Express and Echo interview online with editor Patrick Phelvin had a brief mention of the reputation of East Devon (about 5 minutes into the interview on the video embedded within the article)
“being an absolute disaster area on matters like planning”
http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-mp-hugo-swire/story-30382446-detail/story.html
And, no, he hadn’t contacted Owl when he said it!
Owl says: all these extra residents accessing fewer and fewer services. Let’s hope most of them are young and going to Cranbrook, Exmouth and Sidmouth – because there will be no maternity services or community hospitals in Axminster, Seaton, Honiton or Ottery St Mary.
“People moving to East Devon increased the population by almost 2,500 people – more than almost anywhere else in England and Wales.
An estimated 8,316 people moved to East Devon from elsewhere in the UK between July 2015 and June 2016.
This compared to 5,848 who went the other way during this time, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
This meant that an extra 2,468 people moved to East Devon than left – the second highest figure anywhere out of almost 350 counties and districts around England and Wales.
As of June 2016 there were 139,908 people in East Devon, meaning that 1.8 per cent of the population was made up of people who had just moved to the county from elsewhere within Britain.
This was the highest share out of anywhere in England and Wales.
The most popular destination for people to move to East Devon from was Exeter.
… A total of 700 people were estimated to have moved from East Devon to Exeter after subtracting those that went the other way, more than anywhere else.
On the other hand, Taunton Deane was the number one destination away from the area.
A net total of 54 people moved to Taunton Deane from East Devon in 2015/16.”
Exmouth
BIG seafront development plans, unpopular with locals, lots of income for land-holding EDDC and big income potential, quick tender and choice of partner:
http://www.devonlive.com/here-s-what-the-exmouth-seafront-development-will-look-like/story-30067091-detail/story.html
Seaton
SMALL seafront development plans, popular with locals, almost no EDDC land- holding or big income potential, no tender, no progress:
http://www.devonlive.com/multi-million-pound-seaton-seafront-redevelopment-plans-revealed/story-30194330-detail/story.html
Gung-ho Exmouth, inertia on Seaton
If anything illustrates EDDC as business-led rather than resident-led this is it.
“Are these the magic money trees? The office blocks, shopping centres and petrol stations currently filling up the local government property portfolio with their promise of a harvest abundant enough to keep the fruit bowl full for years to come? Quite possibly, with a good soil for rooting, plenty of sunshine and lots of green-fingered attention. But also quite possibly not. Which is why you can expect a visit from your auditors, once they have remembered where they put their wellies.
It is a common scenario for auditors to have no knowledge of a substantial and risky project until it is too late for them to have any influence over it. Commercial sensitivities often lead to projects being run on a “need to know” basis, with external auditors joining internal auditors, scrutiny committees and sometimes even the section 151 officer on the other side of a firmly locked door.
The auditor may only find out about a project when the ink is drying on the contract, when there doesn’t seem much more to do than offer a sheet of blotting paper.
However, there is still a lot that the auditor can do that would be of benefit, even if there is nothing to be critical about.
For instance, the Spelthorne Borough Council £360m purchase of the BP campus with new borrowings of £377m against a budget requirement of around £13m is such a huge transaction that its mere existence surely justifies a public interest report from the auditors to reassure the local population that their new role as BP’s landlords will not weigh heavy upon them. There is no reason why public interest reports have to be reserved for bad news.
Unfortunately, auditors are not particularly keen on bringing good news. The best you will get is “negative assurance”: a declaration that, based on the investigations carried out, there is nothing that provokes the need for criticism. But this would still be a valuable contribution and is arguably what is required by the reporting duties in Schedule 7 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
The least that we can expect is that auditors will eventually say enough to manage their reputation risk – limiting the possibility that someone at some point in the future could ask “where were the auditors?”. A couple of paragraphs in the audit letter affirming that it is an authority’s responsibility to make its own investment decisions and summarising the less reliable judgements by which those decisions have been taken.
So what will the auditors be particularly interested in?
