That 8 minute meeting and the council Executive committee

The Argyll First group has consistently campaigned against the anti-democratic Executive committee at Argyll and Bute council.

Their argument is that it gives effective executive power to selected councillors; and leaves the rest without even a voice.

While it is possible for the excluded to attend, any contribution they might make to the discussion is by prior arrangement and on a quite unacceptable grace and favour basis. And everyone knows what a means in the Tammany Hall that is Argyll and Bute Council.

Councillors who are not on the Executive are effectively unable to represent the interests of the constituents they were elected to serve – at the point where it really matters. This is when decisions are being made by those with the majority in the chamber to force them through regardless.

All business goes first to the Executive. When the issues and the ‘recommendations’ later come to the full council,  the decisions are already made that will, whatever, be voted through by the majority.

There is no serious debate and absolutely no interest from the ruling mixumgatherum coalition in the good practice of a searching examination of the issues before decisions are reached.

Worse again, not all issues even make it to the full council.

THE issue that electrified Argyll in 2010 and 2011 was that of the Executive’s school closure proposals. Two successive sets of these were rendered unsustainable by a hugely able and determined research campaign across Argyll, led by the Argyll Rural Schools Network and supported by the Scottish Rural Schools Network.

Effectively, it was what was thrown up by the Argyll campaign – recognised nationally for its effectiveness by The Herald newspaper -  that led to the Education Secretary calling for a Scotland-wide moratorium on new school closure proposals. This moratorium, which is ongoing, is to last until the report form the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education which the Education Secretary set up at the same time.

The job of the commission is to examine the nature and robustness of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.

The commission takes evidence submitted to it into consideration  including, pre-eminently perhaps,  that from local authorities interested in closing schools to save money.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the lobby organisation which, with no statutory authority but publicly funded, represents the local authorities, is co-owner of the commission with the Education Secretary. This makes local authority submissions weigh large amongst such material.

The campaign in Argyll was particularly intense, on both sides and across the territory. This was driven by the council proposing to close 26 schools in one go, in a sweep across mainland and islands. There was not one single councillor who was not fully engaged in the issue, one way  or another; and not one of the four organisational areas of the council was untouched by the proposals. This was in every way an Argyll-wide issue.

in due course, the council’s education department prepared a draft submission to the Commission on Rural Education. This was brought to the Executive on 16th December 2011 by Executive Director for Education, Cleland Sneddon, who led the two failed closure proposal campaigns.

But Mr Sneddon recommended : ‘…that the Executive consider the draft response to the call from evidence by Commission on Rural Education attached as Appendix A to this report and agree it be submitted on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council (our emphasis).

This was done and the material passed from Executive to Commission without the trouble of coming before the full council who had no due access to it or influence upon its final content.

This was recommended and agreed despite the Argyll wide galvanic  the recent closure campaigns had created  – and despite the fact that the issue is not historical but merely dormant until the commission reports.

Keeping this material tight to the Executive alone has left many councillors as second class, uninformed and voiceless. It is wholly undemocratic and fully manipulative.

And then, on 19th January 2012, we have the pantomime of a full council meeting lasting for 8 minutes because of  incompetent business management and little allowed business to discuss.

In under four months time, Argyll will decide for itself, in the local authority elections in May, whether to choose to stay in the dark ages or try to find a more enlightened regime. You get what you pay for.

Note: For Argyll will shortly be publishing a detailed analysis of Mr Sneddon’s submission, endorsed by the Executive committee, to the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education.