Election Focus on Cork's Northside

This article appeared as an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on Thursday 15 May 2014

 

 

 

Predicting election outcomes is hazardous and I am reminded of the ancient Chinese poet, Lao Tzu, who said, ‘Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.’ Accordingly, I am not going to make any big predictions here but I will cast a lazy eye over the Cork City Council local electoral areas, beginning today with the Northside. First, I would like to refer back to last week’s column where I spoke of the declining number of candidates seeking local election in Cork city. The number has dropped from 84 candidates in 1974 to 59 in 2009. Thankfully, in 2014, there is an increase in candidate numbers to 65 which is heartening. In the three electoral wards north of the river, 31 candidates will battle it out for 13 seats.

 

In Cork North Central, nine people will be on the ballot paper with five seats up for grabs. Traditionally in Irish elections, incumbents have a significant advantage and it is hard to look past the five sitting councillors. Mick Barry polled spectacularly well in 2009 and, in fact, he was the top vote-getter in the entire city. He was comfortably elected on the first count with one and-a-half quotas and a 26.50% share of the vote. It is inconceivable that Mick Barry, running for the Anti-Austerity Alliance (AAA), would not be elected this time around although he will take nothing for granted and will continue to work hard in his community between now and 23 May. Catherine Clancy was second past the post in this ward in 2009 and polled solidly. This time around there are a number of factors at play, most noticeably the expectation that the Labour Party will suffer in these elections. However, Clancy may well be insulated due her personal popularity and the fact that she has enjoyed a successful twelve months as an excellent and high-profile Lord Mayor. Fine Gael’s Patricia Gosch made the quota on the ninth count five years ago and she has been an active member of the city council since then. She will be confident of retaining her seat. Kenneth O’Flynn of Fianna Fáil and Thomas Gould of Sinn Féin were elected in 2009 without reaching the quota, with first preference votes of 844 and 618 respectively. You would have to imagine that there is a seat for Fianna Fáil in this ward and, as an incumbent, O’Flynn should have an advantage over his party colleague, Dr John Sheehan. Even though Thomas Gould polled modestly in 2009, I have total confidence that he will be returned in 2014. My confidence is based on two reasons – (1) the rising popularity of Sinn Féin and (2) the impressive impact that Gould has made in City Hall over the last five years. And what of the rest? Donnacha Loftus (Fine Gael) and Dr John Sheehan (Fianna Fáil) have impressive local community credentials but I am not convinced that their parties will secure a second seat in the ward and they will find it hard to unseat their incumbent party colleagues. Billy Corcoran is a non-party candidate who has signed the ‘People’s Contract’. His message, for people to empower themselves, is an attractive one but he will struggle to win a seat. The final candidate, Lil O’Donnell, of the Anti-Austerity Alliance is a dark horse in the contest. Not only is she an impressive candidate in her own right but she can anticipate huge help, through transfers, from Mick Barry. When you consider the fact that Barry passed the quota with 775 votes to spare in 2009, you would be foolish to write off O’Donnell’s chances of dramatically claiming a second seat for the AAA.

 

In Cork North East, the four sitting councillors will be hoping to be returned to City Hall. Labour’s John Kelleher topped the poll in 2009 and – like Catherine Clancy – he will be relying on personal popularity outweighing party affiliation. Fianna Fáil’s Tim Brosnan has represented this ward since his breakthrough election in 1991 and, as his party’s sole candidate in the area, he should secure a good vote. Ted Tynan of the Workers’ Party has never been a prolific vote-getter but he is a diligent public representative and, as an alternative voice to the established parties, I think he will make it again. Fine Gael’s Joe Kavanagh was co-opted to council to replace Dara Murphy in 2011 and he has been a strong councillor in the intervening three years. Of course, he many well come under pressure from party colleague, Sue-Ellen Carroll, who is a good candidate. Sinn Féin’s, Stephen Cunningham, will also be in the mix coming down the home straight. I know Stephen as a first year student on the BSc Government degree in UCC and he is intelligent, articulate and hugely committed. Pat Coughlan secured nearly 8% first preference votes for Sinn Féin in this ward in 2009 and if Cunningham can add a few percentage points to this, he may well claim a seat. The question then becomes – at whose expense?

 

With 13 candidates for four seats, it would take a brave (or foolish) person to predict the outcome in Cork North West with any degree of certainty. The picture is confused by the fact that the top two vote getters in 2009, Dave McCarthy (RIP) and Jonathan O’Brien (now in Dáil Éireann) are not in the field. You would have to reckon that there is a seat in this ward for the hard-working Tony Fitzgerald of Fianna Fáil, for Sinn Féin’s Mick Nugent and for a Fine Gael candidate – more than likely incumbent Joe O’Callaghan over Lyndsey Clarke. Former Lord Mayor, Michael O’Connell, will be hopeful of continuing his time on Cork City Council but – like all Labour Party candidates – he will be under some pressure. The unknown dimension in the ward is now the remaining candidates will do and how their performance will impact on the outcome. Not only do you have a second Sinn Féin candidate but there are five non-party hopefuls, a representative from the Workers’ Party and one from the Anti-Austerity Alliance. It could be a case of ‘too many cooks spoiling the broth’ and splintering of votes amongst these candidates could play into the hands of the grateful incumbent councillors.