Legal Powers
Since the introduction of the general power of competence, people seem more relaxed about identifying the legal powers supporting a decision. However, it is still important to know what powers are being exercised, particularly in understanding the implications of the limitations on those powers for a particular proposal.
For instance, the general power comes with restrictions on charging other than to recover costs and requires commercial activity to be run via a company. And the investment powers in the Local Government Act 2003 only extend to purposes relevant to an authority’s functions or the prudent management of its financial affairs. Advice confirming legality will be expected.
It is sometimes forgotten, by those without a legal background, that even if a power can be identified, then that power has to be exercised reasonably under the Wednesbury rules. Auditors will look for legal advice being properly grounded.
If an authority is borrowing to fund its purchases, there may also be questions about the propriety of borrowing to invest. Not so long ago this is something that would have rung alarm bells across the audit community. Judging by their appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, though, it does not seem a matter that DCLG and the Treasury are overly concerned by.
Finally, how are these projects integrated into the Prudential Framework? Arguments can be put that asset prices will rise to more than cover the cost of acquiring property and making good its depreciation, such that Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) is not needed. But this is risking a potentially major funding problem if the value/cost relationship shifts adversely in the future. How can an authority demonstrate its legal duty to act prudently?
Value for Money
Auditors will be concerned to examine all the significant judgements, estimates and projections involved in a decision to invest. They will also review accounting treatments to ensure they align costs and benefits appropriately and look critically at funding and financing arrangements.
Exit strategies will also be relevant, particularly noting that if rental income falls sale of a property will only generate a capital receipt rather than revenue income that might fill the gap in the budget.
Any reporting in this area will be restricted to the adequacy of the arrangements put in place by the authority to achieve value for money and will not provide any comfort that it has actually been achieved.
Decision Making
Auditors will check that the authority has complied with its democratic framework and schemes of delegation, particularly if the proposal has proceeded on a “need to know” basis.
So, if you are in the process of bulking up your property portfolio, prepare for the muddy tread of your auditors as they come to gaze sceptically upon your magic money tree.
Stephen Sheen is the managing director of Ichabod’s Industries, a consultancy providing technical accounting support to local government.
Owl says: two totally different plans? A new planning application called for. Show your mettle EDDC!
“The number of affordable homes in a 59-dwelling development being built south of the B3178 is set to be slashed by nearly half under altered plans.
At a meeting of the town council’s planning committee, it was also revealed that the amount of one- and two-bedroom ‘starter’ houses could be reduced from 39 to 12.
Town councillors raised concerns over the change while discussing plans to move plots due to the costs of relocating a foul drain on the site, which will be known as Evans Field when it is built.
The council backed plans to move the plots in phase one of the project, but expressed ‘disquiet’ about the changes lined up for phase two.
Planning committee chairman Councillor Courtney Richards said that changes, which could see the amount of people living on the new site increase, did not ‘sit easy’ with him.
He added: “It’s exactly the same number of dwellings; however, there’s one extra five-bedroom house, 11 extra four-bedroom houses, 15 extra three-bedroom houses, 22 fewer two-bedroom houses and five fewer one-bedroom houses.
“I find that a very significant change in the plan to what has been previously agreed. The two sets of plans are very, very different.”
Previously, an application to reduce the amount of affordable homes on the site from 50 per cent to 40 was rejected.
Thirty affordable homes were originally planned for the site, but under the variation proposal, this could be reduced to 16. The requirement for 50 per cent affordable homes would still be met as shared-ownership homes would make up the other 14 needed.
Deputy mayor and district councillor Tom Wright added: “We’re keen to have starter homes for people. The need in Budleigh is for young families to move into smaller homes to get onto the housing ladder.”
Owl says: chances of EDDC investigating its postal voting screw-up? Zero!
“Plymouth City Council has set up an independent investigation over administrative issues in the lead-up to the general election earlier this month.
The investigation, which has been jointly commissioned with the Electoral Commission, was launched after problems emerged with the sending out of postal vote packs to people who had applied for them.
The Guardian reported that the loss of 1,500 postal voting packs was being blamed on a computer problem.
