Following the launch of our petition many people have commented angrily on the lack of democracy. Here are a few of these comments:

‘Far too many for local issues’ LK, Stevenage

‘Yet another example of Herts CC being totally untrustworthy in its present form’ JM, St Albans

‘10,000 signatures is far too high a figure in a situation where a village such as Potten End has a valid grievance. The population here is 1355.’ JC, Potten End

‘This seems more like taking power away from people rather than devolving it’ CR, Hemel

‘Asking for 10k signatures is an absurdly high number and 1k is much more reasonable.’ IS, North Herts

‘I agree that the 10,000 signature minimum is absolutely undemocratic as it stifles legitimate opposition.’ AB, Hertfordshire

‘1000 is a more reasonable target and still conveys weight of opinion’ AL, Hemel

‘Although 10,000 signatures only represents approx. 1.5% of the population of Hertfordshire in the 20-74 age group (mid-year estimates in 2008 by Quinary), the demographics of the county make it difficult to realistically collect 10,000 signatures.

It is typical of the way the LOCAL Tory Councillors and administration are attempting to keep power to themselves and riding roughshod over the aims and aspirations of its voters.’ LS, Bishop’s Stortford

‘I completely agree with the sentiment.’ SO, Welwyn Garden City

‘Hertsmere Borough is 5000 – the gap is too large’ LH, Hertsmere

‘1,000 is a practical solution’ WW, St Albans

‘If our county council is serious about democracy it will agree that 1000 signatures is enough to warrant a debate about any particular issue.’ WD, Hertfordshire

‘Please include my objection to the 10K level.’ JR, Hemel

‘We have been promised by earlier Governments that they would listen to the people (implying public opinion not just the press or media I believe)whilst in office. A fundamental principle of democracy is to listen to the concerns of all citizens, whatever their political alliances may be, in order to be certain that the policies implemented are fair for all and do not compromise the less articulate and the less fortunate members of our society. This may mean that compromises have to be made and that partisan and dogmatic policies get shelved but it would guarantee more respect for local politicians. Unreasonable thresholds for legitimate concerns to be raised, such as the requirement of 10k signatures, undermines the status of both concerned citizens (democaracy itself) and the trust in local politicians (councillors).10k represents 1.29% of the electorate, or 1.78% of those voting in the recent General Election!’ RR, Hertfordshire

‘That’s nearly 1/3 of Stortford’s population. Impossible to get that number of signatures.’ MS, Bishop’s Stortford

‘This is disgraceful – and diametrically opposed to the principles espoused by the national government.’ DW, Kings Langley

‘I believe there needs to be a better balance of power locally. But am delighted that Vince Cable has some influence in Government.’ SE, Welwyn Hatfield

‘The people must have a voice, this number of names needed to be heard is ridiculous’ DC, Hemel

‘Absurdly high number of signatures required, bearing in mind that Hertfordshire has many rural areas.

Where’s the common sense gone?’ BL, Watford

‘The rule should relate numbers required to the number of citizens affected. In Ware for instance 10,000 people is more than we could ever contact (find at home) if we knocked on every door in the town’ JW, Ware

‘This is complete nonsense and so undemocratic from the Tories on Herts County Council! We must get this overturned.’ SB, Watford

‘Why is there a need to hide behind a 10000 signature fence. Surely open government is what we all want, power should be used with understanding the electorate not ignoring them.’ GD, South West Herts

New rules which would allow people signing petitions to be heard more clearly at county hall have been weighted to make it almost impossible for most communities to reach the threshold for signatures.

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 provides for petitions to be debated at a full council meeting, providing a certain threshold was reached. Currently petitions are merely presented to the council and often no further action or debate takes place.

Government guidance says that a suitable threshold is 1% of the electorate – roughly 10,000 for a county as large as Hertfordshire.