 

So, that’s a brief summary of the three Northside local electoral areas; next week I will take a look at the Southside areas. Since I started with a quote it’s appropriate to end with one – this time from the Nobel laureate, Nils Bohr, ‘Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.’

Who runs for local political office and why?

This article appeared an an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on 8 May 2014

 

Not many people realise it but Irish county councillors have a song in their name. ‘The County Councillors’ Song’ first appeared in the Leinster Leader newspaper on 1 May 1990 and it goes as follows:

 

I am a county councillor, a very public man

To benefit the people I’ll do everything I can;

In all my waking moments for their welfare I will scheme

And in the arms of Morpheus of improvements I will dream.

A local legislator and a man of high renown,

I am the county councillor, the greatest man in town.

 

There are many different things that can be read into this verse, including the presumption at the time that local elected representatives would be male (to this day, women are significantly under-represented in Irish local government). The verse also gives a sense of the dual role of the councillor – on the one hand, ‘a local legislator’ and, on the other hand, a public representative who will do everything ‘to benefit the people.’

 

There is no doubt that these two elements of a councillor’s job serve as motivations for people who are considering standing for election. In other words, some people are driven by a desire to influence a local authority’s policies be it in the area of planning, roads or the environment. Others are driven by the desire to help individual citizens and this client-centred approach is sometimes referred to as the grievance-chaser motivation. Every politician in the country – at local or national level – will tell you that grievance-chasing is a vital aspect of their work in terms of winning re-election. Of course, other motivations might exist outside of the two mentioned above. For example, some people may stand for local election in an attempt to find an alternative route to self-fulfilment.

 

In 2009, before the last local elections, I wrote a book entitled All Politics is Local: A Guide to Local Elections in Ireland with my colleague, Liam Weeks. One of the things we wanted to do was to dig a little deeper into the types of people who stand for local election and what motivates them. We received over 500 responses to our survey which enabled us to come up with the following typology of local election candidates (as opposed to councillors) in Ireland.

 

The Aspirant: Someone not that interested in local office, but who sees it as a useful route to national politics.

 

The Local Broker: Someone looking to represent and fight for the interests of his or her community.

 

Policy-Maker: Someone driven by the desire to change local policies or bye-laws.

 

The Lobbyist: A candidate running to promote the cause of an interest group.

 

The Activist: An individual who enjoys politics and likes to devote time to it.

 

The Loyalist: Someone not particularly keen on electoral office but who runs because of a party request.

 

The Protector: This person runs because of familial links to a politician, either to maintain a tradition of family representation or to ‘protect’ a local seat when a relative transfers to the national arena.

 

The Dissident: Their motivation stems from their falling out with an organisation over an issue, be it a party or a local community group.

 

The Maverick: Their presence in the electoral contest is unpredictable and can be a product of idiosyncratic factors.

 

This classification is based on the actual analysis of candidates’ motivations as opposed to speculation about what drives them. The categories are not exhaustive or mutually exclusive – in other words, a candidate can be a policy-maker, an activist and an aspirant.

 

Whatever motivates people to stand for local elected office, we should be grateful to them. It is a very brave thing to do to put yourself on the ballot paper and lay yourself bare before the electorate. We have too many ‘hurlers on the ditch’ who are happy to criticise but not get involved in any process of change. A healthy democracy requires that we have genuine contests for seats and it is a worrying trend that the number of candidates offering themselves for seats on Cork City Council (31 members) has fallen consistently from 84 in 1974 to 59 in 2009. This represents a 30 per cent decrease in participation in 35 years with a ratio in 2004 of less than two candidates per seat.

 

Over the next two weeks, I will be looking at the 2014 numbers and casting an eye over the city’s six local electoral areas. I do so with admiration and respect for all of the candidates, no matter their personal motivations. The candidates, of course, are only one part of the equation and there is an onus on us to take the election process seriously and exercise our precious right to vote. I concur with Abraham Lincoln who once said, ‘Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their backs on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.’

Frankenstein's Monster

This article appeared as an opinion piece in the Cork Independent on 24 April 2014

 

Mary Shelley wrote in Frankenstein that ‘nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.’ Well, the local government landscape in Ireland has been subjected to a massive change – in fact, the most radical structural change since the introduction of the ‘modern’ system of local government in 1898. Mary Shelley’s book was about an eccentric scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who creates a grotesque creature in an unorthodox experiment. In 2014, it is tempting to replace ‘Victor Frankenstein’ with ‘Phil Hogan’ and ‘creature’ with ‘structure’.

 

The changes to the local government landscape come about because of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 and the report of the Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee from May 2013. The main feature of the 2014 legislation is the abolition of town councils. It is remarkable that since the founding legislation in 1898 we have moved from over 600 local authorities to 114 and now down to 31.

 

Why is it the case that local government lacks protection in Bunreacht na hÉireann? The Seanad – a marginally relevant, elitist institution – could not be abolished without reference to the people by way of referendum. Yet, a whole tier of local democracy and 83 directly elected councils can be removed through legislation without reference to the people. Why have town councils died without a discussion? The Dublin-based national media is complicit in this and their refusal to address local government issues is shameful. Of course, part of the reason for this is that there is only one town council in Dublin, in Balbriggan. Predictably, the media has failed to engage with the town council issue and the only matter which is suddenly gaining some traction in the press is the directly elected mayor for the capital.

