “hard to reach” groups who may not respond to some of the more traditional methods of staying in touch. I spent a large portion of the last four years banging on about this and I’m glad that the good people in the Comms Unit have been given the go-ahead to start things moving properly - the Council even has its own Twitter feed these days!

While I strongly welcome the steps the Council are taking, it’s important that local authorities don’t forget the value of traditional methods of communication as not everyone has the opportunity (or the will) to search the web for information. Nevertheless, the further Councils cast their net (no pun intended) the less remote they will hopefully become, and that has to be welcomed.

Today’s meeting of the Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee was dominated by the administration’s plans for the ‘rationalisation’ of the Council’s office buildings. Although I am not a member of the committee, I attended today to join the debate on the future of Higher Trenant. The Chairman, John Keeling, is something of a guru when it comes to scrutinising administrations and I was extremely grateful to him and his Vice Chair, Dave Biggs, for understanding the complexities of this issue and for allowing Collin Brewer and me to speak to the report.

You may recall that I had a spot of bother getting answers to some fairly straightforward questions at last week’s Cabinet meeting, and it quickly became apparent to everyone in today’s meeting that the Higher Trenant report simply wasn’t robust enough for the Cabinet to make a sound decision at their next meeting on Monday. My plea to the meeting, and the Cabinet member present, was that there was no pressing need for this item to be taken at the next Cabinet when there were still so many gaping holes in the report.

The Cabinet member concerned is Jim Currie, who is also the Conservative Deputy Leader of the Council. Mr Currie and I have had one or two disagreements in the past, but it is to his immense credit that he listened to the debate at today’s meeting and agreed to discuss deferring the item with the Leader of the Council. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the issue has gone away but at least we can now hope the Cabinet will have the proper information available to them when they do come to make a decision on Higher Trenant at a future meeting.

After the meeting it emerged that the Cabinet’s decision on the “Office Accommodation Vision” would be called in by the Corporate Resources Committee for re-examination. (My colleague Alex Folkes writes about this here.) It’s likely that the Cabinet will simply reaffirm their decision at the end of this process but, hopefully, somewhere along the line they may learn that the information they give to members and the great Cornish public needs to be a little more ‘open and transparent’.

Nothing is more guaranteed to excite discussion among elected representatives than a debate about their own remuneration. Today there was a long and unedifying debate at Cornwall Council about the level of Councillors’ allowances which concluded with the decision that they should remain unchanged.

I voted for a freeze in allowances, as I did in July of last year when a Lib Dem motion to that effect was voted down by the Conservatives. Now it seems, with a General Election looming, they’ve had a change of heart and decided against accepting the recommended increase. That’s all well and good, but they want to “have another look” after the election is out of the way. You can probably guess which way that one’s going to go.

Our position, as laid out in our manifesto for last year’s elections, was that we would vote for a four-year freeze in allowances and we’ve voted that way twice now. Many disagree with that point of view for very honest reasons. My Independent colleague Andrew Wallis makes the point that it’s difficult for a local authority to encourage younger people to give up jobs to serve their community if the allowance doesn’t equate to a decent wage for the job, and I have some sympathy with that. However, we took the view that Cornwall is a low-wage area at the best of times and that Councillors definitely shouldn’t be voting themselves an increase during a recession.

The Conservative position looks a great deal more cynical. Having last year voted against a freeze (the Leader ludicrously claiming that we should wait for the Independent Remuneration Panel to report as it might recommend a reduction) this year, a hundred days away from a General Election, they want to show off their belt-tightening credentials. They’ve still left the door open to make a different decision next year but the election will be out of the way then, won’t it? I wonder what they’ll decide then…

(You can also read my colleague Alex Folkes’ view of the meeting here.)

On Saturday it rained in my neck of the woods, rained like I’ve never seen it rain here before.

I’m lucky enough to live in an old house in the country, which is my dream life for most of the year. There are one or two drawbacks to this, the main one being that we are quite often prone to minor flash-flooding. It’s a costly irritation which has defied many attempts to remedy and generally leaves us feeling sad and disheartened.

On Saturday the field we sit at the bottom of had just soaked up the thawing snow when, in a very short space of time, enough rain fell to send a Wonka-esque chocolate river heading towards us. Nine hours of mopping up ensued.

We were blessed, if I can use that word in a secular sense, that we had a fantastic group of family and friends who dropped everything on a Saturday night to come to our aid, helping with the flow-stemming mopping, wringing out towels, making tea, not to mention working in the mud to try to find a way to stop the advance of the water. They came without being asked for the simple human reason that they recognised friends needed help, and I’m still trying to work out how I can ever thank them properly.

Much as I love to sit here and have a good bitch about those richer and more powerful than me, it’s good to have the occasional reminder of how great people really are. I was genuinely touched by the warmth of those wonderful people for whom nothing was too much trouble on Saturday night.

As we had a chance to draw breath on Sunday morning I picked up the paper and saw a front page headline about water shortages in quake-devastated Haiti, and it quickly put our temporary difficulties very much into perspective.

Earlier today I went down to New County Hall to observe a meeting of Cornwall Council’s Cabinet. Under the government’s “Strong Leader Model” a council’s Cabinet is the main decision-making body of a local authority (although we are always told that the Full Council remains sovereign). According to the constitution, only councillors who are members of this body are entitled to speak or vote on recommendations, but it is to the Leader of the Council’s credit that he has continued the tradition of allowing backbenchers to speak to items on the agenda (although we have no vote), particularly now there are 123 members of the Council.

