The Scottish Government is being urged to radically revisit the concept of community councils, which have been condemned as too narrow and unrepresentative to survive in the 21st century.
The attack has come not from outsiders but from many within community councils themselves, ahead of the launch of a new network calling for change.
One of the people behind it, Jenny MacKenzie, a former Edinburgh community councillor and teacher, describes herself as an active citizen and blogger. She also describes community councils in scathing terms.
"Community councils are too often hijacked by local politicians (who ought to know better) ambitious interest groups, or older, retired middle-class men who seek former or yet-to-be-realised glory days," she wrote cuttingly. Democracy at this level is often notional, she adds: "The artfully constructed membership list ... ensures an election isn't necessary."
A lack of checks and balances means trouble-making members are unstoppable, she adds. "Claiming to be 'elected' by the public, a disruptive community councillor cannot in law be sacked, removed from office, banned, or excluded."
The result, says Ms MacKenzie, is that younger people, community activists and others have deserted the movement in droves. She believes the Scottish Government has all but written off the concept. Yet she also detects a spirit for change and new ideas about community, if it can be unshackled from structures defined four decades years ago.
The Association of Scottish Community Councils closed in April of this year, saying it was not being given enough money by the Scottish Government to do an effective job.
While many community councils, particularly in rural areas, continue to function well, others are less effective. Ms MacKenzie – along with Tony Harris and Terry Tweed, both of whom remain serving members of Edinburgh community councils – have set up a group to look for a way forward. This week they have launched the national network for change and community – deliberately making no reference to community councils. "The existing model for community councils is 40 years old and out-of-date," Ms MacKenzie adds.
She says that while the Scottish Government is currently consulting on its community empowerment bill, it needs to know that fundamental change, not just tinkering at the edges, is necessary.
In particular, those engaged in the system need a timescale for improvement. "We are not being paid for any of this. We have got to know the work we are doing is going to have an impact in the reasonably near future, rather than 30 years down the line," she says.
While proper elections and safeguards are proposed by many, the new network, whose online home is www.nationalnetworkcc.com, has as one of its key goals the fostering of an open debate about what is needed and what is currently wrong. Critics of local councils say that many see community councils as little more than obstacles made up of complainers, not to be taken seriously. Supporters point out that community councils can appear parochial and prone to nimby-ism and ill-researched objections.
The calls for change are not just coming from Edinburgh. Bill Fraser, a community councillor in Pollokshields, Glasgow, for 10 years, readily admits he fits the stereotype. "Traditionally, community councillors are middle-aged, middle-class balding guys, which covers me almost precisely.
"But they were set up under the Local Government (Scotland) act of 1973. Things have moved on. Instead of attending meetings about police reports and planning applications, I see more and more people getting involved in single issues."
Mr Fraser is no stranger to such single-issue campaigns, having been a key player in Save Pollok Park, and he believes any revamp of structures needs to take into account the fact that communities of interest can be as important as geographical communities.
"Sometimes I think city councils would rather like it if community councils would just go away and let them get on with governing the place," he says. But that is an outcome that few seem ready to countenance, just yet.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article