 

The 2014 act also brings into effect the recommended changes of the Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee. The Cork City Council jurisdiction remains unchanged and the number of councillors is unaltered at 31. However, there is a dramatic change in Cork county, the largest county in Ireland. Local government representation will fall from 156 to 55 - an enormous drop by any standards. The amputation of the county’s twelve town councils - Bandon, Bantry, Clonakilty, Cobh, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Passage West, Skibbereen, and Youghal – removes 108 councillors from the equation. We will then be left with a 55-member Cork County Council (an increase in membership from 48) drawn from eight Local Electoral Areas (LEAs). These new LEAs are Blarney-Macroom: 6 seats; Kanturk-Mallow: 6 seats; Fermoy: 6 seats; East Cork: 6 seats; Cobh: 7 seats; Ballincollig-Carrigaline: 10 seats; Bandon-Kinsale: 6 seats; and West Cork: 8 seats. The biggest change is occurring in West Cork. In 2009, West Cork had 12 county councillors drawn from the Bantry and Skibbereen LEAs as well as 27 town councillors from Bantry, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. As a result of local government ‘reform’ West Cork will be left with 8 councillors covering a huge territorial area.

 

The rationale for these sweeping changes is that Big Phil believes, unsurprisingly, that ‘Big is Beautiful’. I think he is misguided in this belief. International evidence refutes the notion that a smaller number of larger local authorities yields improvements, savings and efficiencies. Instead the evidence from other jurisdictions that have been down this road clearly points to the fact that structural reform and the redrawing of local authority boundaries is not a cost-free exercise and frequently results in dis-economies of scale, especially with one-off costs arising from amalgamations.

 

Back in 1924, the Phil Hogan of the day sought to abolish Rural District Councils (RDCs) in the name of efficiency and cost savings. What was really meant of course was centralisation. During the Dáil debate in 1924 on the proposed RDC abolitions, John Daly TD, an Independent from Cork, asked, ‘What would a man from Bantry Bay know about affairs in Araglen?’ The world is a smaller place today and so it is easy to poke fun at John Daly but he knew what he was talking about. He finished his contribution to the debate by saying – ‘Local representatives know their area best of all and should be given the power to tackle local problems appropriately.’ In my humble opinion, this sentence should be pinned to the wall in every office of the Custom House (home of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government).

 

We are on a slippery slope to almost total centralisation of power and Frankenstein’s monster (if not Frankenstein himself) is out of control.

Local Government is a Necessary Bulwark to Safeguard Democracy

This article appeared as an opinion piece in The Irish Times on 7 May 2014

Robert Flack once wrote, ‘Local Government is the foundation of democracy. If it fails. Democracy will fail.’ Unfortunately the foundation of Ireland’s democratic system is a neglected area of study. Local elections in Ireland are somewhat of a mystery to the general public who perceive that the local government system itself and its structures are complex. Many people do not understand this system or what the local authorities actually do. It is therefore not surprising that local elections are either seen as unimportant or irrelevant. This apathy is shared by large portions of the media who opt to analyse local elections merely in the context of what they mean for national politics.

The strongest argument for local government is as an organ of local democracy, whereby councils of elected members make policy decisions on behalf of their local communities. Powers are not retained at central level by national government but are held and maintained by the citizens of each community. Therefore, as well as local government being a means of self-expression, it also serves as a safeguard against central government domination. The spreading of power is a fundamental justification for local government, the argument being that it is dangerous to concentrate power in one organ of the state. Local government also stresses diversity and, for this reason, some of the academic literature refers to it as the ‘government of difference’. In its role as a mouthpiece of shared community interests, a local authority can factor an area’s history, geography, political culture and economy into its decision-making processes.

Regrettably, the Irish model of local government is far removed from the version of community self-government just described. In this country, local government is centrally controlled and is becoming more and more removed from the citizen. Successive governments have prioritised central control over local democracy and have exhibited a consistent lack of respect for sub-national government. This lack of respect was highlighted by a Council of Europe report in 2013 which strongly criticised Ireland for its lack of constitutional protection for sub-national government. Seanad Éireann, a marginally relevant institution, could not abolished without reference to the people by way of referendum. Yet, a whole tier of local democracy and 83 directly elected councils, can be removed through legislation without reference to the people.

The Council of Europe report was also critical of the direction of Ireland’s local government reforms. It commented that the policy paper Putting People First from October 2012 praised decentralisation in spirit but did not provide many concrete stapes in that. Rather, the report noted, some of the actual steps proposed went in the opposite direction and would result in increased centralisation. Most of the provisions of Putting People First came to legislative effect through the Local Government Reform Act 2014, which – amongst other things – abolished all of the country’s town councils and created amalgamations in Waterford, Limerick and Tipperary. Therefore, since the introduction of the ‘modern’ system of local government in 1898, we have moved from over 600 local authorities to 114 and now down to 31 – with minimal debate along the way. We have also casually removed a level of local democracy and have moved from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. This seems a far cry from the vision Fine Gael presented in its 2010 New Politics document which stated, ‘The over-centralisation of government in Ireland is, in our view, inefficient and fundamentally incompatible with a healthy Republic.’ Thus we can conclude, with increased centralisation, our Republic is very ill.

