Open letter to the PCC

[seanie]

Open letter to Portobello Community Council.

An open letter to Portobello Community Council

I have become increasingly concerned that Portobello Community Council has not been adequately fulfilling its statutory duty. I have decided to detail my concerns more fully. I make no apologies for writing this as an open letter. As a public body the conduct of the PCC is not simply a matter of concern to the PCC itself; it is of importance to the community and others.

The role of a Community Council is not an easy one. We have a duty to reflect the views of the community yet have limited resources with which to engage and consult. There are also the difficulties given the constant stream of initiatives, consultations, planning applications etc. that come before the PCC inviting a response.

In the past the Community Council took a consensual approach; unless agreement could be reached no position would be taken. This sometimes meant the PCC refrained from commenting on contentious issues but, if not always representing the views of the community, the risk of misrepresenting them was at least small. But we have moved away from that to commenting and adopting positions where there is a lack of consensus.

That, in itself, is quite legitimate. If opinion is divided within the community it is entirely appropriate for the Community Council to reflect that. But that then raises a whole host of questions about how the PCC operates that weren’t so pressing before.

Taking opinions within the PCC as a reflection of wider views within the community is one thing. Taking the balance of opinion amongst two dozen self-selected people as a proxy 12,000 people is quite another. The issue of consultation with and feedback to the community becomes a much more pressing issue.

In such circumstances greater efforts to make the community aware of issues and invite their opinions are vital. If the PCC is to retain credibility we must engage with the community, raise issues, ascertain views, evaluate the balance of opinion if possible, and account for our actions. To date our efforts in this regard have been deficient.

At times the PCC may need to take positions where the balance of opinion is unclear. Taking a vote to establish a position can be legitimate. But that must be approached in a cautious manner, acknowledging the limitations of such a vote, and being scrupulously fair in representing all views whatever the outcome. No vote can over-ride the duty of the Community Council to represent the broad range of opinion within the community; we exist to reflect what the community thinks, not decide it.

The primary role of a Community Council is not a campaigning one. There will be circumstances where a more activist role is legitimate, where the issues and balance of opinion are clear and overwhelming. But any contentious issues should be approached in a neutral, even disinterested way. It is not the role of the Community Council to decide whose opinions should or should not be heard.

That should be reflected in our communications. Our starting point on any issue should be to summarise views in favour and views against, as well as views in between, on an even-handed basis. If there is some indication of the balance of opinion within the community, we can report that and the evidence to support it.

I do not think that, in recent times, PCC responses have always been a fair reflection of views either within the Community Council itself or, more importantly, the wider community.

I am concerned that there appears to be little appetite for, even some hostility to, the idea of consulting with the community and reflecting their views. There may be various reasons for that but I note the comments of Cllr Stephen Hawkins at our last meeting when he advised against consulting with the community on the basis that ‘if there’d been a referendum we would never have abolished hanging’.

The fear seems to be that the views of the community might not adequately reflect the views of the Community Council.

If anybody on the Community Council shares the view that we should avoid consultation, or does not wish to hear the opinions of people within the community, then they should not be on the Community Council. It really is as simple as that. Such a view is incompatible with the role of a Community Councillor.

I have also heard the opinion voiced that there is no point trying to consult the community because people are apathetic and don’t care.

That is not the community I see around me. I see people organising book festivals, art events, village shows, community websites, ceilidhs, beach clean-ups, rowing regattas, fundraisers for charities and schools, running a host of voluntary groups and other activities, as well as people just getting on with busy lives. Most people may not take much interest in planning matters, the latest news from the Neighbourhood Partnership or the North West Portobello Development Brief. But they most certainly do care about our community.

And we most certainly do have a duty to consult them. Consultation is not some awkward optional extra. It is what we must do, and it must be genuine consultation;

“When establishing views, Community Councillors should canvass local opinion but be careful not to be perceived as orchestrating campaigns unless endorsed by the Community. Community Councils are aware that it is often only a vocal minority who make representations. The Community Council should seek to represent the views of the whole Community.”