The council had already apologised after the final number of votes declared for the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency was incorrect. In that instance some 6,587 votes for Efford and Lipson were not included in the final declaration for the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency.
The investigation will be led by Dr Dave Smith, former chief executive of Sunderland City Council. Dr Smith sits on the Elections and Referendum Steering Group. He is also a non-executive board member for the Cabinet Office Electoral Registration Transformation Board and leads on elections and democracy for Solace.
His investigation will cover all issues relating to the election including:
The processes and controls around election planning.
The factors that led to postal voting packs not being received.
The sequence of events and consequences at each stage.
An assessment of the overall numbers of voters affected.
The approach, effectiveness and timeliness of remedial action taken to rectify the issue, once the council became aware of the scale of the problem.
The advice and guidance provided by the Electoral Commission regarding the council’s responsibilities, and their adopted method of resolving the issue.
The staffing and operation of the election call centre leading up to the day of the election, and on polling day itself.
The effectiveness of communications, and the way in which customer enquiries were dealt with.
Evidence of customer interactions including the outcomes and levels of satisfaction.
The general effectiveness of the elections and electoral registration function, including the capacity and capability of the team.
The robustness of systems and processes, with a particular focus on applications for, and distribution of postal votes.
Any other matters that might have influenced the elections process or response to the issues encountered.
Dr Smith will present the findings and recommendations from his investigation to a meeting of the full council “within the next few months”, Plymouth said.
The council has called on anyone who has further information or comments to provide this to the investigation through a portal that has been set up on its website. All information and comments submitted through the portal will go direct to Mr Smith.
See also: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/electionreview
Council Leader Ian Bowyer said: “I am deeply concerned by the problems that have occurred with the administration of the General Election and want to be assured that we urgently get to the bottom of what happened and why. The Chief Executive and Acting Returning Officer announced at an early stage that a full and independent external investigation will be held, which is essential as we must ensure that these problems can never recur.
“I have asked that the investigation makes every effort to hear evidence from as many people in Plymouth as possible who have been affected by the problems. This way the investigators will be able to better understand the problems, how and why they happened and how many people were affected.”
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough earlier this month called in the Association of Electoral Administrators to conduct an independent review of the Parliamentary election.
The council said this followed “adverse coverage in the media and also social media about the process of the election”.
Criticisms focused on: the issue of postal votes; individuals whose application to join the Electoral Register was awaiting determination; and voters who had been added to the Electoral Register after the issue of poll cards being able to vote in polling stations.”
Posted by Martin Shaw, DCC Independent East Devon Alliance councillor for Seaton:
“The Health Scrutiny Committee meeting at County Hall yesterday was incredibly frustrating for the 60 or so supporters of Seaton, Honiton and Okehampton hospitals who attended. It resolved nothing and there will be another meeting before the end of July to consider the matter again (I will tell you when the date is fixed).
You can watch the meeting at https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/288543.
The speakers in the public participation at the beginning were good, much better than most of the committee discussion. My speech is at 0.34.50. You may have seen that we also made a good splash on regional TV.
There WAS progress, I think, in pinning down the irrationality of the decision to close Seaton’s beds. Speeches supporting Seaton were made by Martin Pigott, Vice-Chair of Seaton Town Council, Mike McAlpine, Chair of the committee for the Axe Valley Health Hub, Cllr Ian Hall of Axminster, as well as myself.
The issue was picked up on the committee, especially by Cllr Hilary Ackland, who twice challenged Dr Sonja Manton of the CCG on the issue. Manton declined to answer Ackland’s specific question.
I feel we can build on this at the re-run meeting. We also have an opportunity to challenge the CCG (who are answering questions from councillors) at EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee on Thursday at 6pm. EDDC doesn’t have any power but I think we should keep up the pressure on the CCG. I have put down to speak. If anyone else can do it – email Debbie Meakin dmeakin@eastdevon.gov.uk.
Would anyone who can come to this meeting – whether to speak or not – let me know (cllrmartinshaw@gmail.com)?
