Subject: Draft Report - Electoral Review - Council Size
To:
Ron Barrowclough  - lead officer
Mick Ogle        - for ComSec information
Steven Smith     - LibDem Group political assistant
Michael Halloran - Labour Group political assistant
Cllr Andy Sangar - lead Cabinet Member
Cllr <somebody>  - LibDem Group lead Member
Cllr <somebody>  - Labour Group lead Member
Cllr Anne Smith  - Conservative Group lead Member
Cllrs Morgan, Shepherd - non-Grouped Members

Ron, can you confirm who the lead elected Members are for each of the
political Groups, and forward these comments to them.  Also, I don't have
an email address for Michael Halloran, the Labour PA, can you pass this on
to him as well. Thanks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        Comments on Draft Options for Sheffield City Council Size
        =========================================================
          Author: J.G.Harston  Version: 1.00   Date: 18/02/2002
       http://www.mdfs.net/User/JGH/Docs/Politics/WardReview/Size01

These are purely the personal considered opinions of myself and cannot be
taken to represent the opinions of any person, body or other entity that I
may be adjudged to be representing.


Paragraph 18:
=============
"Committee Secretariat have conducted an analysis... this showed the
number of hours to have reduced by 2%"

The workload of elected members cannot, and must not, be considered purely
on the timeload of "principal" meetings that are timetabled by Committee
Secretariat.  This is exactly the same mistake that was made in reviewing
members' allowances.  Workload cannot be correlated to the "hours members
commit to meetings".

In my first year as an elected member, 1999-2000, I concientously kept a
timelog of all the hours I put in doing work for the city council, as
distinct from political activities such as leafleting, etc.  This was the
year before the Cabinet/Scrutiny structure was introduced.

In that year I averaged 30 hours a week over the whole twelve months.  I
haven't had time to keep a similar timelog in my 18 months since then,
which is indicative of an increased workload.  For the dozen or so weeks
that I have kept timelogs for, I have averaged up to 40 hours a week.  I
got home today at 9pm, and have sat down and started more work.  Also,
subjectively, I and many other councillors have experienced an increased
workload.

In my first year I very rarely remember doing much in the way of
preparation for meetings beforehand.  Meetings seemed to adequately do
their business on the day, and meetings themselves seemed to be fairly
brief and infrequent.

Since Cabinet/Scrutiny was introduced I have found myself doing increasing
amounts of work prior to meetings, reading background information and
checking on reports and other work.

It has got to the point where I am finding that I do not have time for
community activities due to council commitments.  The whole point of this
tranche of local government reform was to involve elected members more
closely with their communities.

If there is any movement to a lower number of elected members, indeed even
prior to that, adequate provision must be made to support members in their
work.  60+ non-executive members sharing the services of two secretaries
is untenable.


Paragraph 21:
=============
"a few Members serve on more than one [Scrutiny Board]"
"each members sits on one Scrutiny Board".

Major bodies of the council also include the Statutory Boards - planning,
licensing and social services.  In total there are currently twelve such
boards, as well as many smaller boards and committees, such as Allotments,
Disability, Older People, Energy, etc. that are often overlooked.  Not all
non-executive Members sit on only one Scrutiny Board - I sit on four major
bodies as well as a host of minor bodies.

Major Bodies of the City Council
--------------------------------
4 Planning Boards                   4x10 places = 40
6 Scrutiny Boards              3x14+3x15 places = 87
1 Licensing Board                   1x12 places = 12
1 Childminder/Social Services Board 1x12 places = 12
                                           TOTAL 151 places
This implies a membership of two Members per body - 76*2=152.

Elected Members Membership of Council Bodies, all Political Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bodies             Number

5                  : 1 *
4                  : 5 *****
3                  :19 *******************
2                  :18 ***************+++
1                  :26 ************************++
0                  : 2 **
TOTAL               76
Note: '+' indicates members who only serve on the Education and Social
Services Scrutiny Board for Education matters only.

Only 25% of Members sit on only one major body.  Some of these Members sit
on just a single Scrutiny Board, some sit on just a single Statutory (eg
Planning) Board. It is merely a fact that membership of a single body is
the option that accounts for more Members that any other single option.

A third of Members sit on more than two major bodies, most of whom sit on
more than one Scrutiny Board.

The size of a Scrutiny Board (and also Statutory Boards) tends to be a
proportion of the council size, and so a smaller council would
automatically have smaller Scrutiny, Planning, etc. Boards.  Scrutiny
Boards are currently exactly one sixth the size of Full Council (14.5
times 6 = 87) or just over one fifth of the non-executive Members (14.5
times 5.25=76).


Paragraphs 26-29:
=================
I would recommend aiming for five-and-a-half contituencies, and therefore
a number of wards that is a multiple of about five-and-a-half.

With the current Council structure and non-executive Member support system
I would recommend going for 28 or 27 wards.

With a drastic and well-thought out review of the non-executive support
system, a 23 or 22 ward model could be workable.

I would very strongly recommend not to go for an 18-ward model, unless
huge quantities of local government responsibility are abolished.

I see no pressing need for an increased council size, unless local
government in general is devolved much greater power and responsibility.


Paragraphs 31-32:
=================
The Council's Area Action Areas boundaries are wrong.  Every few months
some boundary or other is tweeked or adjusted.  In some areas they seem to
have almost randomly thrown together disparate parts of the city. Some
Areas are only slightly larger than a single ward, whereas some are larger
than four wards.  They must not be used as a guide to drawing new ward
boundaries. New Area Action boundaries should be drawn or adjusted after
the ward boundary review. If we get Area Action boundaries wrong, we can
change them. If we get ward boundaries, wrong, we can't change them.

Area Panels are, however, are one good medium of consulting and
communicating with citizens of the city.


Annex A
=======
"how many voters live in each ward"
The review will be looking at how many electors live in each ward, ie
those qualified to vote, not the number of voters, ie the turnout at
elections.  While this may seem pedantic I must insist on the correct
terminology.  The number of voters changes drastically from election to
election.  An acceptable phrase is "electors - people who can vote in
elections".  Avoid phrases like "qualify to vote", "registered to vote",
etc.

"every councillors represents the same number of electors"
An acceptable alternative is "same number of residents" as there is a very
high correlation between the number of electors in a division and the
number of residents.

"This could mean changes..."
I think we should be bald about it and say "This will mean changes..."

"A review was last carried out in ... 1980"
The last major review was in the 1960s with a minor adjustment in 1980.

"How will this affect me?"
I would prefer to also say that it won't effect insurance premiums, but
insurance companies are out of our control and they leap on anything to
justify increasing their prices.


-----------------
Notes:
"non-executive Member" - all elected Members excluding members of the
executive - the Cabinet - and for the purposes of this discussion, the
Lord Mayor.  Traditionally called "back-benchers", Sheffield currently has
76 non-executive Members.

See Also:
http://www.mdfs.net/User/JGH/Docs/Council/Cllr/PayReview3
http://www.mdfs.net/User/JGH/Docs/Politics/WardReview

These are purely the personal considered opinions of myself and cannot be
taken to represent the opinions of any person, body or other entity that I
may be adjudged to be representing.

-- 
J.G.Harston (JGH BBC PD Library) 70 Camm Street, Walkley, SHEFFIELD S6 3TR
jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk - Running on BBCs & Masters with SJ MDFS FileServer
Z80+6502/CoPro+Tubes/Econet+SJ - - - - - - - http://www.mdfs.net/User/JGH/
 Never, ever, EVER, *EVER*, *E*V*E*R* use an apostrophe to make a plural