We should reflect on that. The Good Practice Guidance for Community Councils also notes;

“Avoid allowing the Community Council to become the vehicle for any campaign that is not the evident will of the majority of Community.”

On occasion the PCC has rushed to speak as the voice of the community, without first asking the community what it wished to say.

It has been noted at meetings before that everyone on the Community Council cares about our community. I do not doubt that for a moment. But caring about our community is not sufficient qualification to be on the Community Council; one also has to be able to carry out the duties of a Community Councillor.

• We have a duty to establish and reflect, through the Community Council, the views of the community as a whole, on any issue, irrespective of personal opinion.

• We have a duty to seek the views of the community and inform them of what we do on their behalf.

Whatever has lead us to where we are, whatever issues have caused discord, and whatever customs the PCC may have operated to in the past, now is the point to draw a line under that and start afresh. The time has come to fundamentally re-evaluate how we operate and the starting point for that are those core duties.

Only then can we hope to fulfil our role to the fullest extent.


Sean Watters, Portobello Community Councillor

[seashell]

well said. A very reasonable, balanced and fair letter. Are you going to send this to local papers as well?
Will this be discussed at the next PCC meeting?
I do hope you get an equally balanced response. Portobello needs people like you who take an active interest in the community and clearly devote a good deal of your own time, as well as bringing an excellent understanding of the issues to bear. Your a great examploe of what a PC Councillor SHOULD be. Sadly, it appears the most vocal and influencial members of the PCC fall well short of the standards you have set, and even more sadly, they appear to want the PCC to reflect their own views and wishes rather than those of the community they purport to represent.

[gillian]

Yep, well done Seanie. I hope that your letter facilitates free and frank discussion at the next PCC meeting and elsewhere. And that a way forward to improved two way consultation and communication is achieved.

It seems to me that in the time I have lived in Portobello, I have been stopped many times on the High Street to ask if I will sign a petition against something or another.
I have never been asked if I will support a project or even asked if I have an opinion.

I mostly support the plans that BL are putting forward and would like an opportunity to share my views and to put forward the areas that I feel need clarification I feel strongly that the PCC should be in receipt of these opinions along with everyone else who wishes to contribute to the debate. No one should be speaking on our behalf on such an important matter without have consulted us first.

Consulting and canvassing opinion is not going to be easy. I would happily volunteer to help make it happen. I get the impression that a few people on TP would give up some time to help.

[portypotter]

Well done Sean, I think you have voiced what many people in the community feel about the PCC. It has become dominated by a small clique of rather self important people, the same small group of four or five individuals who dominate all the Portobello-against-absolutely-everything groups. It seems to me that you have very clearly and coherently expressed how a community councillor should behave. As other contributors have already said, I personally support the BL proposals but there seems no forum for expressing this view. I think it could bring some big community benefits, not least to that end of the high street. Having 800 new residents, together with some great community facilities (new home for the music school, artists studios) can only help to bring more life to the High Street which is dying on its feet. I hope that the Council consider suspending the PCC until some proper mechanism for community consultation by the PCC on major developments (such as the BL one and the High School) is developed - and then incorporated into its constitution.

[Pal of Porty]

When do we get to vote for hanging?

[gillian]

You don't. they do it for us. Keep up Pal of Porty!!

[wangi]

Open letter to Portobello Community Council.

Any response to your letter?

L/

[seanie]

Not a whole heap so far.

The Chair of the PCC did request I provide detailed explanations and examples to justify my assertions. I'm not in a postion to post up his e-mail but my response was as follows;

As I said in my letter I think now is the point to draw a line under what has gone before and start afresh. Raking over past issues is unlikely to help us move forward; if anything it will simply generate more discord.

