The following is an email from Mike Barnacle to the Provost, written on 16 Feb 2015.
Dear Provost
Special Council Meeting on 2015 Budget (12/2/15)
I am reluctantly moved to write to you in relation to the procedure at the start of the above debate.
The Independent Group had been advised that our Motion was competent, something we wished to ensure after our experience at the March 2013 Budget debate. I was, therefore, very surprised when you effectively ruled out discussion on same, citing the opportunity afforded to call for a second recess if required, something I was unaware of.
Whilst we had no expectation of success, the Motion had been framed in order to generate discussion on the merits of our main argument that in future there should be two Council meetings on the Budget, one for presentation of various Groups’ proposals and the second a few days later to debate same and attempt a consensus. Both Councillor Cuthbert and I were denied that opportunity to address colleagues on the budget process by your actions, having spent time preparing same.
Surely it would have been courteous on your part to have discussed this matter privately well before the debate, given that these are valid reasons for our approach. I enclose a copy of 2 previous articles on the budget debates of 2013 and 2014 that provide background to concerns. I am an accountant and understand budgets but I find public accounting around the budget process very difficult to follow. I maintain that the time allowed on Budget Day to examine the complexities of various Motions and Amendments is insufficient to arrive at a correct consensus on behalf of the people of Perth and Kinross we seek to represent. Our argument for 2 meetings is not unique, it happens in other local authorities. Ward members over the years, in my experience, have seen their influence in the budget process reduced and marginalised to corporate control and I regard budget setting day as a highly charged political debate that borders on ‘the farcical’ with the minority Administration’s budget invariably being passed with minor amendment.
It think it is a deeply flawed process and there has to be a better way of setting a £331,500,000 budget.
Councillor Miller said after the last election that he would lead ‘an inclusive’ minority Administration but clearly this was political rhetoric because I have no experience of inclusiveness since.
I have no doubt you were following your Party’s instructions at the debate as regards our Motion, rather than adopting a non-partisan approach one expects from a Provost, a position I find regrettable.
I was so incensed by what occurred that I chose to leave the debate early, having become completely frustrated at the process and the lack of dialogue with other Groups regarding our proposals, despite our best efforts; democracy is not being served in PKC. I assume it is correct to say that there is no way that the spirit of our Motion, suggesting an improvement to the process, will ever be countenanced by your Administration.
I would be interested in your response at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Michael Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire