Sham Public Review

My initial submission was emailed 26th September 2008 at 5:13pm. No acknowledgement was received, automated or otherwise. Small adjustments were made before the final version of the initial submission was emailed the same day at 10:08pm, prefixed with a short explanatory note as shown.

( Click this box to view the submission )

Experience of democracy in Exeter in recent years has taught us that Local Government doesn’t care a brass farthing what the public thinks. Politicians invite our views, and then impose whatever they please. Or perhaps whatever Council officers please. We concede that our views occasionally make a bit more of an impression when elections are in the offing!

What happens to our views? They seem to disappear into a black hole, never seen nor heard again. As decisions seem to be made before consultation, we might wonder whether our letters and emails are ever read. How do we know?

The Government decided to impose unitary status on Devon when both Devon County Council and Exeter City Council sought more power. It seemed DCC wanted to swallow Exeter, and the City wanted freedom from County influence. We were informed, “Change is inevitable.” The Boundary Committee was tasked with conducting a public review.

Stakeholders were invited to express their views, and detailed letters and emails were submitted from councils, business, trade unions, education, charities, politicians and so on. We may safely assume their interests were considered. Surely, the biggest stakeholder is the public. We are those most affected. As a member of the public, I produced detailed submissions, highlighting the impact of change on the community.

I have incontrovertible proof that the Boundary Committee never read them. The review is a sham which needs exposure. Please study the details below. I do not expect everyone to agree with all I say, but it is clear that the competence and/or the integrity of this Committee is seriously compromised.

Three Emails:

Jim to Boundary Committee - 29th September 2008, 3:16pm

Jim to Boundary Committee - 15th October 2008, 3:04pm

Boundary Committee to Jim - 15th October 2008, 3:56pm

( Click this box to view these emails )

I was keen to know that my submission arrived safely. After waiting a while in case acknowledgements were issued later, I sent an emailed request for one on 29th September 2008.

When no reply was received by 15th October, I questioned the reason for this, hoping “that this review is not going to be a governmental stitch-up, with the views of the public dismissed without rigorous examination.”

I received a reply within the hour, acknowledging the safe arrival of my emails within the Committee’s deadline.

Boundary Committee Email, dated 19th March 2009, which announced publication of its ‘Further Draft Proposals’ and extending the deadline for submissions to 14th May.

( Click this box to view email )

The Boundary Committee posted information and submissions on its Electoral Commission website. This is a useful page.

Following the 26th September 2008 deadline:

(a) Google nullified all tinyurl.co.uk ‘permanent’ hyperlinks

(b) East Devon District Council made a High Court challenge to the process being used by the Boundary Committee

(d) A new 14th May 2009 deadline was set for submissions.

Boundary Committee informed by email dated 12th May 2009 that it had not examined my earlier submission.

( Click this box to view email )

My next submission to the Boundary Committee stated that my earlier submission was not examined, and how I knew this to be the case. I pointed out, “All the web links point to my own material, and form an integral part of my submission”.

This email was duly acknowledged the same afternoon, but subsequent events suggest that it was never read.

Final version of my initial submission with amended links resubmitted to the Boundary Committee 12th May 2009.

( Click this box to view email )

I resubmitted the final version of my initial submission just two minutes later. This time and subsequently, the unique links were entirely independent of Google or other external influence. Again, the email was duly acknowledged.

Additional Information submitted 14th May 2009.

( Click this box to view email )

The initial submission was supplemented with Additional Information by email dated 14th May 2009, as invited by the Boundary Committee. This also included unique hyperlinks, besides making other relevant points and introducing Eddie, the Campaign’s logo. Due acknowledgement was received. We were assured, “We will take your views into account.”

The Boundary Committee was sent an email of ‘Objection to Exeter City Council Tactics’ on 14th May 2009.

( Click this box to view email )

Along with many others, I was less than happy that so much taxpayers’ money was funding the conflicting interests of the Devon County Council and Exeter City Council. Particularly galling was the disrespect shown to democracy.

I sent an email of objection to the Boundary Committee which highlighted potential distortion of citizen’s views, featuring a card distributed by the City Council throughout Exeter. This included scanned images of the card itself. To be fair, the County Council was also promoting its case at our expense. An immediate automated email acknowledgement was given.

Notification that the Boundary Committee had published its advice to the Secretary of State was given in an email dated 8th December 2009.

( Click this box to view email )

In an email (8th December 2009), the Boundary Committee announced publication of its advice to the Secretary of State. Its 46-page Report (including appendices), entitled “Advice to the Secretary of State on unitary local government in Devon - December 2009”, recommended a single county unitary.

