Portobello Community Council

[Maria]

Franck,I agree there needs to be a big shake up. Might be worth warning , however, that the Community Council are legally the tenants of the tennis courts, so the Tennis Club's position is slightly different to that of other groups. There may well be a better arrangement, but the present one has taken a (very!) long time to thrash out, to ensure liability lies with the club and not with members of the CC.

[Franck]

[mr magnolia]

just looking through this thread, and I wonder what happens if/when the local interest groups are reduced to 7, and there needs to be a choice between the 12 registered groups?

Do we have a quiz night? A second election question? Council decides?

[seanie]

Under the rules, all the "elected" individual members and all the registered groups would then vote on which groups get represented. But that's never happened in years.

The composition of Portobello Community Council is completely out of step with the rest of Edinburgh. Almost all Community Councils consist of 2/3 elected members and 1/3 nominated group members; in Portobello the split is 50:50. Also Portobello has far more members than other CCs. If brought into line with the rest of the city, as currently being proposed, Portobello would have 21 members (14 elected, 7 nominated). Instead it has 30 (15 elected, 15 nominated). The following illustrates the practical effects of that.

In August 2009 there was an extraordinary meeting of the Brightons and Rosefield Residents’ Association. The purpose of the meeting was to adopt a constitution so that the organisation could continue to have a nominated representative on Portobello Community Council, the Council having introduced new rules.

Of the ten people in attendance (about par for the course for BRRA AGMs), a grand total of nine had already served on the Community Council at some point. Seven were current members of the Community Council. Two of those were stepping down at the coming election but the remaining five had already put their name forwards as an elected or group representative, or were on the PCC in an ex officio capacity.

So when it came to choosing a new BRRA rep’ there were only three possible candidates in the room, two of whom had already served on the Community Council in the past. The Chair of the residents’ association, who intended to stand as an “elected” member, nominated one of these people to be the Association’s group rep’ and this was agreed.

This demonstrates, in large measure, why the existing structure of Portobello Community Council is unhealthy. Whilst people talk of a large number of groups increasing diversity, the reality is the opposite. The overlap in membership of groups, with some Community Councillors sitting in official capacities several times over, simply ensures like minded people who mix in the same circles end up on the Community Council. And because the sheer number of places greatly reduces the likelihood of elections being contested, the same people can sit on the Community Council as long as they want.

It’s worth pointing out that some of the groups that are represented on the Community Council barely function. There are groups that haven’t had any kind of meeting in years, groups who just about manage an irregular AGM but do absolutely nothing in between. Now some of them have been active in the past, and they may revive at some point on the future, but as things stand we have dormant or even defunct groups that continue to have representation on the Community Council because they have a letterhead and a dusty constitution somewhere.

For example, Brighton and Rosefield Resident's Association used to send out 3 or 4 newsletters a year, organise park clean ups, arrange the occasional social event and an annual barbecue. That's all stopped. Now it can only just manage to arrange an irregular and poorly advertised AGM attended by a handful of people. As an organisation it’s now solely used as a letterhead for one or two individuals to write letters of complaint or objection whilst claiming to represent several hundred local residents.

Another example would be Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore. Certainly it was a very active organisation in the past, but the superstore was thrown out at the public inquiry in 2006. PCATS hasn't had an AGM in years, in disregard of its constitution. It doesn't make available minutes of meetings, which again would be in disregard of its constitution, except that hasn't had a meeting in years. It no longer functions as a genuine community group.

Whilst it’s true that groups have to meet eligibility criteria to register with the Council, it would be an all but impossible task for officials to assess how active or inactive multiple groups across the city are. But that isn’t such a difficult assessment for local people to make; which is again why we need to reduce the number of places. We need contested elections for group places, just as much as we do for elected places, so that genuinely active community groups can be favoured over groups that exist in little more than name.

Elections aren’t a panacea and will bring their own difficulties, but preserving a structure and balance to the Community Council that discourages elections, resulting in an entirely self-selecting membership, is not healthy.

[Franck]

I like that post Sean, thanks.

[wangi]

[seanie]

[seanie]

I seem to recall saying that the proposals involved a 30% reduction, which would be 30 down to 21.

Whatever the merits of the proposal, at least my description of it was factually accurate. In marked contrast to the subsequent "clarification".

[fresian]

Read the article in the EEN on 20/4/13 regarding the PCC. Not sure who the forum poster GNR is, but seems to be someone on PCC, and to suggest that the community has gone down the sewer really highlights the contempt that these people have against anyone who disagrees with them.

[Sceptic]

Did not see a post by "GNR" in article mentioned

[Mark Cameron]

It was a reply to one of the comments:

"GNR
5:35 PM on 21/04/2013

Why should the PCC support the school proposals? It wouldn't make one single bit of difference to the outcome if they supported it or not. It's way, way past that. This is personal for PFANS. They want to destroy certain members of the community any way they can. This is just another way they think they can do it. At least just be honest about your motives."

[wangi]

[seanie]