I'd like to say that I'm about to state the obvious, but I realised today that this isn't the case.
I'm sure it has occurred to many people that a percentage of their council tax goes on nothing other than making the council run. Yes, councils receive subsidies and grants from central government, but the majority of the funds that a council has to run itself comes from you and I.
There is a large Council Tax department, which, in turn, employs people purely and simply to process your money; chase you up for late or non-payments and even more puzzling has a budget built into its own system that pays someone to make sure that everyone is justified in doing their jobs. Of course, the people who work in this department need facilities, technology and machinery and admin staff of their own, whether as typists, telephonists, receptionists or the people who are either employed or contracted to come around and service the offices - removing waste paper, confidential files, replacing clocks and moving filing cabinets. So the council also employs or contracts these out.
Councils employ lots of people just to ensure councils exist and without councils other services can't survive, so employing council employees becomes an essential department and apart from token cuts, always avoids the headlines. Of course, these are invisible front line services; the service that allows the other services to produce.
Without this structure there would be anarchy, so when you consider the amount of money you pay, you have to allow for this. But, what if you wanted to take this idea a step further? While people may not be consciously aware that they pay a goodly percentage of their council tax on running the council; they are aware they pay a large amount to education, social services and many other services councils' traditionally offer. However, if you were a childless couple with pot holes in your street and your litter bins overflowing, wouldn't you rather see your money be spent on the services that directly affect you? Equally, the same childless couple could argue that they pay money not only for the education of their non-existent children, they also pay for social services to offer no services to same non-existent children. The same way anyone could argue they don't feel it is right to pay for libraries because you haven't needed to use one for umpteen years; or that any money spent on town centres of major towns in the county constitutes a waste of money to them, especially as they never go into the town centres, mainly because of their fear of the lack of social control.
The point is, we all have to pay for everything, whether we benefit from it or not. In black and white terms it is harsh on a lot of people, especially if they feel the councils have let them down in some way. A colleague of mine hit a pothole at about 40 mph and it successfully maligned his tracking, costing him the equivalent in pounds, as the speed he was going, to have it fixed. He casually said he should sue the council for the cost, but was quickly corrected by two other colleagues, who stated that he couldn't do that. The only way a citizen can take legal recourse on something like this is if they inform the council in writing on a potential hazard and it hasn't been rectified in a specified period of time. As a casual observer, I found this hard to believe, yet quite believable. In a world that is embracing the compensation culture that has gripped the USA, people are going to be looking for ways to sue and potential victims of lawsuits are going to cover their backsides any which way they can.
The upshot is - it might be your council, but your council will do anything in its power to make sure it doesn't have to help or compensate you unnecessarily.
If our earlier childless couple tried to legally challenge the amount they pay in council tax because they believe they don't qualify for paying certain things, they'll find they get short shrift from a lawyer, because it would never get to court.
The people who pay council tax are the people who employ the council. The council was one of the first service industries and yet very few council residents feel they get a service. Every day now we hear or read about imminent swingeing cuts to public spending - this will result in one or all of three things - massive cuts in the quality of services; big increases in council tax and/or huge numbers of redundancies to key personal. Now, to the childless couple, if this means less teachers or cuts to social services it isn't going to bother them one bit - they don't even like paying for things they don't get any benefit from. But if the potholes get worse, or the bins get emptied once a month instead of fortnightly, or the street lights go out and never come back on, or the footpaths disintegrate, then they might start to notice and wonder where all their money is going if they're seeing nothing in return.
And that's the problem in 2010 - most council tax payers are seeing less and less for their money. Yes, we might have the lowest council tax in the land, but we also have some of the most invisible services. We have voluntary sector workers fighting over scraps to try and keep worthwhile community projects on the go and yet both councils - Borough and County - have employed consultants and agency workers at phenomenal hourly or daily rates to do jobs that other, less paid, but equally as competent, people could have done. The borough employ a contractor to cut lawns and keep the municipal areas tidy and presentable, yet there's more evidence of guerrilla gardening projects sprouting up, meaning the contractor continues to get paid yet doesn't actually have to perform a service.
The £1.3m being used on the North Northamptonshire Development Corporation is doing a very good job of pouring more scorn and ridicule on the county http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8548647.stm. Yes, we want to encourage people to move to all the new and decidedly non-social private residences that are sprouting up all over the north and east of the county; but with an estimated £20m needed to repair our already laughably bad road network, surely that, like so much other money, would be better spent being seen to be doing something other than covering a bullet wound with a band aid, or in this case, doing some more corporate branding. When will our 'ambitious' councillors realise that the majority of the people who live in this really quite fine shire just want to see value for money.
So, it's easy to say what's wrong. People and politicians do it all the time, most rarely come up with plans to improve things. If I had the power to change the council, I would do all of the things I mentioned earlier; I'd rid the council of agency workers and consultants; I'd cut or get rid of completely the number of middle management people who's only reason for existing is to find justification in others keeping their jobs - I'd wish for employees to not be submerged in accountability exercises, but to be out there doing the job they are paid to do and their line managers to determine whether they are adequate enough. I'd be looking at offering local communities and voluntary groups first rights on unclaimed or municipal land, either through allotment schemes or guerrilla gardening projects - except, I'd save some of the money from getting rid of the contractors and make it available for community groups to fund equipment and protective clothing - if they work together they should be rewarded.
I would take a long hard look at finance and accounts departments and slash the bureaucracy that exists within them - are you aware that if one department of the council wishes to use a room maintained by another department, it has to be paid for?! There is so much internal transfer of money inside the council that it would stagger a small bank; surely some communication, professional etiquette and common sense would negate the need for any number of administrators doing nothing but internal finances?
I would look into how much the council pays independent contractors to do repairs and essential duties and then work out if it would be more cost effective to reinstate defunct departments such as maintenance and repairs; employ a designated team of council workers to do the job more efficiently and cost effective than having a contractor who is paid regardless of whether a job is done or not.
I would stop trying to turn Northampton and the county into something it isn't. It is handy for both London and Birmingham; it does have the busiest motorway running through it and we are about the largest town in the country - although if you were placed in the town centre unknowingly, you'd struggle to think it belonged to anything but a modest place. People might come here if it was serviced well, but if they are persuaded to move here by false promises and glamorous shams, they are going to be mightily annoyed when they discover they get nothing obvious from their council tax.
The best kind of constituents are happy ones; or, at best, ones who believe they are getting value from their council.
No comments:
Post a Comment