Thanks to all who came and who sent emails (they really had an effect).
A frustrating day, but further chances on Thursday and in July to challenge the CCG
“… Because the goals of officers and members are often incompatible, organisational conflict is inevitable and inherent, but it’s also important to remember it’s not, of itself neither “good” nor “bad”.
Political competence on the part of both political and managerial leaders is essential to the successful achievement of workable compromises. Politically competent managers expect resistance to their attempts to achieve the best outcomes, but nevertheless keep on using their small “p” political skills and attributes, including influencing and resilience, until they get the right results.
It’s important to remember that those tensions and conflicts — and the inevitable frustrations — do serve an important purpose. Political and managerial leadership should be collaborative but not collusive. Members and officers all need someone who can tell them when they are wrong to maintain a healthy balance between collaboration and mutual challenge.
Successful political leaders and senior officers are distinguished by their ability to construct trust, through collaborative approaches to leadership, to enable them to manage the tension and potential conflict between the different political and managerial logics.
Baddeley and James (1987) describe four types of political behaviour, which are distinguished by varying degrees of integrity and politically awareness. They use animal characteristics to describe the behaviours which help or hinder the effective management of the political and managerial interface.
A lot depends on the extent to which people are both politically aware and acting with integrity. We may hope that all senior political leaders and managers are “owls” — both politically aware and acting with integrity, but those operating at the political and managerial interface have to be prepared to recognise “foxes” and to limit the damage caused by compliant and naïve “sheep” or self-serving and politically incompetent “donkeys”.
You have an important role and invaluable expertise but that isn’t enough to ensure members will listen to your advice, no matter how right you are. Don’t forget that political and managerial logics are very different. We might like to think that everyone we work with is an ‘owl’ but we’ll all meet plenty of ‘foxes’ – as you’d expect in a political environment – and more than enough ‘donkeys’ and ‘sheep’.
The secrets of success for managing relationships with members: develop relationships of trust but don’t collude. And tell them the truth but not in a way that causes them to reject both you and the message. You are a professional but you should not try to assert your professional status by talking down to members or making them feel foolish — no good will come of it. You may need to spend more time on complex issues than you’d expect. Use questions to start difficult conversations: “How do you think we should tackle this?” rather than starting with a statement, “this is what we should do”. Enjoy!…”
http://www.room151.co.uk/resources/officer-member-relationships-trust-is-the-key/
Owl says: with current re-thinking on austerity (aka massive Tory u-turn) and new dialogue about social responsibility and inequality (Labour) might it be time to go back to local authorities working for residents instead of being just big businesses sucking up our money for vanity projects for greedy developers?
“Hundreds of protesters formed a conga cordon around Exmouth seafront on Saturday to around businesses that will have to close at the end of the summer as a result of multi-million pound redevelopment plans.
… Nick Hookway, Save Exmouth Seafront spokesman, said that the group are invigorated after Saturday following the support that they received from the public.
“The event was so successful that we are thinking about having stands on the seafront every weekend throughout the summer so people can find out about the proposals.”
He added that the feeling he got from speaking to people at the event was that no-one was in favour of the proposals as they currently are.
He said: “Why are the council carrying on with the proposals when there is no developer interested, apart from the watersports centre which is just a small part of the plan.
“When the fun park closes, the rest of the seafront will just be derelict and it is horrifying the thought of the seafront being all boarded up.
“We are concerned that the area will be left empty and there will be an air of dereliction about the whole site. Why should Exmouth residents have to put up with a derelict seafront as a result of this? There is already an air of dereliction on the site as metal hoardings appear. This is a situation that will get worse when these last two businesses close.
“It is very encouraging the level of support that we received and we will continue to put our point across and hope we will be able to influence the developers when they do put in their watersports centre plans.
“Most people recognise and do want to see the area given a makeover. But we want something that is built in line with the environment and with the full support of and after consultation with the people of Exmouth. You could come up with something imaginative that would be supported.
“We are invigorated after the event that was such a success and will continue to get our voice heard.”
