It's not the width that matters - it's the quality!

It seems almost certain that Boston Borough Council will shrink in size by two members – from 32 to 30. The plan has been put forward by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which wants to hear local voters’ opinions.
The Commission wants to deliver electoral equality, and make sure that each councillor represents roughly the same number of people.
Commission Chairman Max Caller says that at present, the position isn’t balanced – and points out as a for-instance that Boston’s Central ward has 26% fewer electors per councillor than the average in Boston, whereas Kirton ward has 24% more.
The council has already agreed that it can manage with fewer councillors
An review in 1996 saw numbers reduced from 34 to 32 - and a submission to the commission made last October says that now the council has a Leader/Cabinet model, other councillors have less involvement in decision-making - which means that it could stand another cut in members.
It’s not thought that the electorate will rise sharply in the coming years, but it is believed that that there is under-registration by voters in town wards - perhaps because they feel neglected and that there is not much point in bothering to vote..
The submission also paints a none-too-pretty picture of the way some councillors operate.
All 32 members were sent a questionnaire to gauge activity within their wards and the pressures and constraints that this places on their time.
Disappointingly, only 13 – that’s 40% -  bothered to reply.
The results showed that eight were retired, two in part-time employment and three were working full time.
If those ratios were applied across the council as a whole, it would show too high a proportion  of retirees - and show that efforts to make the council truly representative of the electorate have not succeeded.
Similarly, the means by which councillors keep in touch with their electors is none too impressive, with only four holding local “surgeries.” Others said they attended parish council meetings, issued newsletters, made ward visits, used the village magazine and various charities and committees. Only one mentioned a website – and  of those we’ve seen recently most have not been updated for months.
Of eleven members who responded to a question about roughly how many requests for advice or assistance they received each month – at the lower end, one claimed between two and four, whilst at the top end another claimed to have received more than nine.We feel certain that more voters would ask more questions if they had more encouragement and  better understanding of the system.
As we have said before, the introduction of the cabinet model of government has pulled the teeth of the council as a whole – which now meets only five or six times a year - usually to rubber stamp cabinet decisions.
And talking of decisions, well over 90% of planning committee decisions are now taken by officers, whilst the actual attendance of councillors averaged 75% - although three of the 13 members could only manage a 50% turnout.
Figures for the licensing committee showed similar results – with almost 100% of decisions being delegated to officers, and attendances of the 15 members in the last year falling as low as 33% for one meeting.
Two members in 2010-11 failed toattend any of the five meetings, whilst four others only managed  one meeting.
However, figures like this apparently were insufficient to prevent the full council voting to increase its historically low allowances from £2,378 to £4,400 a year over a three year period – although two members to their credit have refused the rise.
Cutting the number of councillors to 30 is based on allowing eight for the Cabinet, two for Mayoralty – which now costs around £60,000 a year - and 20 to ensure that regulatory, scrutiny and other committees have adequate representation and continued to function effectively.
The licensing committee membership would reduce from 15 to13, and planning from 13 to 11, whilst the scrutiny and audit committees would stay the same.
How much all this is costing is anyone’s guess – but one key point is overlooked entirely.
Whilst the thrust of the exercise is aimed at the quantity of councillors, nowhere does anyone discuss the quality.
Over the years we have formed opinions of many of our councillors, and are sure that their efficiency and abilities vary considerably.
But if we must have fewer councillors, we need also to ensure that we have councillors who are better.
Whilst it is difficult to judge from the sidelines, we can certainly comment on one occasion when we approached our own ward councillors with a long-standing problem.
All three responded – and two went immediately into action. The third clearly failed to understand the e-mail, with a reply that was not only misspelled but also not especially fluent.
However, a promise was made to investigate.
A follow up e-mail sent after six weeks’ silence was ignored, and another sent four weeks later produced a reply that was totally incomprehensible.
Our response was to say as much -  and to add that we would no longer burden this particular councillor any further – a reaction that also remained ignored.
See what we mean about quality? - and this member has three more years in office.
If we are to be served by fewer councillors, then we deserve to be served by the best we can get.
Local parties please take note.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com