So I was grateful to the Leader, Alec Robertson, for inviting me to speak on agenda item 7 today, the stylishly-titled “Office Accommodation Vision 2010-15“. The jist of this item is that the Council are looking to make the best use of the office buildings they have inherited after the merger of the seven previous councils and to dispose of those that aren’t required. (I don’t necessarily have an issue with this in principle, provided the main consideration is what is in the interests of local communities.) The report makes mention of reducing the number of principal office buildings from 78 to 30 by 2015 and also commissions a “feasibility and business case” for the creation of a new Bodmin office.

There were two main parts to my question. Firstly, could the administration provide a list of the 48 premises (a reasonably specific number) that it has earmarked for disposal? Secondly, with regard to the new building in Bodmin, the Cabinet report stated that the feasibility study should “examine the effect a new office would have on service provision in other towns in east Cornwall”. How, I asked, could the Cabinet take a decision in isolation on the future of Higher Trenant (as they will at their meeting on 25th January) before this study had taken place? Shouldn’t the estate be examined as a whole?

Rather than bring in the relevant Cabinet Member, Mr Currie, the Leader attempted to field these questions himself. He said that we couldn’t be told which buildings had been identified because the review hadn’t started yet. Fair enough, I countered, but how then was such a specific figure of 48 arrived at? He repeated that the review hadn’t started yet and attempted to move on to the next speaker, but I reminded him that I had also asked about Higher Trenant. He shrugged his shoulders, muttered something about the next meeting and duly moved on. The assembled councillors, journalists and members of the public were all none the wiser for the exchange.

Much as I am grateful to the Leader for inviting my questions, there doesn’t really seem to be much point if there’s no danger of receiving a meaningful answer. I would have liked to have heard from the relevant portfolio-holder, Jim Currie, who spent most of the meeting arms folded, tutting, frowning and muttering under his breath. I wanted to help him get things off his chest and explain to everybody why the report he was responsible for was such a complete mess of contradictions. I wanted to give him the opportunity to explain why everything in the report pointed to the possibility that these decisions have already been taken and that any subsequent “consultation” will simply be an exercise in window dressing. Sadly I didn’t get the chance. But I’ll try again on the 25th January.

Cornwall Council’s Cabinet will be considering ‘options’ for the former NCDC Higher Trenant site at Wadebridge on Monday 25th January, not Wednesday 13th as had been previously advertised. I’m told that the Cabinet are ‘relaxed’ about the potential disposal of the building and that the recommendation they will consider will be worded along the lines of “The Cabinet agrees to consider all options relating to the site and that it is declared surplus to the Council’s requirements”. The papers for this meeting are due to be published on 18th January and will be available to be viewed via this link.

In the course of discussions I have had with Cornwall Council officers on this topic the following points have been made clear:

The proposed sale of the site has absolutely no bearing on the Council’s budgetary considerations. It was clearly stated to me that this is a “stand-alone issue” which will be considered on its own merits (or hopefully, lack thereof). This therefore leaves the Cabinet in the happy position of having a clear choice on this issue - there is no gun being held to their heads.

A new building at Bodmin is being considered as a replacement. I’m told this new project will result in a modern, energy efficient building being constructed for the “rationalisation of staff accomodation” for those people working in the North Cornwall area. I don’t know how much this will cost but this new-build sounds not unlike the building the Council seem so keen to offload at Higher Trenant.

A full assessment into the possible impact on the local economy will be produced before any sale is agreed. I have asked for this twice and have received assurances on both occasions that this will be forthcoming. Such an assessment would need to consider not only the effects of relatively well-paid local government jobs being replaced by low-paid, mostly part-time supermarket jobs, but also the effects on the wider local economy of the sale of Higher Trenant to a huge national retail chain.

Many within Cornwall Council’s ruling Tory/Independent administration have tried to pin the blame for this situation on the previous County Council but it’s worth remembering that this sale was first presented to members of North Cornwall District Council with a recommendation for approval by their own officers. Thankfully councillors rejected that advice and turned down the offer from Sainsbury’s in January 2009. The new administration at County Hall has been in place for the majority of time since then and has had every opportunity to stop the drawing of staff away from Higher Trenant but instead seems happy to leave the running of things to the Council’s Chief Executive. It’s high time they showed some responsibility for their own choices and stopped behaving like an opposition.

Let’s hope they give this issue the consideration it deserves before making an irreversible decision to sell a major local asset during a recession.

2010, as everyone will no doubt be aware, is the year of what promises to be a seemingly eternal and probably not very pleasant General Election. Nationally we will hear an endless stream of soundbites and policy launches as all the political parties try to catch our eye in the run up to March/May/June. Locally the Conservatives will be targeting their huge resources at voters in an attempt to persuade us to take a lurch back to the days of Gerry Neale and the traditional massive Tory neglect of Cornwall.

As a Liberal Democrat Councillor it won’t surprise you that I’ll be backing Dan Rogerson during the coming campaign, but my support for him goes beyond simple party loyalty.

Here are some of the reasons why I’ll be backing Dan this year:

Dan is local and understands the area. Cornish born and bred, he is raising his young family in Bodmin where he was brought up, and his children attend the same school he went to in Bodmin (the Conservative candidate only moved here from Surrey after being chosen to fight the election for the Tories).

He is hard working and always available. Dan represents Cornwall in London not London in Cornwall. He fights for North Cornwall and has always been here to stand up for local residents, whether it’s on the issues of the NHS, water charges, or the local casework that Tory MPs always seem to view as such a chore.

He is experienced - he has been our MP for nearly 5 years.

The Tories have a shameful record when it comes to Cornwall - housing, water rates, public transport, Council Tax. As Paddy Ashdown said recently, if you want to know why a Tory government would be bad for Cornwall just take a look at your water bill.

Remember, Labour and Mebyon Kernow can’t win here - a vote for anyone other than Dan will only help the Tories.