The justification for the abolition of town councils, the most accessible level of our local government system, is that big is better and more efficient. Unfortunately for Minister Hogan there is very limited evidence to support this assertion. In fact, the international evidence tends to refute the notion that a smaller number of larger local authorities yields improvements, savings and efficiencies. Instead the evidence from other jurisdictions that have been down this road clearly points to the fact that structural reform and the redrawing of local authority boundaries is not a cost-free exercise and frequently results in dis-economies of scale, especially with one-off costs arising from amalgamations.

The Minister was correct that change was needed at the town council level but he has opted for amputation over reform and an opportunity has been squandered. Town councils have been the most efficient element within the local government system in terms of being self-financing and maintaining commercial rates at a lower level that their county council counterparts. Removing the rating power from towns will lead to an increase in commercial rates for the hard-pressed business people in the towns of Ireland.

Town or municipal councils should be at the heart of our local government system. The very nature of local government is that civic society is up close and personal. Local councils and the services they provide have a far more immediate, continuous and comprehensive impact on our daily lives than many issues which dominate nationally. Local councils and councillors have to deal with a range of issues and factors that are not of their making and for which they may have no formal responsibility. These issues include migration, multi-culturalism, homelessness, social exclusion and other social problems such as drug addiction, prostitution, and petty crime. Many of the social problems faced by Irish communities today are most sharply evident in urban settings and towns. Sub-county authorities should be strengthened to address these problems. Instead they have been destroyed.

 

Government policies which promote centralisation over local democracy will not serve Ireland well. Have we many centralisation success stories? Has Irish Water had a good start to life? What about the student grant scheme operated through SUSI? Has the driving licence process improved with centralisation? Mahatma Gandhi once stated, ‘The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition forms. It requires change of heart.’ The disrespectful way that central government regards local government has to change before progress can be made. Local government is not a passing luxury; it is a critical element within any country’s democratic system which can safeguard against central domination and absolutism by putting in place a local system of political checks and balances.

 

LOCAL REPRESENTATION DECIMATED: AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTY CORK

It is clear that the abolition of town councils means nothing in Dublin where there are four big ‘top tier’ local authorities. The obsession there is with the issue of a directly elected mayor. Meanwhile, across Ireland, more fundamental representation is at stake. For example, let us look at the county of Cork – the biggest county in Ireland.

Excluding entirely the city area (where the number of councillors remains the same at 31) we can see that local government representation falls from 156 to 55 – a massive drop by any standards.

 

At the 2009 local elections, 48 members were elected to Cork County Council through the following Local Electoral Areas (LEAs):

·         Bandon LEA - 3 seats

·         Blarney LEA - 4 seats

·         Carrigaline LEA - 6 seats

·         Macroom LEA - 4 seats

·         Midleton LEA - 6 seats

·         Bantry LEA - 5 seats

·         Skibbereen LEA - 7 seats

·         Fermoy LEA - 4 seats

·         Kanturk LEA - 4 seats

·         Mallow LEA - 5 seats

 

In addition to Cork County Council, there were 12 town councils – Bandon, Bantry, Clonakilty, Cobh, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Passage West, Skibbereen, and Youghal – with 9 elected members on each, for a total of 108 town councillors.

 

We will see a massive change in 2014, especially in West Cork.

 

With the amputation of the town councils, we will be left with a 55-member Cork County Council, drawn from 8 LEAs.

 

·         Blarney-Macroom: 6 seats

·         Kanturk-Mallow: 6 seats

·         Fermoy: 6 seats

·         East Cork: 6 seats

·         Cobh: 7 seats

·         Ballincollig-Carrigaline: 10 seats

·         Bandon-Kinsale: 6 seats

·         West Cork: 8 seats

In 2009, West Cork had 12 county councillors drawn from the Bantry and Skibbereen LEAs as well as 27 town councillors from Bantry, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. As a result of local government ‘reform’ West Cork will be left with 8 councillors covering an enormous jurisdiction. Is this progress?

 

Back in 1924, the Phil Hogan of the day sought to abolish Rural District Councils in the name of efficiency and cost savings. What was really meant of course was centralisation. The Free State government had already demonstrated its centralist tendencies by passing in 1923 a remarkable piece of legislation which gave the Minister the power to dissolve local authorities if he deemed them to be underperforming.

 

During the Dail debate in 1924 on the abolition of Rural District Councils, John Daly TD, an Independent from Cork, asked, ‘What would a man from Bantry Bay know about affairs in Araglen?’

 

The world is a smaller place today and we have a continuous 24/7 news cycle as well as the internet and Twitter so it is easy to poke fun at John Daly but he knew what he was talking about. He finished his contribution to the debate by saying – ‘Local representatives know their area best of all and should be given the power to tackle local problems appropriately.’

 

In my humble opinion, this sentence should be pinned to the wall in every office of the Custom House.

THE DEATH OF CARRICKMACROSS TOWN COUNCIL

Speech delivered at special dinner to mark the abolition of Carrickmacross Town Council

Carrickmacross, Saturday 12 April 2014

Ladies and gentleman, it is a genuine pleasure for me to be with you tonight although in some ways it is a sad occasion. When I receive an invitation to speak at a conference or a seminar, I usually take my time, weigh up the pros and cons and, ultimately, accept some of the invitations and reject others. As my wife will confirm, I had no hesitation in accepting this invitation. There are two reasons for this. First, I was intrigued at the prospect of speaking at what is effectively a funeral or a wake for a public institution.