Owl says” interesting choice of words “have your say” – it doesn’t mean they will do what people want!
“Residents are being invited to have their say on Port Royal later this month at two consultation events.
A concept idea has been developed by consultants as part of a scoping study to assess the feasibility to redevelop the area.
The consultation days will run from 3pm to 8pm at Kennaway House on June 26 and 27.
Sidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council are major landowners of the site and have been working to identify the boundaries, ownership and needs of existing occupants as part of the study.
Councillor Jeff Turner, chairman of the Port Royal reference group, said: “Everyone agrees that Port Royal is important to the town’s residents and to its tourist business. The area, including the Ham, provides vital community and recreational space
“For townspeople and visitors alike and is widely regarded as the main priority for improvement if Sidmouth is to realise the full potential of its sea front which is one of the finest on the south coast.
“There is now an opportunity to see some of the consultant’s initial findings and a concept idea and the consultation gives everyone the opportunity to say what they think. This is the first step in the process and no detailed designs of buildings have been drawn up at this stage.”
Residents will have until Monday, July 31, to fill in a consultation questionnaire on the day or online.
Following the deadline feedback will be considered by the consultants who will make a set of recommendations. These are expected to be considered by the town and district council later in the year.”
Seafront Protest.
Meet at 11.45 at Fun Park for 12 start.
Owl wonders if our EDDC error of insecure postal voting forms will receive attention from the Electoral Commission – which seems to have its hands rather full after this crucial election:
“Thousands of votes were not included in the result for a newly-elected Labour MP, Plymouth City Council has said.
Luke Pollard won Plymouth Sutton and Devonport with 23,808 votes. However, the actual figure including the missed votes cast in his favour was 27,283.
Mr Pollard said the votes from the Efford and Lipson ward were counted in his constituency, but they were not included in the result.
He would still have won comfortably over Conservative Oliver Colvile.
Mr Colvile’s official result on Thursday was 17,806 votes. However, with Efford and Lipson added in he won 20,476 votes.
The Electoral Commission has said it will investigate. [BBC]”
“What is puzzling about this is how a mistake on this scale could happen. A core element of election counts is to check how many ballot papers you have at the count in total and whether that matches the number issued to voters at polling stations and returned through postal votes. Then you count the votes for the candidates and it is a basic check to ensure that the total of those matches that number of ballots cast.
From the council’s response so far, it sounds like a spreadsheet error may be the answer – but even so, it would require a sequence of spreadsheet errors for not only the vote total to be wrong but also for the ballot paper total to also be wrong and so still match. Or perhaps for no such cross-check to have been made. Either way, that’s not a ‘computer’ error by the looks of it; rather a failure to plan a robust way of handling the data which has safeguards against errors.”
http://www.markpack.org.uk/150405/plymouth-sutton-and-devonport-constituency-result/
The theory of ‘groupthink’…
First formulated by the psychologist Irving Janis, it specifically applies to tightly knit executive teams composed of a dominating leader and ultra-loyal assistants with a drive to maximise in-group solidarity.
Suppose that in a first stage the team accomplished something extremely difficult, as May did in scheming her way to bid for the Conservative leadership. Especially important here was the intra-party arm-twisting of all the other candidates after the Brexit vote, so that she could ascend by coronation instead of having to fight an internal party election.
Janis argued that succeeding in this first stage struggle, against the odds, and with a centralising and controlling leader, then induces in the leadership team a distorted view of their own insights and capabilities.
Buoyed up by high morale, contemptuous of ‘outsiders’, and completely discounting any critical feedback received, the leadership team then goes on to make genuinely monumental second stage mistakes – as Blair did in committing to the Iraq war, and later sending troops to Afghanistan; or as Cameron did in his 2013 commitment to hold a Brexit referendum, and then his mismanagement of the doomy Remain campaign in 2016.”
Monumental second-stage mistakes? Such EDDC and its £10 million relocation plan – that replaces one HQ with an expensive new HQ and two expensive but smaller satellites in Exmouth and Sidmouth perhaps?
