Local Governance on a Knife-Edge: Or Why Local Governance is Failing

  

Whilst the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) appears to be on a mission to improve the standards and conduct of Local Councils, progress seems painfully slow.  Some town, borough and Parish councils appear stuck in a medieval ‘closed’ groove that is proving difficult to shift/open.  Betley Parish, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough and Staffordshire County Councils are but three that come to mind.

The 1972 Local Government Act created and empowered local councils to act.  Whilst it gave the appearance of national government sharing power with its localities, there were all kinds of checks and balances in place to ensure this didn’t quite happen.  Vagueness with regard to the rules was one. Another drawback was the calibre of local councillors/representatives.  A system is only as good as those who operate within it.

Over the centuries this appears not to have improved and in fact standards have, over the last 15 years at least, taken a nose dive.

Even when steps were taken to improve the situation in the latter part of the 20^th  and early 21^st  Centuries they were not taken seriously, if at all, by some councils.  Without any robust sanctions or enforcements particularly for bad conduct and fraud, slippage back into the swamp occurred.  Some Councils found it impossible to ‘scrutinise’/regulate themselves.  This was doubly difficult if the political persuasion of the national government was different from that of the local government.   Triply so if the national and local political persuasion was the same.   Unless this basic issue is resolved then it is unlikely that local governance will ever be successful and will not bring about the synchronicity necessary for a country’s successful governance.

At the moment all three councils in Staffordshire are in disarray and debt.  This might be because the national situation is similarly afflicted.   Their procedures also leave a lot to be desired.  Not least because the distinct impression being given is that these institutions are functioning not for the benefit of the people (and people pay for these so called services) but as institutions for themselves. 

So how can these destructive situations be reversed?  We might do well to consider some of the advice (not all) given by Plato when Athens was faced with a similar dilemma of self-destruction in 5^th Century BCE.

His suggested resolution was reiterated by AC Grayling more recently in the 21^st Century:  That all elected representatives should be honest and truthful in the first instance – primarily that they should know the difference between right and wrong truth and lies; have integrity -ie having strong moral and ethical principles knowing what is just, what is good and what selflessness really means.  It is never about counting personal cost, or about misleading those who rely on truth honesty and good judgment.  Neither should wealth be conf/used as a support/crutch/criteria for access to power.  That elected representatives should be we well educated, literate and well trained in the art of governance and in knowing what governance actually means (it is not their own peculiar and singular  interpretation of what it might mean in order to win).  Neither is it about ‘winging it’. 

All are vital for good governance.  For example, integrity in workplace governance means ensuring that institutional rules, legal frameworks, and ethical standards are strictly upheld without personal or political bias. This requires putting institutional duty above self-interest, maintaining transparency, and being fully accountable to stakeholders and the public.  This does not mean putting the institution above all else when things go wrong and mistakes are made.

This involves :

·        Transparent Decision-Making: Documenting and publishing the rationale behind policy choices, contract allocations, or regulatory approvals to prevent allegations of favouritism.

• Rigorous Conflict of Interest Management: Proactively disclosing personal, financial, or political relationships and recusing oneself from any discussions or voting on those matters.
• Upholding Whistle-blower Protections: Establishing secure, anonymous reporting channels and protecting employees from retaliation who expose misconduct, fraud, or waste.
• Objective Merit-Based Hiring: Implementing standardized, blind hiring panels and strict rubrics to ensure public or corporate roles are awarded on capability rather than nepotism or choosing those with the  same institutional mind set.
• Responsible Stewardship of Funds: Conducting regular, independent audits of financial accounts and strictly tracking the allocation of tax revenue or corporate budgets.
• Refusing Improper Influence: Declining gifts, corporate hospitality, or political contributions that could create even the appearance of compromised objectivity.

 

Adhering to even some of these criteria would help put local governance back on a more even keel.  At the moment changing the boundaries will not only fail to solve the issues it will simply mask them and serve to compound the problem in the long run.

 

For some councils who are incapable of recognising their own shortcomings, where the rot is too deep, and resistance to change is too strong, closing the council and starting again might be the only way to salvage the situation