A RARE revolt by Conservative backbenchers recently put paid to plans to close or end KCC funding for between 40 and 50 libraries.

Members of the Conservative group were reported to be aghast at the idea.

One confided that it would have proved catastrophic for the ruling administration and that the presentation in which the plans were outlined was like watching a car crash in slow motion. The leadership was instructed to have a rethink.

But what exactly was proposed? Other than that the cost-cutting plans set out suggestions that where libraries might be closed, district councils and voluntary groups would be offered the chance to run them, not much additional detail has surfaced.

And that looks like the way KCC – despite its much vaunted transparency agenda – would like it to stay. A request under the Freedom of Information Act by Ian Clark, an assiduous Kent library watcher, for the proposals presented to Conservative group last month has just been turned down by KCC.

Here is the council’s response:

“KCC is currently exploring and considering the future of the library service. If the information is disclosed at this time, the effectiveness of that important process could be compromised. The provision of advice and exchange of views by KCC members and officers is likely to be more reticent and circumscribed rather than the necessary full and open discussion to allow us to fully explore relevant options. This would adversely affect the delivery of KCC services by inhibiting free and frank deliberation between KCC members and officers about options for the future of the service.”

The response goes on:

"Once KCC have (sic) fully explored all options for the future of the service, we will start a series of conversations with local communities about how we can work with them most effectively. To support that conversation we will release a range of information to facilitate discussion and consultation. Releasing the requested information now would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs by undermining constructive dialogue with local communities before we can even start these conversations. It is important that this process is carried out in a correct and consultative fashion, not on a piecemeal basis.”

’Given that exploring options for the future of the library service is an ongoing piece of work and that no conclusions or clear proposals have yet been reached, and taking into account that we are committed to working closely with local communities to develop our ideas once we have decided upon an overall approach, we strongly feel that releasing the requested information at this time would inhibit the decision making process.”

"Therefore, it is the opinion of Kent County Council's Monitoring Officer that this information should be withheld under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act, as disclosure is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

"Section 36 requires consideration of where the public interest lies, and it is KCC's opinion that it would not be in the best interests of the public for this discussions about things that may never happen to be put into the public arena prematurely and before the appropriate time.”

The response raises some questions.

How, if the proposals have been effectively scrapped, might they inhibit future decision-making?

Given that it is now in the public domain and widely known that the proposals were rejected by the Conservative group, in what way might the disclosure undermine ‘constructive dialogue?’

In what way would 'free and frank' advice and discussions over entirely new proposals be inhibited by the release of proposals that are not going to be implemented?

Where is the evidence that disclosure would – rather than would be likely to – prejudice effective public affairs? Guidance from the Information Commissioner on the exemption says engaging it is more likely to succeed where such an impact ‘would’ occur rather than ‘would be likely to occur’?

Finally, where is the “clear, specific and credible evidence” that “the substance or quality of deliberations or advice would be materially altered for the worse by the threat of disclosure?’ (That’s also in the Commissioner’s guidance).

I can’t see how the response as framed by KCC addresses these questions but then again, the authority can be decidedly schizophrenic when it comes to transparency.

Perhaps the response is not really about constructive dialogue with communities at all but minimising political embarrassment.

Well I return with a great interviewee this week, one who was mistaken for a popstar if you can believe it.

But we will get to that later.

This is Matthew Webster, 27 from our very own County Town of Kent, Maidstone!

So Matt is his name and Account Management is his game (Occupation for all those who are not up to date with their rhyming slangs).

As always, I like to find out what my interviewees like about Kent and this is what Matt had to say.

"I like the people, the places and the general atmosphere of Kent."

To expand on what Matt has said, he likes having a game of football with his mates, shortly followed by a cold pint or 10 down the Albion and the elegant banter with other fans about who is the greatest footballing side in England.  We both know it is Manchester United but he lets them stress their point on why the other teams are worthy of competing against United before casually turning to them and singing "He scores goals galore, he scores goals, he scores goals galore, he scores goals, he scores goals galore, he scores goals, Paul Scholes, he scores goals."

A fitting tribute to one of the greatest English Midfielders of modern day football and also a great way of sticking it to the other football fans.

Since the beginning of 2011, I have introduced a new question which is designed to find out what the people of Kent really know about their County and to see if they can inform others in Kent of interesting facts or pieces of information that are not well known.

"Kent is the most populous County in the UK." Matt said "Over 1.6 million people reside in Kent."

I found this to be a very interesting fact as I thought Greater London and the Northern Counties such as Lancashire had bigger populations so thanks Matt.

Matt's favourite eating spot is Buenos Aires in Maidstone which he describes as "The best steak in the county."

In his free time, Matt likes to compete in various sports such as Football, Squash and Tennis.  Equally, he does enjoy going to the Cinema, eating out at a range of eating spots and socialising with his friends.