It’s almost as if they know that EDDC is considering making provision fo a travellers site in the town – and the town has said no.
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/11/10/cranbrook-says-no-to-gypsies-and-travellers/
“PegasusLife submitted its challenge to East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) ruling to the Planning Inspectorate on Wednesday before today’s deadline.
Councillors defied officer advice to refuse the scheme in December – arguing it would overdevelop Knowle and represent a departure from the site’s 50-home allocation in the Local Plan. They also had concerns about the lack of ‘affordable’ housing provision.
An EDDC spokeswoman confirmed that PegasusLife has lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, but said it can take weeks for the process to begin.
The developer has agreed to pay EDDC £7.505million for the site of its current HQ if the application is approved. The proceeds would go towards the authority’s £10million relocation to Exmouth and Honiton, but councillors have since voted to press ahead with the project before a buyer is guaranteed.
This means construction work, funded by a loan, will begin at Heathpark in Honiton before Knowle is sold. Work on Exmouth Town Hall is already under way.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/developer-submits-appeal-to-7-5m-knowle-plan-refusals-1-5055742
“… In East Devon postal votes were sent out to voters without an official security mark. The acting returning officer for the East Devon constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week reassuring postal voters that if they had not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. “We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted,” William said.
Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, expressed his dismay at the situation, calling for the new government “to centrally digitise the issuing of ballot papers and remove the potential for fraud in all levels of elections”. …”
EDA could, of course, also have mentioned:
the lost 6,000 voters of 2015:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/07/07/the-missing-6000-voters-eddc-named-and-s/
which led to Electoral Officer EDDC CEO being summoned to Parliament to not-very-satisfactorily explain himself:
AND the other mistakes that took place in 2015:
EDDC Scrutiny Committee – we await your input!
Wednesday, 14 June 2017; 5.30pm
page 26:
EDDC has underspent its Disabled Facility Grants by £336,000 as “Demand not as high as budget/grant allocation from Devon County Council”.
page 42:
Freedom of Information
658 requests have been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act (Environmental Information Regulations) during the year 2016/17.
This figure has risen from 588 in 2015/16.
There continues to be a trend for requests originating from commercial organisations asking questions relating to council contracts; information pertaining to businesses and their payment of business rates; and topics of general news interest like the impact of changing legislation.
The council’s major projects, such as the office re-location and the regeneration of Exmouth seafront are also continuing to generate interest amongst local residents, and campaign groups, although these requests form a relatively small proportion of the overall number received.
The service areas receiving the highest number of requests are Council Tax, Environmental Health and Planning. …”
Click to access 140617combined-cabinet-agendapublicversion.pdf
“In the 2016/17 council year:
1. How many councillors were issued with reminders for missing council tax payments due in the 2016/17 council year? – 4
2. Of those referred to in question 1, how many councillors complied with the reminders to the point where no further action was required? – 4”
“Postal votes sent out to voters in East Devon without an official security mark were printed by East Devon District Council, it has been confirmed.
The Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week to reassure postal voters who have not yet returned their postal votes after the postal votes after packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
It has now been confirmed that it was East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers.
Latcham Direct Limited, who are is a specialist digital print, direct mail production, print management, document management, and fulfilment operation, have been commissioned by EDDC for services that in their annual reports are for printing and for postage.
A spokesman for Latcham Direct said: “Latcham produced the postal vote statements and enclosed the matching BRE’s into outer envelopes keeping in strict sequential order, and returned back to East Devon.
“East Devon printed the ballot papers and hand enclosed them into the filled packs from Latcham Direct ready for distribution.”
It is believed that this means that it was East Devon District Council who were responsible for the mistake that has been put down to ‘human error’.
East Devon District Council were contacted for comment but a spokesman said that they did not wish to add anything further to the previous comments that they had issued.
A statement issued by Mr Williams had said: “It has come to my attention that the postal vote packs we issued on 25th May contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper. This has affected a total of 9,000 postal voters.
“I want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted. I apologise for the error but want to reassure postal voters that they should still complete their postal voting statements and return their postal voting envelopes back to me for validating as part of the normal postal voting process.