Liberal Democrats today pointed out that this would mean that most petitions would still only get a token hearing. Lib Dem Leader Chris White said: ‘Very large communities like St Albans and Watford might just be able to hit a target like this in exceptional circumstances. But even some of the largest petitions ever seen by the county council have fallen well short of 10,000.

‘Most of course are on local issues: the closure of a school or a library or problems with a major road, affecting one or two electoral divisions. Most of our towns and all of our villages would struggle to reach 10,000: after all a typical county councillor’s electoral division itself comprises 10,000 voters.

‘So in all but the most unusual cases it might take every single elector in a division to sign a petition before the county council deigned to debate the issue causing concern.

‘To set the limit at 10,000 is a deeply cynical move designed to stifle the current huge protests about the lack of school places. Our proposal for there to be just 1,000 signatures was defeated by a Tory block vote.’

Conservatives at county hall have been criticised by the Liberal Democrats for attempting to claim that local residents are happy with the county council.

Liberal Democrat Leader Chris White said: ‘One in four people by the council’s own admission are not satisfied with the way the council performs. Improvements in satisfaction have been made mainly in relatively minor services like household waste recycling centres, public transport information and the registration service or with essentially private sector services like buses. Those politicians who actually meet the public know how furious they are with the county council over roads, school places and social care.

‘At least they have the honesty to tell us that half the population don’t think the council provides value for money – and even then they appear to think it’s good news!’

He added: ‘As ever the council’s spin machine – funded at taxpayers’ expense – is there to flatter the image of the ruling group rather than provide genuine information.’

The Liberal Democrats at county hall are proposing a budget which will make deep cuts in waste and excessively costly contracts.

Lib Dem Leader Chris White said: ‘There must be a zero council tax increase, as we proposed in our manifesto last year. But there also need to be major savings in management overheads, working practices and contract terms.

‘The fact that Herts Highways is 81% more expensive than the arrangements in other authorities is just one example of how our council tax is being wasted by the county council under the current administration. News on Friday that the county council is prepared to spend £110,000 on lawyers in pursuit of a £300 pound dispute shows just how out of control the situation has become.

‘The vast majority of the council’s budget is thrown at private companies and in these times a saving of 2.5% is easily achievable. We would want to see much more in future years.’

The Liberal Democrats are also proposing redirecting spending into the following areas (figures are in millions of pounds):
Increase spend on maintaining footways 2.0
Improve reactive pothole repairs – ‘pothole mole’ 1.0
Restore full team of local highways managers and improve inspections 0.5
More frequent bus services in towns 1.5
Step up gully cleansing to combat flooding 1.0
Start introducing 20 mph limits and zones 1.0
Additional spending on winter recovery of highways 13.6

Improve youth provision 1.0
Restore school uniform allowance 0.2
Increase social workers’ pay to help ensure full staffing 1.0

Chris added: ‘There are priorities crying out for attention, like the youth service, social worker retention and highway repairs. Our alternative budget will do far more to address these than the Tory proposals.’

Note

The ‘pothole mole’ is an idea borrowed from Lib Dem highways authorities under which local works teams are freed of the bureacracy currently plaguing Herts Highways and are simply allocated an area to tackle without reference back to head office. It leads to more work being done, fewer complaints, more interaction with the public and less paperwork.

Lib Dem Leader Chris White has called for an inquiry into how the county council managed to waste over £100,000 in a failed legal dispute over a £335 bill.

Chris said: ‘Veolia raised this issue with me when I paid them a visit to discuss their performance on burst water mains. I expressed my concerns to the county council and now discover that the county council continued to waste their time and our money on this ludicrous dispute.

‘I have called upon the Chief Executive to set up an inquiry into how officials felt it was appropriate to pursue a dispute to this ludicrous extent and to establish whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

‘I will also be seeking a revision in procedures to make sure that this sort of thing cannot be repeated.’

Chris plans to raise the matter publicly at the county council meeting on Tuesday.

