Welcome to our discussion forum where you can share views on the Council's scrutiny review of election cycles. The Council currently has elections in 3 of every 4 years and is considering whether or not to change this to elections once every 4 years. What do you feel about these proposals? Please let the Council know. Thank you.

I would strongly welcome a change to local elections being held every 4 years on grounds of cost savings, less disruption and probable greater electorate interest and participation.

This could be a very important decision because we as elected representatives do need to be in touch with what people are saying so that we can make sensible decisions. Please let us have your views.

I would welcome the move to a 4 year cycle. It would give the Council the opportunity to develop a more long term strategy rather than by being distracted by elections every 12 months. Also, there would be an expenditure saving in terms of paying for the election process. Cllr Sutherland, what is the Council's projection as to what the likely saving will be? Is this money ear-marked for something else? Thanks.

We did cover the cost saving and were rather unimpressed. There is a saving of about £30,000 which is a very small proportion of our £16,000,000 budget and is equivalent to a grant we could give out to some organistions. However it is a saving but I do thnk that the other arguments are more important.

See my comments to Mark Lowe.

I would entirely agree with Mark and any cost savings would be welcome in the overall reduction of expenditure and consequently Council Tax.

As turn out at local elections is very low, the Council should be providing alternatives to the traditional postal votes. Can we not vote over the internet. Surely this is possible to keep secure with current technology?

I very much agree that the Internet would be a good way to vote and in some countries they are experimenting with this but so far the results have been rather too mixed. Also the public has limited confidence in Government commissioned IT schemes, with good reason.

Four yearly elections would allow the public to throw out a bad administration that is wasting public money on pointless ventures like the costly 'merger' with Adur. I don't recall this appearing in ANY parties manifesto?

I think a 4 yearly cycle is a better idea. Maybe a greater debate can be had over the previous administration's record, and discuss wider and better the plans the party has for Worthing. The only time I have anything from my councillor is when election day comes and I get a pamphlet. It would be nice to hear them whoever they are as a party present what they will do in a wider manner around Worthing beyond dated and 20th century orientated pamphlets. Look at the Obama/Biden campaign - that embraced technology and a 4 yearly cycle would be good to hear the whole plan rather than individual aims of each councillor.

Hi Fluffy, Thanks for your comments. Actually this is one forum that we are trying to use to consult the electorate have you any other ideas how we can do it better. There are two Lib Dem websites on for the Worthing Lib Dems and one for HAzel Thorpe the PPC. I believe that the Conservatives are working on one for themselves and that the two MPs have web sites. www.timloughton.com/ www.peterbottomley.org.uk/ www.hazelthorpe.org.uk/ www.wor-ld.org.uk/ Let me know what you think.

Part of the driving force behind this is to make cost savings. Yes, it obviously will save money, but at what price? Saving money might not be wise here and it could well prove to be penny wise pound foolish. The running of a local council these days is far from simple. Fledgling councillors think they will change the world when first elected. They soon learn differently. It takes about six months to turn a virgin councillor into one that’s worth having – and I should know because I had a 25 years’ experience watching councillors come and go in Worthing council chamber in my job as a reporter. Working behind the scenes is a well-oiled bureaucratic machine that is not elected. In theory that bureaucracy does what the elected councillors tells it to do. In practice it’s the officers who hold the power, and when inexperienced councillors come onto the scene they’ve got an uphill struggle, first to understand the complexities of their new job, then to understand all the local government jargon and finally to effect any worthwhile change. If an entire council was elected at one go the chances are that many would be virgin councillors. Officers would have a field day presenting their option as the course to adopt and the inexperienced councillors would have a devil of a job presenting a counter argument without the experience to do so. The best councils have first class officers, balanced by experienced councillors with considerable knowledge of what makes the town tick who have the ear to the electorate. The officers tend to want to effect controls which will make the town hall work as a well-oiled machine with as few problems (or additional workload) as possible. But that control might not be what the town and its residents want. Just take, for example, the current fiasco over car parking. It might be that to pass car parking control over to NCP was the easiest thing to do as far as council officers were concerned, but it certainly was not the best option for Worthing people and business people trying to run shops, etc., here. Councillors, if they are worth their weight (and expenses) create the balance between officer control and the need to maintain freedoms which make life worth living, and to reach decisions which are best for the town. If you put a lot of inexperienced people in the town hall all at once, heaven help us. And if you’ve got a four year term it could mean four years of decisions you don’t like until you can get rid of them. When Worthing council was first set up it had an aldermanic system. The “elders” were elected by councillors and these people formed the experience which allowed continuity. Councillors were elected in thirds, which meant that there were relatively fewer inexperienced newcomers and they had plenty of help in learning the ropes. It meant that when they began speaking in the chamber they were able to engage their brains and make a worthwhile contribution (well most of them!) Local government is far more complex today, yet we want to sweep away the safeguards. We’ve already partly done it by setting up a cabinet system which allows a few to make decisions, rather than virtually all decisions being taken by the full council through committee recommendations. That, in my view, was a wrong step, brought in on the altar of speeding up local government. These changes are introduced through the Labour government which has always found controlling through a bureaucratic machine better than through elected representatives. That’s why we’ve now got an army of unelected quangoes costing us a fortune. And having entire councils elected en-masse is a huge further step too far. For once I think we should follow the experience of our forefathers rather than trying to make changes simply for change sake or to try to save a few pounds, denying people a voice through the ballot box each year.