 

Secondly, I accepted because of the issue concerned – I am, and always have been, a firm believer in local self-government, local democracy and the principle of subsidiarity. Accordingly I am appalled at the decision to abolish town councils. As a country I believe we will be all the poorer. Essentially what we are witnessing is a disgusting power grab by central government – it is about power, it is about control and it is about greed.

When I am not reading about local government, my nose is usually stuck in a book of crime fiction. There is a Dutch crime writer called de Wetering who has written the following words – ‘Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough.’ I think central government and the Custom House will not be satisfied until local government is completely obliterated.

Greed is also a kind of fear – fear of losing control.

Since the founding legislation of 1898 we have moved from over 600 local authorities to 114 and now down to 31. Colm McCarthy recommended a number of 22 local authorities in the Bord Snip Report. Where is it going to end? How is it the case that local government lacks protection in Bunreacht na hÉireann? The Seanad, a marginally relevant institution, could not be abolished without reference to the people. Yet, a whole tier of local democracy and 83 directly elected councils, can be removed through legislation without reference to the people.

The Council of Europe report from 2013, entitled ‘Local Democracy in Ireland’ slammed Ireland for its lack of constitutional protection for sub-national government and correctly claimed that it was indicative of a fundamental lack of respect for local government. This lack of respect has existed and thrived since the foundation of the state with government after government prioritising intense centralisation over local democracy.

Where is the evidence that big is better? I can accept arguments about efficiencies and economies of scale if they are soundly based on evidence but not if they are built on nothing. The international evidence refutes the notion that a smaller number of larger local authorities yields improvements, savings and efficiencies. Instead the evidence from other jurisdictions that have been down this road clearly points to the fact that structural reform and the redrawing of local authority boundaries is not a cost-free exercise and frequently results in dis-economies of scale, especially with one-off costs arising from amalgamations.

We cannot and should not be fooled by the concept of municipal districts. Firstly, these are not political institutions or organs of democracy if there are no specific elections to them. Secondly, with no link between revenue raising and expenditure then municipal districts will not be legitimate as local government entities. In other words, if Minister Hogan’s grand plan is to create municipal districts with no rating function - but they will be part of a county council which has a rating function - then let us call the municipal districts what they are – glorified county council area committees.

In truth, town councils have been on a life support system for some time and it has been a long-term strategic aim of the Custom House to get rid of them. Back in the year 2000 I spoke at an AMAI seminar in Inchydoney following the publication of a local government bill that removed water and sanitary functions from town councils. I predicted then that town councils would be abolished inside 10 years. I was a bit out on my time-frame but the trend was an obvious one. I also argued in Inchydoney that water services would be nationalised before eventually being privatised.

Let us recall the fine words of Fine Gael’s New Politics document in 2010 - ‘We are committed to building strong local government. The over-centralisation of government in Ireland is, in our view, inefficient and fundamentally incompatible with a healthy Republic’. Well, if it was incompatible with a healthy Republic in 2010 it sure as hell is incompatible in 2014. Are there many centralisation success stories in Ireland? Has Irish Water had a good start? What about the student grant scheme operated through SUSI? I wish someone would explain to the students in my university who had to withdraw from education last year due to non-payment of their grant that centralisation works? Has the driving license process improved with centralisation?

Why are we not debating these issues? Why have town councils died without a discussion? The national media is complicit in this and their refusal to address local government issues is shameful. Of course, the national media is Dublin-based and they do not care one iota about town councils. There is only one town council in Dublin, in Balbriggan. This was a former Town Commissioners and its abolition means nothing to Dubliners.  Predictably, the media has failed to engage with the issue and the only matter which is suddenly gaining some traction in the media is the directly elected mayor for the capital.

In my opinion towns matter and towns which have a local council are healthier and stronger than those without. I am acutely aware of the fact that I am in Patrick Kavanagh country and in one of his famous poems, ‘Lines Written on a Seat on the Grand Canal’ Kavanagh refers to the mythology of towns.

Something which is a fact rather than a myth is that town councils have been the most efficient element within the local government system in terms of being self-financing and maintaining commercial rates at a lower level that their county council counterparts. Removing the rating power from towns will lead to an increase in commercial rates for the hard-pressed business people in the towns of Ireland.

Town or municipal councils should be at the heart of our local government system. The very nature of local government is that civic society is up close and personal. Local councils and the services they provide have a far more immediate, continuous and comprehensive impact on our daily lives than many issues which dominate nationally. Local councils and councillors have to deal with a range of issues and factors that are not of their making and for which they may have no formal responsibility.

These issues include migration, multi-culturalism, homelessness, social exclusion and other social problems such as drug addiction, prostitution, and petty crime. Many of the social problems faced by Irish communities today are most sharply evident in urban settings and towns. Sub-county authorities should be strengthened to address these problems. Instead they are being destroyed.

 

Again I turn to Patrick Kavanagh who wrote the following words in his poem, ‘Literary Adventure’

 

It's as simple as that, it's a matter

Of walking with the little gods, the ignored

Who are so seldom asked to write the letter

Containing the word.

