There is clearly an impetus to strengthen local communities and broaden participation in the decisions that affect people, and clearly as the most local form of representation Community Councils could have a valuable role in that. Whether there are statutory changes in the forthcoming Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill remains to be seen, but one clear outcome from the Scottish Government’s Community Council Short-Life Working Group was that as part of strengthening the role and relevance of Community Councils, with hopefully more engagement, there was a desire for contested elections.
But, at least when it comes to Portobello, the scheme as it stands militates against meaningful, contested elections.
I had raised a concern with Council Officials about the balance between elected and nominated members, suggesting it would be better to do without nominated members entirely, not assign voting rights, or at least reduce their numbers relative to elected members; my hope being that it would incentivise standing for election and increase the likelihood of contested elections. However, what I didn’t realise at the time was that my concerns were more specific to Portobello than Edinburgh as a whole. Of the 46 Community Councils in Edinburgh, 44 are assigned at least twice as many elected members as nominated members. The only exceptions are Queensferry and District, with 9 elected and 6 nominated, and Portobello.
Portobello is the only Community Council in Edinburgh that is assigned equal numbers of elected and nominated members under the Scheme; 15 elected and 15 nominated.
An equal split of elected and nominated members greatly reduces the likelihood of meaningful contested elections, and undermines claims of democratic accountability; nominated members can secure a place more or less in perpetuity, especially when the same people sit on multiple groups, and could easily outnumber elected members.
Why Portobello alone should be in such a situation isn’t clear.Statistics: Posted by seanie — 21 Dec 2012, 12:57
]]>