Am I picky?
I am increasingly asking myself. Am I pedantic? A bit of a control freak? Do I ask too many questions? Am I an annoyance? Am I simply taking the responsibility too seriously? Does anyone really even care?
It has been an interesting journey as a town councillor, made even more interesting by the sheer number of unknowns. The role feels largely undefined. The responsibilities feel undefined. The purpose, remit and priorities often feel undefined. There is no meaningful training. There are few clear guardrails. Much of it seems to operate on precedent, or more accurately, on “what we have always done”.
Questions are permitted, as long as they are not too difficult. The safest route appears to be: do not rock the boat, vote things through, share the odd anecdote from twenty years ago and conclude proceedings as efficiently as possible. Trust the staff. Challenging questions might affect morale. Best to let people get on with it. They know best.
And I do wonder. Why would someone sign up for a fourth, fifth or even tenth term simply to sit in the same room, on the same Mondays, hearing the same jokes that may have been socially acceptable when they first joined, weeks, months, years or decades ago? Why give away that time if not to engage, question and shape things?
Perhaps I am naïve.
The latest issue to bake my noodle remains in the realm of by-elections. Since my last blog the by-election has been called. Three candidates are standing. When they were announced, I felt even more strongly that democracy, in the form of a public vote, was the right mechanism. It may be perfectly legal for a serving councillor’s household member to be co-opted, but to me that feels uncomfortable. A by-election felt cleaner. More transparent. Even if it increases the likelihood of an outcome some might not favour. That is democracy. It does not exist to deliver our preferred result.
We were also reminded about how we should promote our preferred candidates. As a civility and respect council, we were cautioned against negative comments, or comments that could be perceived as negative. An interesting concept. Could stating that two candidates do not live in the parish be perceived as negative? Could noting that one is married to a current councillor be negative? These are facts. Yet facts, it seems, can sometimes feel inconvenient.
But that is not the bone I want to pick today.
At the last council meeting we received a paper titled: “To consider how the costs of the new 2026 by election will be met.” The projected cost was £10,000. Poll cards alone were estimated at £3,750.
I appreciate elections cost money. I have publicly shared how residents can trigger one, along with my view that elections are the preferable route. What surprised me was not the cost itself, but the framing. Throughout my eight months on the council there has been a number of unbudgeted expenditures. The recent Town of Culture bid, for example. We were not asked which budget lines should be cut to accommodate that. We were not presented with options. The money was simply agreed and spent.
So I was curious why this expenditure required us to pre select next year’s cuts, particularly when the election is happening this year. The report did not include detail about current underspend, available earmarked reserves or whether this year’s finances could absorb some or all of the cost. The decision was deferred pending further information, which felt sensible.
Then came an interesting revelation. The full £10,000 did not necessarily have to be spent. Hayle Town Council is also holding a by-election on the same day. They are not issuing poll cards. If we chose not to issue them, we could save roughly a third of the cost.
Interesting…
Now, whether poll cards are a good idea is a genuinely interesting debate. They are a reliable way of notifying every elector. They address digital exclusion. People expect them. Equally, candidates will canvass. Other communication channels exist. We recently delivered resident survey information to every household. That must have had a cost. Were alternative distribution models considered? Are there hybrid options? Could this be explored for future elections, particularly given the absence of a substantial election reserve?
I sent an email referencing what Hayle were doing and suggested that if election costs were under scrutiny, it would be helpful to understand which elements were mandatory and which were discretionary. I explicitly stated that it was likely too late to change anything this time. My point was not to decide unilaterally. My point was to ensure that future options were brought to Full Council for debate.
What I received in response were individual views stating that poll cards are necessary and that “we” should have them.
And here is where I circle back to my original question.
Am I picky in thinking that it is not up to any one individual, member or officer, to decide that? That such matters should be debated collectively, in public, with options clearly set out? That councillors are not simply individuals with opinions, but part of a corporate body that only reaches a position once it has formally done so?
I am not even certain that abolishing poll cards, especially without a plan, would be wise. But I am certain that the conversation itself is legitimate.
If assumptions are sufficient to determine outcomes, then I do wonder what the role of councillors truly is. Surely debate, oversight and collective decision making are precisely why we exist. Surely asking to explore options in a democratic body should not be viewed as troublesome.
So perhaps I am picky.
Or perhaps I just think that when public money is involved, and democracy is the topic, questions are not an inconvenience.
They are the job.
Leave a Reply