CONFIDENTIAL
53109
1
OVER THE SELECTION OF COUNCILLORS. DIRECTLY ELECTED MEMBERS
SHOULD PROBABLY THEREFORE REPLACE THOSE INDIRECTLY ELECTED
EXCEPT PERHAPS WHERE THE TWO CHOSEN BY URBCO AND REGCO ARE
CONCERNED. THIS PROCESS OF SUBSITUTION MIGHT BE A PROGRESSIVE ONE, IN PART TO AVOID GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ARE TOTALLY DISMANTLING IN 1988 A SYSTEM ESTABLISHED ONLY IN 1984.
IT SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT DISTRICT BOARDS WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN A PROMINENT ROLE IN A PRE-SELECTION PROCESS, BUT WE ARE NONETHELESS CONCERNED THAT SUCH A SYSTEM MIGHT BE CRITICISED AS PROVIDING TOO NARROW A BASIS FOR PRE-SELECTION. MIGHT NOT DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS BECOME VULNERABLE TO ALLEGATIONS OF CRONYISM OR CORRUPTION? SUBJECT TO THAT, OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PRE-SELECTION OUTLINED IN PARAS 12 AND 13 OF YOUR TUR
WE WOULD MUCH PREFER METHOD 2. THIS METHOD WOULD NOT PROVIDE
SUCH A CLEAR OPPORTUNITY AS WOULD METHOD 1 FOR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT BOARDS TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER CANDIDATES (BECAUSE METHOD 2 INVOLVES MERELY NOMINATION BY A NUMBER OF DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS WHEREAS METHOD 1 WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT BOARDS ACTUALLY TO DETERMINE WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT TO BE A CANDIDATE). 5. WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF METHOD 2 WE WONDER IF ANY ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION COULD BE STIPULATED FOR CANDIDATURE IN ADDITION TO THOSE LISTED IN PARA 10 OF YOUR TUR? THE OBJECT WOULD BE TO
REDUCE THE EXTENT TO WHICH DISTRICT BOARDS WOULD BE OPEN TO ACCUSATIONS THAT THEY HAVE EXCESSIVE POWER TO MANIPULATE CANDIDATURES. IDEALLY IT SHOULD INVOLVE REQUIRING THE CANDIDATE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE/SHE HAS A MEASURE OF GRASS-ROOTS SUPPORT AS WELL AS THE SUPPORT OF DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS. COULD THIS BE DONE BY ASKING IN ADDITION FOR A NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS FROM OUTSIDE? (WE APPRECIATE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT TOO COULD BE SEEN AS OPEN TO
MANIPULATION).
6. WE HAVE NO STRONG PREFERENCE AS BETWEEN RETAINING SMALLER SINGLE-MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES AND CREATING LARGER, MULTI-MEMBER ONES. THE LATTER APPROACH MAY PERHAPS HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF RETAINING A SUFFICIENT ELEMENT OF REGIONAL IDENTIFICATION FOR EACH ELECTED MEMBER, WHILE REQUIRING A RELATIVELY BROAD (AND LESS MANIPULABLE) BAŠIS OF SUPPORT FROM REGIONAL BOARD MEMBERS.
2
CONFIDENTIAL
17.