Thanks Tony, I would heartily concur with your comments about the need for councillors to gain experience before they really can become effective. After 3 years I still have a lot to learn and there does seem to be a perception sometimes that the officers would like us to be ineffective as it makes it easier to tick the boxes!

Tony Mayes makes some excellent points generally about the office culture within local authorities and it is certainly not difficult to see that Worthing is led by the officers rather than the Members. The NCP car parks contract is an excellent example where, we have seen politicians blaming each other, whilst in truth whichever party made the decision was advised at the highest level by officers who appear to have neglected to ensure the Council remained in control and that effective break clauses were inserted. We need the opportunity to remove a Council which is not prepared to operate strategically and really make a difference to our town. We only ever seem to see fiddling around the edges. Tony suggests that a 4 year cycle would mean a large number of 'virgin' councillors. I'm not sure of the evidence for this. In my experience of Councils running on a 4 year cycle this is not what happens. A 4 year cycle, where all are up for election at the same time, allows for effective policy development between times, makes the election more of an 'event', and allows the community more opportunity to remove a controlling party when they fail to make a difference. I believe that the local emphasis on political parties adds nothing to Worthing's development. Maybe an elected party-independent Mayor who selects her or his cabinet from the best regardless of political allegiances, would serve us better? Rock on Obama!

jev makes a couple of good points but is perhaps a little unfair on the present day members and officers. I'm told on good authority that the NCP parking contract was negotiated and signed off by the previous elected administration and this present day ruling administration inherited it. I also suspect it would be terrifyingly expensive to unravel such a contract now. It should also be noted, the Opposition party at the time of the NCP parking negotiations voiced concern ! The ruling administration of that day clearly ignored those warnings ! jev's reference to the officers is possibly a little out of date now, it appears that a whole new team of senior management is now in place compared to when the NCP contract was set up. On the plus side, I like this Joint Officer project that's now going through, real decisions have been made that will deliver realistic savings.

As a Councillor having served for 6 years both as a member of the 'Cabinet' and more recently in Opposition I totally share the concerns of Tony Mayes.If we try to put a financial price on democracy this is surely a very slippery slope. There is also no certainty of their being a saving as we know from experience that Council's that have a four yearly cycle have more by elections thereby taking any savings made! Why don't we look a system like London where we elect a Mayor who can be truely accountable at the ballot box if we are to go down the road of four yearly elections.At the end of the four years they can be re-elected for doing a good job or thrown out if not. This would truly engage the public in local democracy! The current system depends too much on which way the NATIONAL 'political' weather is blowing rather than electing the best people to serve our community and only then will we attract the quality of candidates in to local politics needed deliver quality public services driven by elected members and not Officers as we have at present?

Hello Bob What on earth have you got against the Officers ? Without their present day modern approach, we would soon be back in chaos. See Council Tax rates 2002/3 and 4 ! Is it also not time we seriously considered a Unitary Authority ? Now that would make for a discussion on this site ! Regards Fred

Council tax rates have nothing to do with the administration. What happens is that central government sets a cap and the administration sets its council tax as close to it as they dare!. Tony Mayes makes many good points. Annula elections keepo politicians honest!

Not much point in voting for anyone then as good local Councillors and Officers are wasting their time trying to keep Council Tax down then John ?

It can only be logical to have elections on a 4 year cycle. I don't know anyone outside political circles who even understands the current system !

I think the idea of four year elections is a great one. It may also improve the local turn out and may help the people running for council get out and talk to the residents. This hopefully will then make them aware how hard a lot of our councillors work and want to vote. Especially when they realise that the councillors are actually interested in helping the residents in their ward with stuff that really worries them or specific to that ward. It will also mean another day that some children are not off school, so better for education. I do agree with some of the above comments about 'virgin' councillors. Maybe there should be an experienced and a 'virgin' councillor working each ward. There is definitely enough work for two councillors on each ward from what I gather talking to some local councillors. I feel that so many Worthing residents do not see what the councillors do or are paid for. Maybe elections every four years may change this....

I'm not sure Bob Smytherman's comment about the employed Officers is completely fair. Without their professional expertise what on earth would well meaning but often ill informed Coucillors do when confronted with modern day financial and legal constraints ? I'm afraid to say, we would see repeats of past mistakes and incompetence as all political parties are driven by their own policies and agendas.

every year :)

Why Matt, what are the advantages and disadvantages in your opinion ?

PLease could we keep to discussing the election cycles rather than going off on to other issues. If we need to start another forum for more general discussion that would be considered. I consider that it would be a very good use of the medium. But for the time being could we stick to election cycles.