No need for Art anymore

When Authority whispers like Tyranny

 

We live in a dangerous time when the tyranny of central government means that not only can you be ignored but you can be removed from history without debate.

 I thank you for the warm welcome you have afforded me tonight. I hope to return in happier times when some new, improved version of Carrickmacross Town Council will be created; a local authority which will drive the local economy and which will be a jewel in the crown of County Monaghan which – after all – is God’s own country. Thank you.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE DETAILS ARE IMPORTANT

The Local Government Reform Act 2014 has received little media attention or public scrutiny in Ireland. However, the one issue to get pulses racing – at least in one part of the country – is the proposal to have a directly elected mayor for Dublin. This is not a new issue in Ireland. The Local Government Act, 2001 proposed that direct mayoral elections would take place in 2004 but the Government repealed the decision through legislation in 2003. A Green Paper in 2008 again recommended directly elected mayors but the initiative never saw the legislative light of day during the remaining life-time of that Government. Enter Phil Hogan, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, who provided for a directly elected mayor for the Dublin metropolitan area in Part 11 of the 2014 Reform Act.

 

The legislation proposed the holding of a Dublin plebiscite on the issue on the same day as the 2014 local elections – Friday 23 May. Controversially however the Minister included a provision that each of the four local authorities which constitute the Dublin metropolitan area – Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Fingal County Council, and South Dublin County Council – would firstly have to individually adopt a resolution in favour of holding the plebiscite.

The insertion of this veto power for any one of the four Dublin local authorities was a curious move by the Minister and always had the potential to open up the proverbial can of worms. And so it proved. Three of the four Dublin local authorities comfortably adopted resolutions in favour of the plebiscite but, critically, the other local authority did not. The process begun on Monday 24 March when Dublin City Council approved with 50 votes in favour and none against. One week later, Monday 31 March, the remaining three councils met to decide the fate of the mayoral plebiscite. The vote in South Dublin County Council was 19 in favour with 3 against; in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the elected members voted decisively in favour by 23 to zero.

 

The sting in the tail however was spectacularly delivered by the members of Fingal County Council who voted against the holding of the plebiscite by 16 votes to 6. Accordingly, as things stand, the proposal is dead in the water and will not be going before the people of Dublin on 23 May. Advocates of the directly elected mayor idea are appalled by the fact that the plebiscite has been blocked despite the overwhelming majority of councillors in Dublin voting in favour. The combined total vote was 98-19 and yet the minority of councillors against the proposal have successfully rejected it.

Minister Hogan is firmly in the spotlight. Surely the decision to have a directly elected mayor should have been put in the hands of the citizens of Dublin? Placing an extra unnecessary obstacle into the process suggests that the Minister’s commitment to the concept is half-hearted, at best. While I am in favour of a plebiscite by the citizens, I think it would be wrong to scapegoat the elected members of Fingal County Council. Councillor Gerry McGuire of the Labour Party was one of those who voted against; he argued that any directly elected mayor would be based in the city and would ignore rural Dublin, including the residents of Fingal. He added that the Local Government Reform Act 2014 did not provide enough detail about the role and powers of the mayor and so people would not know precisely what they were voting on. I think this latter point is valid and deserves some attention.

The 2014 act is light on details in terms of the precise role of the directly elected mayor for Dublin. There are many different models of directly elected mayors and the powers and influence of the Italian mayor are different from the English mayor and the Greek mayor. Nobody can honestly say that the UK experiment with directly elected mayors has been a success, in light of the fact that the majority of cities which held referendums voted against having mayors. The respected academic, Kevin Orr, has claimed that mayoral referendums and elections have not raised the visibility of local government, except in ‘faintly embarrassing ways’. Having elected H’Angus the Monkey as their mayor in 2002, the citizens of Hartlepool decided 10 years later to drop the directly elected mayor model. In America more and more cities, counties and towns are also shifting to the council-manager model.

Ultimately, as Councillor McGuire suggested, it does come down to vital details such as the power and responsibilities of the directly elected mayor and the relationship between the mayor and the local legislature, i.e. the council(s). Directly elected mayors with executive powers can make quicker decisions and cut through much of the traditional internal local government bureaucracy – the flip side is that there is a grave danger in placing too much power in the hands of one individual.

In 2006, I remember interviewing the Mayor of Schenectady (New York), Brian Stratton, who made a very persuasive case to me for directly elected mayors. He said that when he was elected mayor he inherited a fiscal train wreck but was able to turn things around because he had immense executive powers. What he failed to mention though was that the fiscal train wreck had been caused by the previous directly elected mayor who had bankrupted the city with a massive deficit and a rock-bottom credit rating.

Many directly elected mayors in America have veto power over the council and are all powerful. When I asked the mayor of Albany, Gerald Jennings, about his relationship with his council, he laughed and said, ‘I’m not obliged to go to council meetings, thank God.’

 

In terms of Ireland what we need first and foremost is a proper debate on the concept of directly elected mayors and we need to know the precise details of the model that is being proposed. At that point an informed decision can be made.

 

For now the proposal is scrapped and has been dragged down at the first hurdle by Fingal County Council. It will appear again however in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, we have an opportunity to work out the details so that we can all know what we are talking about.