The email included the sentence, “In order to give the Secretary of State advice, the Committee conducted a review .... and asked people for their views.” What is the point in asking for views and then failing to read them all?

Commenting on Exeter’s original proposal, the report states, “As part of our advice to the Secretary of State, we have recommended that the original proposal for unitary status from Exeter City Council should not be implemented.”

The report conceded that an Exeter & Exmouth authority had some merit, but went on, “However, there was also strong opposition to removing Exeter from the rest of the county for local government purposes. In our judgement this pattern is unlikely to have the capacity to deliver all the outcomes specified by the Secretary of State’s criteria. We do not believe that it is likely to be supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders in Devon.”

The report says, “We took into account all of the representations that we received on these draft proposals before providing advice to the Secretary of State.”

How can you take a representation into account without even reading it? Whether the Boundary Committee is deliberately trying to deceive, or whether the report’s false and misleading assertion was made in ignorance, is left open to debate.

My “Boundary Committee Discovered to be a Sham” email was sent 7th January 2010.

( Click this box to view email )

All that work, and it wasn’t even read !!

Failure to access the unique hyperlinks, pointing to my own website material, essential to my submissions, has revealed the Boundary Committee’s review to be a sham. I’m disgusted.

Naturally, I protested vigorously to the Committee.

Both an acknowledgement and a response to my “Boundary Committee Discovered to be a Sham” email were received.

( Click this box to view the two emails )

The complaint above received an immediate automated email acknowledgement, which informed me that advice had already been provided to the Secretary of State. Instructions were given in case I would like to submit a view about the advice. As indicated in my email, I certainly would like!

A response was also received eight days later from a real live person, revealing that my email “has been forwarded to the Department of Communities and Local Government for consideration by the Secretary of State.” As this was already my intention, Mr Denham should receive two copies of my scorn for the review. Will either be read?

An email with the Subject: “Shoddy and Bad Advice by the Boundary Committee concerning Devon” was sent to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 18th January 2010.

The deadline for submitting a view regarding the Boundary Committee’s advice was 19th January. My email received an Auto-Response from Devon Structures with no delay.

( Click this box to view the email )

The Secretary of State informed

of the Boundary Committee’s

Shoddy and Bad Advice

This email provides an indicator of the true nature of the present Government. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been advised that the Boundary Committee’s review is a sham.

If legislation is forced through to implement unitary status of either pattern in Devon following this hasty and mismanaged process, the Government has no respect for democracy.

The Secretary of State’s imminent decision will show us whether the Government is arrogant and insensitive, or is humble enough to recognise the inadequacies of the Boundary Committee’s review. The current structure should be retained until there is sufficient time to conduct a thorough and fully scrutinised process.

Input into the process from the public is a vital ingredient of a safe and sound decision. If our views are all water off a duck’s back, we are not being democratically governed. It is totally unacceptable that our views should be invited, and not even afforded the courtesy of being read and examined.

The Boundary Committee has been caught out. It did not even read my submission. As it could hardly be overlooked, we have to wonder whether any contribution from the general public was examined.

Were all our arguments reduced to a few predetermined tick boxes, presumably to provide statistics for the Boundary Committee’s Advice Report’s appendices? How often we find government’s inflexible systems inadequate to cope with the real and individual circumstances faced by the public!

Seriously concerned about the absence of democratic reality in what should be democratic process, I wrote to the Prime Minister. My letter was copied to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. The letter and copies were posted in the afternoon of 10th February 2010.

In particular, the letter emphasised the alienation existing between government and the electorate. Experience of the disregard for the Summerway Club and its volunteers, the wishes of local residents in the case of the Heavitree Arch, and the views of the public by the Boundary Committee were given as examples. An intelligent response to my letter and comments from the Prime Minister were invited. It will be interesting to note if any of the recipients respond in any way.

The response to this letter to the Prime Minister will indicate whether those in high office care in the slightest about what is happening to democracy at grass roots level and up.

( Click this box to view the letter )

Further details about the Government’s decision, comments and a link to view the letter on the Communities website have been posted on another of our website’s pages.

( Click this box for access to letter & comments )

Unbelievable !!

The Department of Communities and Local Government emailed decision letters addressed to the Chief Executives of all Devon local authorities announcing its decision. The letter was dated 10th February 2010. I received a copy in the early evening on account of being a respondent. My letter to the Prime Minister and its three copies were already in the post.

CLG’s decision was to reject the Boundary Committee’s advice for a unitary Devon, as Ministers judged that it did not meet all the criteria. Subject to Parliamentary approval, a unitary Exeter would be created instead - even though a unitary Exeter did not meet the affordability criterion!

The Boundary Committee was pointless !!