Well said Keith and I suggest we hold this debate along the following lines or something similar. From either point of view, for or against more or less elections, possibly the following format will help; Strengths. Weaknesses. Opportunities and Threats of either approach. Some sort of 'checklist' format will help keep discussions in line with the principles of a public consultation. There is another format that may be of use; Political, Economic, Strategic, technological and Environmental. Views please ?

Well said Keith. Can we now have a general discussion forum ? Any ideas for a topic to kick off with ?

Fred, It's a good idea and one that I like. So long as we have enough time to monitor comments for approval on the Have Your Say topics, and everyone is happy for general discussion to take place, it's definitely something we are thinking about doing. The main thing is that we have enough time to properly moderate a discussion.

i think its a good idea

Election by thirds has not served Worthing well, all too often residents have voted for change by throwing out an ineffective Councillor only to see them pop up in another ward the following year to continue their petty crusade at the long suffering tax payers’ expense. Four yearly elections may reduce ‘the merry go round’ of failed ex-councillors looking for a safe seat but if improving the quality of life for local residents is the primary concern more fundamental changes have to take place. Political parties in Worthing have to shoulder the responsibility for generating voter apathy by their choice of uninspiring candidates, dull manifestos and woeful records when elected. Election by a majority of residents on a 25% turnout is not a mandate to govern but a statistic of failure to inspire a community. Electioneering in confined to telephone canvassing to ensure the voter never has the face to face opportunity to make a judgement on the suitability of the candidate – the days when candidates would attempt to canvass the whole ward are long gone, aspiring politicians take the easy route of gaining election in a ‘safe ward’ where they are able to gain office with the minimum of work – a taste of the candidates commitment to the job they are about to be elected to. More challenging changes need to be made, such as leaving seats vacant where turnout is under 50%, a measure that would focus the minds of politicians on engaging the voters. Introducing a system of Recall – where residents can trigger an election when their Councillor fails to turn up to meetings or refuses to respond to residents letters and phone calls would make political parties scrutinise their candidate lists a little more closely before fielding whole families to ensure every seat has a party representative. Tinkering with the election cycle merely treats the symptoms of political failure – treating the cause of the problem will require local councils and councillors to face up to the fact that they are not up job and implement changes that will fundamentally change the system. Never has the adage been so true – local councillors constitute the election of the unfit picked from the unwilling.

I can add very little to Mike Smith's contribution except thank heavens the Officers appear to be well aware of local political shortcomings. This may well explain why they (both parties) moan about them whenever the opportunity arises.

With elections by thirds councillors all too often back off from taking difficult or unpopular decisions because they are afraid of losing control at the next election. The balance of doing the best for the town and 'staying in power' doesn't always go the way it should. If you elect once every four years councillors may be a bit braver about biting the bullet and taking those difficult decisions rather than prevaricating and rehashing the same old ground year after year.

There are pros and cons for each option and I think this discussion has highlighted the majority of them. On balance, I agree with Madge that this council has shied away from taking difficult decisions and I am sure that much of this is down to Councillors being more concerned about the next annual election. Take the unnecessary (and seemingly endless) procrastination over the straightforward decision of whether there should be a seafront cycle lane as an example. Annual elections may mean more short term accountability but the low turn-out negates much of the benefit this has. A 4 yearly election cycle will save money and will work towards increasing voter turn-out. I am interested to hear more about Councillor Smytherman's idea for a mayoral system of election as I agree that national politics plays an unhelpful role in local elections. I agree that money should not be the main factor in making this decision but we have to be realistic and accept that it does play some part. I appreciate why Councillor Sutherland wants to play down the potential £30,000 saving but, if we are honest, it must be a factor if there are discussions going on within the council at the moment that centre upon closing down public conveniences and restricting refreshments at Councillors' meetings in order to ensure that next year's Council Tax increase does not exceed 4%.

Interesting points made by Mark above. I doubt if Worthing Borough Council is big enough on its own to justify what would probably have to be a full time paid mayor. However, Cllr Smytherman may have a good idea if it removes our annual merry-go-round of 'mayor making' Another side to this idea is that an elected mayor would also be the leader of the whole council and hold the budget. Now that would be interesting when it comes to a debate on spending priorities ! As for the financial side, if a project saves money on council tax, it should be looked at seriously in the current financial climate as it will benefit the most needy in the short and medium term.

Cllr Sutherland says that only £30,000 will be saved but presumably that is every year there isn't an election? That would mean a saving of £60K if elections are only once every four years. Also does Cllr Sutherland take into account resource issues such as staff working on elections? And there are also the green issues like all those wasted ballot papers that get printed when no one turns up to vote and the schools who lose a day because they have to be a polling station.

Madge: I interpreted the £30,000 saving to be over a period of 4 years but I could be wrong. Grateful for clarification please Councillor Sutherland. It would also be helpful to see how this figure was reached. Thanks.