So the part you have been waiting for, the mistaken identity of a popstar.  I let Matt fill in the rest.

"I was once spotted by a young woman who worked in the Bowling Alley in Maidstone who thought I was Danny from Mcfly.  I played along temporarily before confessing.  It was a long time ago."

Looking at the picture above, I think this woman was either crazy or blind because I see no resemblance.  Sorry Matt!

As always, it is important for me to find out my interviewees thoughts on how to improve the county.

"I think the county could have some bigger gigs / festivals.  We have the space for it and I think it could be a big money spinner for the county.  We have a picturesque county so we should utilise it.  I'd certainly go..."

Again this suggestion has come up and I think it is about time that we did start using the facilities available in Kent to cater to the entire population.  Often there are events held that are in the interest of a small majority of people which is a waste of public money and inconsiderate to the rest of the residents in Kent.

And now for my random question of the week: If you could travel to any planet in the Solar System, which one would it be and why?

"I think it would be Jupiter.  I liked the song by Train and it looks cool.  Mysterious."

A good choice!

So another Kentish resident has given me their views and opinions on our county and as always I would like to extend my thanks to Matt, my interviewee, for his time.

I will post again soon so who knows, it could be you next!

If you live in Kent, let's talk!

If you would like to appear on my blog, all I ask is that you live in Kent and that you are willing to talk to me for 10 - 15 minutes about yourself.

If you think you'd like to give it a try, drop me an email on millendauthor@gmail.com and we will see what we can do!

Read more: http://blogs.kentonline.co.uk/author/Dan+Millen.aspx#ixzz1SJYJTrvX

Turn your back for one moment and something always happens at Medway Council.

The latest is an extraordinary announcement that it is publishing a webpage giving its answers to media questions.

It follows a disagreement with both the Medway Messenger and BBC South East over their reporting of the concerns raised by Jack Hope, a resident of the Isle of Grain. He has been mounting a vitriolic campaign against virtually everyone in authority (councillors, National Grid, MPs et al) over the failure of the any of them to advise what is the escape plan if there is a catastrophe at the LNG terminal. There has to be a plan if (heaven forbid) if there is a massive fireball at the terminal, along the pipe which crosses under the only roadway out of the Isle or aboard one of the 130,000 tonnes-liquid gas carrying tankers which now regularly dock next door to the village. (It's a good site they chose, between the laden wrecks of the munition-carrier Robert Montgomery and the minelayer Princess Irene.)

You would think the residents would know what to do They don't.

It is because there is an issue of national security (so those in authority maintain).

What seems to have upset Medway Council's press baron, John Staples, is that no one has reported that Mr Hope is demanding that National Grid buys his property. It is now blighted by its overbearing neighbours presence - along with everyone else on the tip of the Hoo peninsula.

The real issue is whether residents are safe living at the end of the A228 when they have millions of tonnes of gas stored in a near-frozen compressed state at the end of their gardens.

Mr Staples is a former reporter. He lives an uncomfortable life trying to balance the politicial pressures, officers; defensiveness and the ferrety inquisitiveness of the local media. I should know: I've done the same job.

What his decision means (and I suspect there are at least two politicians pushing this move) is that the confidentiality of press enquiries is going to be blown apart.

Let me explain the system employed by Mr Staples and his team.

A reporter phones in with a simple query. Let's say I ask: "How many staff does Medway Council employ?"

Mr Staples emails a query to HR with a deadline for a response, and asks the same question.

Someone in the HR department then responds. Let's say the answer is: "There are 8,000 full time and 2,200 part-time staff employed by the council."

An email is then sent to the reporter saying "Alan Watkins has asked how many staff does Medway Council employ. The answer is 8,000 full time and 2,200 part-time staff are employed by the council."

That simple enquiry will now find itself on the web. It won't mean very much to the general public. It might, however, mean something to a rival newspaper, broadcaster or whatever.

Mr Staples' bosses have really stirred an explosive mixture.

Their annoyance (did someone suggest petulance?) has led to the unprecedented step of revealing to other journalists what lines of investigation other reporters are following.

That's fine with innocuous enquiries (not that the general public will be interested). But what if it is asking about the asbestos crisis that is building in Medway's schools?

Would they have published the inquiries that I made a year ago when I first reported the spending and chaos that is the Woodlands School extension? I don't think so. They did everything they could to hide the answers I was seeking.

Would they have published the enquiry I made about asbestos examinations of more than 100 local schools? They strongly denied that there was any foundation in the story. In fact, the audit papers that were published earlier this month reveal that it was conducted in a three month spell, and that was a difficult target for the council to meet. But the council press office denied there was any foundation in the story.

Would they care to say how many council houses and flats have asbestos today, and what advice they have given their tenants?

Dogs eat dogs. When one of those hounds takes thousands of pounds of the money we lawful taxpayers reluctantly give them for their high salaries, shoddy schooling, tatty buildings and one-time pop stars he deserves to get bitten.