“To be valid, a postal vote has to be accompanied by a valid postal voting statement containing the voters date of birth and signature. After these are checked, the envelope containing the postal voting slip is opened and the slip is put into a sealed ballot box where it is kept safe until the formal count. My postal vote opening teams will ensure that all validly completed postal votes are double checked so that they will go forward to the count along with all the other votes that will be cast on polling day itself.”
But calls have been made for Mr Williams to resign from his post after the ‘unforgiveable mistake’ and the chairman of the East Devon Alliance has said they are appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake after the ‘disaster’ of the 2015 elections, in which Parliamentary, District and Town council elections were all held on the same day.
The Electoral Commission have been informed of the postal voting error.
But the ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election.
Mr Arnott said: “The East Devon Alliance is appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake. In 2015, after the debacle of the elections for town, district and Parliament, we wrote a measured report, in which our concerns included his prematurely calling results at his chaotic count for district elections with no reference to candidates or agents even when majorities were easily within the need for a recount.
“As a result we are not confident that two current serving councillors were duly elected. He had no control over who was at the count itself, and we know about the 2015 disaster with the postal vote. All our concerns in 2015 were mirrored by a report from the Elecotral Commission.
“As a result, I was successful this year in demanding that the County Solicitor’s office and the Electoral Commission observed the County election last month. Under this level of scrutiny the conduct of the 2017 county election was unrecognisable from the disgrace of 2015.
“Now we are witnessing the final tragedy for democracy in East Devon because Mr Williams remains in position to make what must be his final mistake.
“How is the electorate meant to trust that he forgot to check before sending out no fewer than 9,000 postal votes that they did not bear any proper markings? It’s his job to check them and to have a commissioning relationship with the printers.
“How did these ballot papers, which frankly any of us could have run off from a home printer, ever get to be created? This must be the last election he ever runs and we will be issuing a report on this and take it to the highest level. The dog has eaten his homework for the last time.
“Meanwhile the only honourable act for Mr Williams himself is to resign from all future electoral activities, including voter registration, his laxity in which was condemned by a committee in Parliament. I never thought I would live to be a 55-year-old citizen of one of the most beautiful parts of the world and be unable to assure my children that they are able to trust the electoral processes here anymore than in some underfunded and unfortunate part of the developing world.”
A spokesman for East Devon District Council said that the mistake was ‘simply the result of human error for which we apologise’.
They added: “A total of 9,000 postal votes were involved but as we have outlined in our statement the issue has been remedied. We want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so as we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted.”
A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said: “The Electoral Commission is aware of the issue surrounding postal ballot papers in East Devon which were issued without an official mark. We were contacted by the Acting Returning Officer and provided advice, and steps have been taken to ensure that these ballot papers will still be counted and nobody will be disenfranchised in the UK Parliamentary General Election.”
“The top three reasons that local government scrutiny is felt to lack impact are a perception that it exists to rubber-stamp cabinet decisions, fails to address pressing issues and ignores the public.
Those findings have come from the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS)’s 2017 perceptions survey.
This also found that overall confidence in scrutiny’s ability to make an impact was down by 8.5% on the 2016 survey.
The greatest constraints on successful scrutiny were under resourcing, cited by 53% of respondents, internal culture, mentioned by 41%, and lack of skills (15%).
Responses showed that 74% of people thought party politics affected scrutiny, though 76% thought scrutiny’s role was understood.
Two factors found to be common in successful scrutiny operations were focusing on priorities and fostering a culture where challenge is valued.
The more positive this culture the more scrutiny was valued although 39% of respondents felt cabinet members were broadly negative about the role of scrutinisers.
Scrutiny was imposed on all but the smallest councils as part of the reforms of the Local Government Act 2000, which introduced the cabinet system.
The Communities and Local Government select committee had, before the general election was called, launched an inquiry into the effectiveness of scrutiny in councils.
CfPS is an independent charity that seeks to promote the use of scrutiny in public services.”
East Devon Watch 