Dr Aodh Quinlivan is a lecturer in politics at the Department of Government in University College Cork where he specialises in local government – a.quinlivan@ucc.ie; @AodhQuinlivan.

DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR FOR DUBLIN

We have been around the block a few times with the issue of introducing directly elected mayors into the Irish system of local government, starting with Dublin. The 2001 Local Government Act stated that direct mayoral elections would start in 2004. However, the Government did a u-turn on the issue and reversed the decision via legislation in 2003. In 2008, the Green Paper on local government reform again floated the idea of directly elected mayors but the Green Paper never saw the legislative light of day. Now we are here again courtesy of the Local Government Reform Act of 2014.

 

I have always had reservations about directly elected mayors but I am not necessarily against the idea. The current controversy about the four Dublin local authorities having to endorse the proposal to allow Dubliners to vote on whether the capital should have a directly elected mayor is an unfortunate one. A significant obstacle has been put in the way and, if the Minister had the power of his convictions, I think he would have gone directly to the people rather than creating an obstacle. The indications are that Fingal County Council could block the initiative at its meeting on 31 March. In a way this would be a pity as I think if the matter was put into the hands of the citizens then we might finally have a proper debate on the issue.

 

For example we might usefully look to the UK where some cities have moved away from the mayoral model back to the traditional council-CEO model. Renewal of interest in local government was one of the main motivations for the introduction of directly elected mayors in the UK. However, evidence to date shows that public interest and involvement have not increased. Ultimately it all comes down to what powers a directly elected mayor of Dublin would have. Directly elected mayors with strong powers (especially the 'strong' variation in America) can make quicker decisions and cut through much of the traditional internal local government democracy.

 

Overall, this is a complex issue and it warrants proper discussion and debate. Below is the conclusion I wrote to a journal article in 2008. I feel the points contained in it remain relevant.

 

Conclusion

(from my 2008 article, 'Reconsidering Directly Elected Mayors in Ireland: Experiences from the United Kingdom and America', Local Government Studies, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 609-623).

The direct election of a mayor for Dublin in 2011 is expected to herald the extension of the system shortly afterwards to the entire country. The one lesson Ireland can learn from the United Kingdom is that it is essential to create a clear, unambiguous mayoral model. The arrangements introduced in the UK offered too many options and, as previously mentioned, suffered from a ‘double handicap’ as the office of city/county manager did not previously exist. The main lesson to be learned from the United States is the importance of clarifying relationships. As a political figure with some executive powers the Irish mayor will have to work closely will both the legislature (council) and the executive (manager). The devil is in the detail and unless the Irish legislation clearly outlines the division of executive powers with the manager, there is a danger that the office of mayor will be an empty role.

 

The local government system in Ireland needs urgent reform and the introduction of directly elected mayors is only one element of that process. The starting point must be devolution of powers and financial autonomy from central government to local authorities. This would allow mayors and councillors to exercise their reserved policy powers and work in partnership with a professional manager. Whether the mayors in question are directly or indirectly elected is a secondary consideration.

Details on Local Elections 2014

Minister Phil Hogan today signed the 2014 Local Elections Polling Day & Spending Limits Orders. Friday 23 May is the polling day between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm.

 

Tuesday 25 March is the day from which spending limits for the local elections apply. Depending on the population of the local electoral area concerned, the spending limit for candidates will either be €13,000, €11,500 or €9,750. These figures are reduced from the 2009 local elections when the top limit was €15,000.

Power of Veto for Councillors

The Irish local government system has traditionally operated a corporate model with the county/city manager accountable to the elected councillors who in turn are answerable to the people at election time. In theory this equates to the relationships between a CEO (City/County Manager), a Board of Directors (elected councillors) and the shareholders (electorate).

 

Under the local government Management Acts, the functions of local government are divided into two classes – Reserved Functions, performed by the elected members and Executive Functions, performed by the City/County Manager. While the law tries to make an exact division of functions, it was never the intention that the elected members and the Manager should operate independently of each other. The fact that the executive functions are assigned to the Manager is simply intended to provide the elected council with an experienced, whole-time administrator for the prompt and efficient discharge of day-to-day business without making an undue demand on the time of the elected members. The Manager is ultimately an employee of the local authority, appointed by the elected members (on the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service) and he may be suspended by them or removed from office with the consent of the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

 

The elected council is responsible for all policy decisions and the Manager must act in conformity with the general policy laid down by them. In carrying out his duties, the Manager operates under the general supervision of the council. The power-sharing relationship between elected members and the Manager is at the heart of understanding local government in Ireland. The perception among very many councillors is that the power in Irish local government is skewed towards the Manager. Other councillors will readily admit that they have passed power to the Manager in a number of controversial areas due to their unwillingness to make difficult decisions.

 

In producing the Local Government Reform Act 2014, Minister Phil Hogan has sought to re-address the balance of reserved/executive functions in favour of the elected councillors. The title of City/County Manager is to disappear and Chief Executive Officers will replace it, thus re-enforcing the corporate model mentioned above. Section 54 of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 deals with the new post of CEO and the section runs to nearly 10 pages.

