This is very odd - if there is to be voting at a local Assembly, surely it is right to limit voting to local people? And even if allowing the vote at a meeting to include any number of outsiders who turn up might seem better to other wards' co-ordinator groups, some of the key ideas behind the Local Assemblies were flexibility and local empowerment.Concern has been expressed at previous meetings [of the Perry Vale Ward Assembly] in relation to whether only those who live, work and study in each ward should be eligible to vote on allocation of both the mayors fund and, presumably also the localities fund.
The resident who asked me to raise the subject again, said that maybe the mayor should be the one to take this decision ?
So hardly something to trouble the Mayor about.Local Assemblies Implementation Guide, 2007 wrote:1.
Structures (‘How will local assemblies work?’)
General
1.1.
The proposals for local assemblies emerged from the Mayor’s Commission on Empowering Communities and Neighbourhoods. Changes to the Council’s constitution required to implement the proposals were agreed by the Constitution Working Party on 7 June and full Council on 27 June and the implementation plan endorsed by Mayor and Cabinet on 17 July.
1.2.
The approach has been to adopt flexible arrangements that can be adapted to suit different circumstances, minimise bureaucracy and create opportunities for innovation. This paper describes the guiding principles and outlines the practical arrangements needed to implement local assemblies across Lewisham.
On the other hand, this is pretty well what the decision makers for the Sydenham Assembly did decide.
But maybe the problem is just that Perry Vale Ward won't take the lead of its Sydenham senior sisters.Sydenham Ward Charter wrote:4
The Coordinating Group have agreed that proposals for the Mayor’s Fund should receive the support of 51% of those voting on the proposal. Where there are more bids than monies available the proposal(s) with the fewest votes will be eliminated. The outcome of the various stages of the funding process should be reported back to the next Assembly meeting. The Coordinating Group have agreed that groups applying for funding that do not receive the 51% threshold cannot apply for funding again within the current financial year unless the project changes what it is bidding for. The Coordinating Group have agreed that voting at the Assembly meetings should be by paper ballot with a straight yes or no to reach the 51% threshold. Voting will only be by those present at the Assembly meeting and over 14 yrs of age
The whole business of the 51% threshold is also odd. Possibly because there just aren't that many ideas around for how to use this public money in Sydenham, or because the co-ordinators' group, led by Chris Best, in practice stop looking for projects as soon as the bids come to the total available, it now never happens that there are more bids than monies available, so proposals with the fewest votes do not get eliminated. Unless the co-ordinators put forward something bad enough that 50% of those attending will actually be mean enough to say they don't like, the voting amounts to nothing more than rubber-stamping.
The Perry Vale co-ordinators' group alternative is to make more of an effort to find worthwhile local causes, and present local people attending its assemblies a real choice. If there are say eight projects, eligible voters rank the projects 1 to 8, the rankings are added up, and the ones people most want get funded, and the next most popular project whose bid would take the total allocated over what is available, just gets the balance.
Welcome to Perry Vale Ward, Land of the Free, and transparent local democracy!