But on a general note I'd again quote from the Good Practice Guidance for Community Councils;

"You have a responsibility to communicate with all the residents living in your community. You should do this regularly and effectively to be able to claim that you represent their views and needs, and not the personal opinions of Community Councillors. There are two parts to this duty – seeking their views and keeping them informed of your work as their elected representatives."

Off the top of my head, and with the exception of the Viridor proposal where opinion within the community seemed pretty clear cut, I struggle to think of an issue in recent times where the PCC could confidently claim to be representing the views of the community, for the simple reason that we've made precious little effort to consult them.

That's not to say that PCC hasn't represented the views of a significant number of Community Councillors. I don't doubt it has. But it is not the function of a Community Council to amplify the personal views of whoever happens to sit on it.

We need to move on. We need to do so from the starting point of our core duties.

Regards

Sean

[seanie]

He then reiterated his request for me to justify my assertions. I replied as follows;

As I have already said, I think that going over past incidents is unlikely to prove helpful. It is only likely to cause greater friction. I think it would be better to draw a line under what has happened in the past.

However, I am willing to give a detailed account of what has given rise to my concerns. I will start drafting a document to that effect, although it may take me a wee while to cover everything. But I will only release that document if the PCC, as a body, requests that I do so. Because I genuinely believe that to detail those issues would not be conducive to finding a way forward, and so I am reluctant to do so.

In any event I think my main points are uncontestable.

We have a duty to ascertain, evaluate and reflect the views of the community. Yet to my recollection the last attempt at community consultation was a questionnaire in the library five years ago.

Do you seriously contend that our efforts in consulting the community have been adequate?

We also have a duty to ensure that we, as a body, reflect the opinions of the community and not just those of Community Councillors.

In the absence of genuine consultation, how could we possibly claim that we have fulfilled that duty? What evidence do we have to justify the stances we have taken?

Leaving that aside for the moment, I am quite happy to be directed by the PCC as to how, and to what extent, they wish me to account for my actions.

Regards

Sean

[Makaveli]

Doesn't sound like you are getting anywhere with that one Seanie. As you have said what is the point of raking up the past?

The people of Portobello want a PCC that can put across their collective views - not the views of a half dozen self-appointed people.

[Porty]

Sean- I'm not so sure reviewing some of the historic stuff would do any harm. Seems to me that the Chair is totally affronted by the assertion; his Council does not consult its people. Normally the patient has to acknowledge their condition before seeking a remedy.

I am also of the view that you should publish your dossier. Lack of transparency is one of the main causes of the dislocation of PCC from the Community it is supposed to serve.

[seanie]

The difficulty is that, by going over specific incidents, you can't avoid implicitly or explicitly criticising individuals.

Then the whole issue becomes one of personalities when it shouldn't be. We can't change what's happened in the past anyway.

There are screeds and screeds of guidance notes, codes of conduct, good practice notes etc. And it's crystal clear from those that we ain't been doing what we should be doing. All we need to do is take those documents outlining our duties as a starting point and start afresh.

[Porty]

The difficulty is that, by going over specific incidents, you can't avoid implicitly or explicitly criticising individuals.

I can see that, but sometimes it has to out. Take the last BL application, which was considered and refused in May this Year. As far as I can tell; based on the Minutes, there was not a single shred of consultation with the Community. Yet PCC wrote 5, yes 5, different letters of objection over an 11 month period. They also appointed a "sub-group" to consider the application, 5 individuals, and awarded them carte blanche to respond on behalf of the entire community. So how representative was this sub-group?

I've not conducted a full inspection of the planning portal but I have established that collectively, those 5 people. were signatories on 16 seperate letters of objection. Only one didn't write to object: the PCATS rep on PCC. However, it was also pretty clear where PCATS stood on the issue, as Councillor Hawkins, removed his Councillors hat replacing it with his PCATS hat, in order to object. later to appear at the DMSC with his Councillor and PCC hat on and his PCATS hat off. He's the Masterplan Milliner of Portobello!

