Councillors question value of COSLA membership

A spectrum of elected members, from across parties and groups, have submitted a motion for tomorrow’s full meeting of Argyll and Bute Council Council.

Provost William Petrie will be absent for the saddest of reasons, the recent loss of his daughter.

The Depute Provost, Councillor Len Scoullar, standing in for him, will decide whether or not the motion is accepted  under Standing Order No 14.

Proposed on 19th January 2011 by Councillor Dougie Philand of Argyll First and seconded by Councillor Anne Horn of the SNP, the text of the motion is:

‘Council recognises the urgency of producing a balanced budget and the additional difficulty arising from the agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) to reduce Argyll & Bute Council’s allocation from former ring fenced grants, now referred to as Supporting People funding, by £5.588m.

‘Council instructs officers to bring back to the next meeting of the Council a paper examining the cost and the benefits of Argyll & Bute Council’s membership of COSLA.’

There is no doubt that COSLA failed Argyll – twice.

It agreed with the Scottish Government – and without consultation with the local authority whose territory was involved – Argyll,  that the Isle of Seil should no longer be classed as an island.

This has been described as ‘the correction of an error’ – with no regard to the fact that the remote Seil has been treated as an island since the late 18th century.

This high-handed action by COSLA cost Argyll and Bute £400,000 in lost Special Island Needs Allowance (SINA).

COSLA also, and financially much more seriously, recommended, through its Distribution Review Officers Group (DROG), the the ring fencing attached to the old Supporting People grant should be reintroduced. Its 32 Scottish Local Authority members agreed on 25th September this, including Argyll.

This move, regarded widely as eccentric, lost Argyll £5.6 million, the highest loss of any affected council and to the benefit of some councils with representatives on the Distribution Review Officers Group.

While Argyll and Bute Council was negligent in the extreme not to acquaint itself with the consequences for Argyll’s budget of of the proposed new measure, COSLA certainly did nothing to draw attention to the coming impact.

Now Councillors are questioning the point of membership of this body – and rightly so.

Belonging to COSLA

COSLA is: ‘… a voluntary association of any councils in Scotland who wish to and who subscribe to membership of the Association’

Resignation is covered under Section 15 of the COSLA Constitution.

’15. RESIGNATION OF MEMBER COUNCILS

15.1 Any member council wishing to terminate its membership of the Association shall give not less than 12 months’ notice, in writing, to the Chief Executive of the Association, to expire on 31 March in any year.  If a member council intimates notice to terminate its membership in any financial year, the 12 month period of notice will not commence until the first day of the next financial year.

15.2 Any member council shall, upon ceasing to be a member of the Association, forfeit all right to and claims upon the Association and its property and funds and, without prejudice to Section 16, shall pay such amount representing the council’s share of responsibility towards liabilities incurred by the Association on behalf of member councils, including the employment and superannuation of staff, during the currency of the council’s membership, such share to be calculated having regard to the proportion which the subscription paid by that council bears to the total subscription of the Association. ‘

COSLA’s Goals – has it met them?

According to COSLA’s Constitution, its goals are:

1. ‘to protect and support democratic local government and to promote the right and ability of councils, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of their population;
2. to promote the welfare and good government of the people of Scotland.’

While we would challenge the imperialist stance embodied in the second self-given goal, it is arguable that COSLA’s actions as described above doubled the financial penalty facing Argyll in the coming year, crippling rather than promoting ‘its right and ability… to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs’.

COSLA’s constitutional responsibilities – has it exceeded them?

As expressed in the COSLA Constitution, the association’s responsibilities can be summarised as:

• obtaining and representing the views of member councils on a range of topics;
• making representation to government and parliaments on legislative matters;
• discussing with central government matters relevant to the regulation and distribution local government funding;
• acting as the employers’ association on behalf of member councils and representing them in collective negotiations with employees’ representatives;
• collecting and disseminating information, including research results, to and in the interests of member councils;
• providing to member councils a range of cost effective services.

At no point in the responsibilities described in the Constitution is COSLA empowered to make any agreement with government on behalf of one or all members.

It may be that, in the case of the removal of the island status of Seil in Argyll, COSLA has acted beyond its constitutional responsibilities.

The authority in COSLA constitutionally lies with Council leaders

Section 7 in the COSLA Constitution is unequivocal about where the authority lies in COSLA:

• 7.1 The policy and conduct of the affairs of the Convention shall be under the management of the Leaders Meeting.

And this brings responsibility back home to Argyll and Bute’s Council Leader, who:

• approved the changes to the mechanism that calculates the annual budgets of the local authorities and led to Argyll incurring an additional loss of £6 million – double that expected;
• approved that budget – in negligent ignorance of what it would then be.

The COSLA Constitution makes it absolutely clear that the primary responsibility here is that of the Council Leader.  This same section lays down:

• ’7.3 The Chief Executive of each member council or an officer deputising for the Chief Executive shall be entitled to attend and take part in the proceedings of the Leaders Meeting, but shall not have the right to vote’.

It will be interesting to see if the Depute Provost accepts this worthwhile motion tomorrow, to hear councillors views on the issue – and to hear the answers to the questions already lodged under Standing Order 15 by Councillor James Robb – and questions put by other members in the chamber.

Here is the full COSLA Constitution: COSLA Constitution (2004)