Story in Watford Observer yesterday

A £335 dispute over a broken manhole cover in Rickmansworth High Street could cost Hertfordshire County Council more than £110,000 in legal costs following a High Court ruling. Deputy Judge Alison Hampton explained today that these were some of the highest costs she had ever seen in a case of similar, seemingly trivial, value.

The extraordinary dispute erupted in July 2007 when the council attempted to bill utilities company Veolia Water for placing two cones and some tape over the hole, when shoppers began tripping over its cover. When this figure was disputed legal action was started – ending, eventually, in the court hearing today.

While the final legal bills are yet to be assessed, Judge Hampton ordered the council to pay the bulk of the total chalked-up by both sides – in the region of £130,000. She ordered the council to pay 85 per cent of Veolia’s costs – which are estimated to be up to £45,000 – and also ordered the company to pay 15 per cent of the council’s costs, believed to be around £85,000, to reflect delay Veolia had caused to the trial earlier this month. The precise sums will be assessed later, if not agreed between the parties, but the total bill for council tax payers could be as high as £110,000. This could rise still higher after the council was granted leave to appeal.

Judge Hampton explained the case centred on competing interpretations of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, under which the council sought to force Veolia – formerly known as Three Valleys Water – to pay the £335.31. She added: “The case is really about whether the claimant, as a street authority, is entitled to charge the defendant, as an undertaker, for inspecting the site and installing cones and tapes over the manhole cover, pending its replacement.” While she rejected a claim by Veolia that the council’s charges were not reasonable, she ruled that she was “driven reluctantly to the conclusion” that the Council was not entitled to charge in this case.

Liberal Democrat County Councillors were shocked at figures they have uncovered that show the number of council staff earning over £50,000 has more than doubled over the last four years.

In the financial year 2004/5 there were just 89 staff earning over £50,000, and just 9 of them earned over £100,000. Only 4 years later there are now 195 staff earning over £50,000: 16 of these earn over £100,000 and the Chief Executive is on over £200,000.

The pay bill for these top earners has jumped from £5.5m to £13.5m in four years.

Stephen Giles-Medhurst, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, commenting on these figures said: ‘While everyone is entitled to a reasonable and fair salary you have to ask the question if there are too many chiefs. Surely we should be investing in front line services where you can see a real impact of the investment for residents rather than people who write great reports for central government.’

Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats show that the Conservative controlled county council has doubled the amount spent on consultants over the past 5 years.

Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Stephen Giles-Medhurst said: ‘The more we probe the more it becomes apparent that the county council chucks our money down the drain – and is getting worse. In 2004-2005 it spent just under £2 million. In 2008-2009 the amount spent under “consultancy codes” is nearly £4 million. These figures exclude the strategic alliances like Herts Highways.

‘It really is time the council got a grip and concentrated on delivering core services.’

Notes

Extract from e-mail note to the Liberal Democrat Group from Herts County Council

The amount spent on consultancy codes by Hertfordshire County Council over
the last five financial years is as per the following table. These
excludes expenditure for services from Contractors like Mouchel Parkman
Services, Lambert Smith Hampton and Mace.

Financial Year
Amount
2004/2005
£1,931,307
2005/2006
£1,739,366
2006/2007
£2,055,239
2007/2008
£2,144,685
2008/2009
£3,811,890

Liberal Democrat councillors have been left asking who is telling the truth on the grit situation following misleading statements. One statement from the county council’s portfolio holder for roads which has been contrasted by a briefing sent to all County Councillors from the council officers doing their jobs, without the political spin.

Statement from the elected councillor responsible for roads says: ‘have enough salt to keep the main roads gritted this week.’

However this has been contrasted by the County Councillor briefing from Council Officer: ‘with enough salt to last for approximately 6 more runs.’ On one night of heavy snow fall, as expected tonight, the council will do 3 runs.

Chris White, Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on the County Council said: ‘They do not know how to cope with holding their hands up and saying we are running short of salt in public. It is a case of spin, spin and more spin to hide the fact they were caught out again.’