Sean- did you see either of the letters submitted by the sub-group before their submission?

it is admirable that you are trying, skillfully, to mend the PCC. However, the Cancer at the groups core appears to thinks it is a picture of health. i'm not sure if that's implicit, explicit or both?

[seanie]

Sean- did you see either of the letters submitted by the sub-group before their submission?

No.

[Puerto bella]

Just for clarification - is the open letter a complaint or an airing and sharing of your view?

Wondered out of interest if you had put all of this forward at the last meeting or is it intended that it is discussed at the next one?

Wondered also why the focus is on some and not others - i think that every member of the CC in terms of their motivation, how they present a view, how they represent the views of the people they have spoken to and how they conduct themselves is now under close scrutiny. What doesn't seem

[Puerto bella]

Got cut short there - sorry

...to have been covered so far is the experience that the CC members have and how the community can use this to benefit the whole - we have a rich range of talents on our CC and a lot of expertise in a whole range of matters - no one seems to be appreciating that or celebrating all the good things that have happened that are down to them. I find the whole saga that is currently being brewed up and whooped into a frenzy very very sad and possibly motivated by the aims and objectives of a few.

[seanie]

Just for clarification - is the open letter a complaint or an airing and sharing of your view?

Wondered out of interest if you had put all of this forward at the last meeting or is it intended that it is discussed at the next one?

An airing and sharing in an attempt to bring matters to a head and hopefully move things on.

There has been increasing discord, the last meeting was a mess, and we can't go on like this. I don't want to rake over how we got here but I think the way forward is to look again at our core duties and responsibilities.

[Puerto bella]

......and I would suggest work from the positives in order to stimulate discussion and change.

You have a mediator on the CC - use his skills to get this sorted, otherwise its going to fester for years and come back to bite you all or relationships will be so damaged as to become unworkable. Keep the dialogue going and there is always hope of finding a way you can all work together.

..........or maybe its part of your masterplan to take over the world - you haven't turned into Dr Evil have you?

[Doris]

Just a little curious - the PCC has a mediator. Then why has he/she allowed this mess to happen. Not a good recommendation of his/her skills IMHO.

[seanie]

There is someone who is a trained mediator, but they've not been called upon to do any mediating.

And mediation only works if parties to it are willing to commit to it.

[seanie]

Oh I almost forgot. I also recieved a response from Cllr Hawkins. As an elected representative I'm sure he would have no issue with me sharing his e-mail;

Dear Sean,

I read your letter with interest.

You have misquoted me in the reference to community consultation in that I stated I was not necessarily in favour of referanda. In my opinion a referendum is different to consultation especially when the issues require more than a yes or no answer. With respect to referenda I made reference to the hanging issue and also, you will recall, that if a vote had been taken we would not have invaded Iraq.

I am in favour of consultation and each member of the Community Council carries out this duty. I fully support Cllr. Maureen Childs assertion that based on the discussion at the last CC meeting, the members were reflecting a wide range of opinions from within the community.

Yours sincerely

Stephen

[seanie]

To which I replied;

Stephen,

Myself and others were simply suggesting consultation with the community; I envisage the likes of straw polls, e-mail questionaires, sample surveys, mini-polls, suggestion boxes.

The only person who raised the issue of referenda was you.

If, when discussing that, you were actually arguing in favour of more community consultation, I can only say that you articulated that extremely poorly.

To myself, and I suspect many others present, it sounded very much like you were not keen on hearing what the community had to say. However, I am very encouraged that you have clarified your position as being in favour.

Regards

Sean

[Pal of Porty]

You don't. they do it for us. Keep up Pal of Porty!!

[Pal of Porty]

..I find the whole saga that is currently being brewed up and whooped into a frenzy very very sad and possibly motivated by the aims and objectives of a few.

That sounds like the PCC!

[Puerto bella]

Many parallels could be drawn POP.