 

The main change being introduced is in relation to the appointment of the CEO. It has always been the case that the elected members formally appointed the Manager but they were obliged to do so, i.e. the legislation stated that the council shall appoint the candidate recommended by the Public Appointments Service. Intriguingly, under the 2014 legislation, councillors are being given veto powers. Within three months of having received a recommendation from the Public Appointments Service, the council must meet and decide to appoint or not appoint the person recommended. If the council decides not to approve the appointment, reasons for such a decision must be furnished to the recommended person.

 

It is interesting to tease through some of the ramifications of this veto power. Previous legislation insisted on the fact that the elected members had to appoint the recommended person so as to avoid political influence in the process. The new legislation brings the appointment of CEO firmly into the political arena which may not be wise. Of course, a strong argument can also be made that the Board of Directors should have a key role in deciding who their CEO will be.

 

Will the new veto power have a damaging impact on candidates from the private sector applying for the role of CEO in local councils? After all, winning through a competitive process organised by the Public Appointments Service and then being rejected by the elected council is not a very attractive proposition for outside candidates. While the council’s vote on the appointment of a CEO has to take place in a closed session, it is highly probable that details of the meeting will emerge and the credibility of the rejected candidate will suffer.

 

Other than the veto power, there is little in the Local Government Reform Act 2014 to suggest that the role of CEO will be any different from that of Manager. The act continues the trend of previous legislation by listing the reserved powers of councillors and simply stating that ‘every function which is not a reserved function is an executive function.’ Maybe the new CEOs need greater clarity than that?

 

Dr Aodh Quinlivan is a lecturer in politics at the Department of Government in University College Cork, where he specialises in local government. Twitter: @AodhQuinlivan

Let's stop pretending this is a local property tax

Cork Inndependent, 7 November 2013

 

Really, it was depressingly predictable and we should not have been in the least bit surprised. After all, we have been here before. I refer to the recent announcement by Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan TD, under Section 57 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 that - ‘Receipts from the Local Property Tax received in 2013 will remain in the Exchequer to meet the many expenditure obligations by the State.’ None of the money, zero per cent will be coming back to local government so let’s stop pretending that this is a local property tax. It is anything but. It is a tax which is being collected centrally and being kept by central government. Where exactly is the local in that? It was Benjamin Franklin who famously said, ‘Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes’. He might usefully have added, ‘In Ireland nothing is certain but death, taxes and centralisation.’

Irish local government suffers from all known forms of centralisation – functional centralisation whereby local councils are given a very narrow range of powers; administrative centralisation whereby most activities of local councils still have to be approved by Dublin; and financial centralisation whereby central government continues to tightly grip the purse strings. Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he wrote, ‘Every central government worships uniformity: uniformity relieves it from inquiry into an infinity of details.’

The story of the Irish property tax has an eerily familiar feel to it. We just need to think back to the disgraceful political auction that was the 1977 General Election. Fianna Fáil swept to power with a landslide majority, partly on the back of a promise to ‘abolish’ domestic rates. The promise from government was that it would pay directly to the local authorities the amount of money they would otherwise have collected through domestic rates. The ‘slight’ problem was that government could not afford to keep the promise (even if the political will existed to do so) as it was broke. Initially, government paid the local authorities a support grant in lieu of the domestic rate monies but in 1983 legislation removed responsibility from the minister to meet the full amount of the money lost. Local councils began to receive less and less money, a situation from which they have never recovered. The domestic rates abolition has interfered with the local democratic process, curtailed local accountability, weakened local discretion, reduced the amount of money available to local authorities and made local government more dependent on central government.

Since then we have had a bewildering myriad of reports on the topic of local government financing all of which broadly reached the same conclusion – for local government to prosper, autonomous locally based sources of funding were required. If local government is to have any meaning (and central government is hell bent on making it meaningless) then there has to be a link between local revenue raising and local expenditure. In 2008, the OECD looked at local government financing in Ireland, as part of an overall review of public service, and concluded, ‘Ireland has limited local financial autonomy which, in turn, strengthens the input-focus of national policies.’ This is a polite way of saying that Ireland is too centralised.

The Council of Europe went further in its recent report on local democracy in Ireland, stating, ‘The scale of real local taxes and the freedom to set their rates appear to be very limited. During the economic crisis, the financial resources of local governments have decreased, but the volume of their responsibilities has remained the same. Local governments have the formal freedom to adopt budgets but such freedom is severely limited in practice.’

In theory a local property tax (if it was genuinely a local tax) could offer councils some financial independence and this may evolve over time. However, as mentioned at the start, the first signs are not encouraging with central government greedily keeping all of the 2013 monies for itself. Even if we move to a situation where property tax income is returned to local councils, who will decide on how the money is distributed? The answer is central government. The current method of distributing money from the Local Government Fund to councils is a more closely guarded secret than the Coca Cola recipe. The Council of Europe tried to find out but could only conclude, ‘the mechanism is not transparent.’

Minister Phil Hogan’s current plans are designed to remove the local from local government and I am amazed that the local business community in Cork’s towns are are not up in arms about the prospect of paying higher commercial rates once town councils are abolished. Ultimately it all boils down to two things – power and money. C. Wright Mills noted that, ‘Prestige is the shadow of money and power.’ Local government institutions will have no prestige, no status and no legitimacy with the public unless they have power and money. I won’t be holding my breath.