Re: the mediator - I was at a meeting a while back when the person we're referring to talked about his involvement with mediation - I think he might have said he trained mediators, as well as mediating himself.

I have been wondering why he hadn't used his perception to red flag the warning signs over the brewing stooshy and really help the group better communicate with each other - consensus building techniques would be a valuable tool to them right now.

[gillian]

..".to have been covered so far is the experience that the CC members have and how the community can use this to benefit the whole - we have a rich range of talents on our CC and a lot of expertise in a whole range of matters - no one seems to be appreciating that or celebrating all the good things that have happened that are down to them. I find the whole saga that is currently being brewed up and whooped into a frenzy very very sad and possibly motivated by the aims and objectives of a few"

I have no doubt that there is a rich range of talents on the PCC. Their efforts have been applauded many times, in the case of the superstore and the waste depot for example. The problem is are we applauding the PCC or the various campaign groups? The boundaries are too blurred. Maybe there should be a hatstand out side the meeting hall, CC hats only inside.

I don't think people are looking for a referendum, just chance to give our views. How can I for example put forward my opinion and be sure that it gets to the people who are there to represent me? I would happily pop to the library to put a letter into a box, I would be delighted to answer an email seeking out my view

There is clearly a crisis in the PCC, mediation may or may not work. As Sean pointed out mediation would only be effective if people were receptive to it. Whatever method of reconciling and moving forward is used it is going to take time and effort.

Meanwhile would a bit of consulting be too much to ask?

[Porty]

There is clearly a crisis in the PCC, mediation may or may not work. As Sean pointed out mediation would only be effective if people were receptive to it. Whatever method or reconciling and moving forward is used it is going to take time and effort.

Meanwhile would a bit of consulting be too much to ask?

If proper consultation took place, there would be no need for mediation. If PCC simply followed the SG guidance notes there would be no mediation need.

At the moment the need comes from PCC "policy makers" failing to consult.(they have created their own policies which supercede the guidelines) There is absolutely no intention to consult. The councillor has tried to spin the motive behind his referendum statement but it speaks volumes about the current crisis.

There are many talents on the PCC. However, the "talent" that is most often publically displayed is; objecting to planning applications, without consultation. And as I've said before; the individuals doing the objecting, continually prove they know next to nothing about planning, whether it be BL, The School or Mrs Robertson's kitchen extension. The PCC's other talents are stifled.

[seanie]

On reflection I have decided that the Chair was entitled to a response.

Apologies; it's not short.

[Doris]

On reflection I have decided that the Chair was entitled to a response.

Apologies; it's not short.

A measured, coherent letter.

[Porty]

Well measured and coherent indeed. I envy your non-combative style, I could do with a dose of that in my prose.

The PCC decision to stay out of the school debate had me baffled, it will be the biggest thing to happen in Porty for more than a quarter of a century, how can an organisation that exists only to reflect the views of the community, have nothing to say? I was equally surprised when The Portobello Reporter said they would not be covering the School story, as it was too contentious.

I wish I was surprised at PCC's bid to syphon some cash from the compensatory scheme for new trees in proximity of a community councillors residence. Lets not bother with improving play parks or stuff like that, lets just get new trees for the people who have enjoyed uninterrupted views over a park for most of a century. And lets get the Community Council to do the bidding for them. Did PCC have any other suggestions for how the compensation money should be spent?

Have you had a response yet?

[Porty]

The more I read Sean's letter the better it gets. With the exception of a couple of issues, it deals with many of the things I am unhappy about. I read somewhere recently; the reason PCC don't update or use their Portoello On Line web pages is due to their being "one particular indivdiual, that has a grudge against PCC regularly posts on Talk Porty". i presume that means me? I don't think any reasonable person could say Seanie has a grudge against PCC. I don't either. I happen to believe it is not being run as it should be and for the purpose it exists. Sean's letter proves, beyond doubt, that this is the case.

[Porty]

Any news on the Minutes from the tempestous September meeting? Still in make up?