Medway Council should pull back - or expect a bit more than a bite.

The first of the new guest post feature. Liam Batch, A Level politics student from Kent, writes about the lack of environmental discussion by our political leaders.

With issues cropping up in recent years such as the recession, civil unrest in Libya and Egypt, controversy over wiki-leaks and the infamous ash cloud which to their credit, are all topics that cannot be understated in their importance, it appears however that one topic is slowly disappearing away from both the political agenda, and from the headlines.

The state of the environment has been subject to much anxiety and concern in previous years, but has the issue progressed into becoming a fundamental element of Party’s manifesto’s? The subject appears to have noticeably declined in recent months, and for one reason or another, nothing substantial appears to be getting done.

Anthony Downs once created a ‘five stage model’ in which he outlines the five stages in which public interest gains and loses mobility in the event of a monumental crises. Number four of the cycle is the ‘gradual decline of intense public interest’ which has substantial resonance to the situation we face today. With the complexity and cost attached to this environmental disaster we face, public interest has inevitably plummeted and progress is racing along at a snail’s pace. One possible answer is the style of politics within the UK which unfortunately sees politicians focussed on the short term issues which will ultimately win an election, and not the long term goals which will not be completed within a five year term in Governance. Gone are the days of the selfless politician, they are indisputably a dying breed of few who are here to represent the people, and are not conversely fixated upon getting as far as they can climb up the political ladder, professional politicians as they are often labelled. The competitive nature of British politics has blinkered those we elect away from actually solving the monumental problems of the world, and instead merely doing what is necessary to insure power is sustained.

Last month, the BBC reported that Global Carbon emissions have reached an all time high and were recorded 5% higher than the previous recording in 2008. We are too often manipulated in to believing by Cameron and his cronies that ‘they are doing all they can to preserve the environment’, when in actual fact, it is sitting at the bottom of their agenda. A few weeks before the most recent general election, Conservative party leader David Cameron promised to limit new power plants to be as clean as a modern gas plant. However, shortly after the Election the Guardian reported than ministers were set to raise the amount of emissions that coal and other power plants were allowed to omit more into the atmosphere. How can politicians tell us to act more ecologically, when they are evidently at the height of anthropocentrism? To the Conservatives credit, they have already implemented one of their pre election promises by ensuring every household has access to a ‘green deal’ of up to £6,500 to improve energy efficiency. But is this enough? Is this really sufficient in the grander scheme of things, it is my view simply both a sweetener and an illusion designed to persuade the electorate that they are making substantial efforts to tackle the environmental problems we face.

However, this isn’t just a British problem, but a world problem as repetitively the efforts of many are stamped upon by World leaders at Earth summits where the Governments around the world are too busy weighing up the cost the proposals make to their economy rather than the cost they are causing to the Environment by doing nothing.

With resources scarce, and the Earth showing increasing signs of entropy each and every day, it is vital that Politicians wake up to the idea that action is needed, and needed quickly. It isn’t an issue that will disappear, and if action isn’t taken soon, the damage we are causing will be ultimately irreversible.

Pardon the period of exile. This humble blogger has been extremely busy with other personal projects. So, forgive me, I've neglected this blog quite a lot. But, this is significant platform for discussing local issues in Kent – especially those which effect you and I.

After careful consideration, I will be starting a guest feature for this blog. Rules are simple;

1. Must be a resident of Kent.

2. Guest posts needs to be relevant to the nature of this blog (.i.e politics)

3. In line with the blogging T&C's of KentOnline.

4. Needs to be appealing.

5. Word length between 500 – 800 max.

If you would like the opportunity, please e-mail me (daniel at gmail.com)

County councillors have, after much hand-wringing, agreed to take a pay cut. It's a small gesture in every way. The 1.5 per cent cut in their basic yearly allowance will lop a modest £200 off their £13,000 they get.

If you want an illustration of why it is fairly small beer, I've worked out that it accounts for 0.017 per cent of the £95m of savings the council is making this year. 

But there's another issue here. Namely that the £16,400 that the 1.5 per cent cut will achieve represents a fraction of the £200,000 savings package the council has agreed for members' services. Once you've accounted for the other measures - such as a reduction in special responsibility allowances for cabinet members - our elected politicians together will be saving the taxpayer the grand sum of £80,000. And the rest? That is to come from cutting jobs in the staff who support members.

Opposition parties argued at this week's full council meeting that the cut should be greater. Labour and the Lib Dems pushed for an eight per cent cut, taking them back to the annual levels of allowances that they had before 2009, which is when the independent panel last set them.

Of course, there was - as Conservative leader Paul Carter pointed out - an element of political posturing going on here. (The race to be holier than thou is never more intense than when politicians are involved.) 

But he forgot - until he was reminded by departing Labour group leader Les Christie - that it was the Conservative administration who decided to make a virtue of the original plans for a pay cut when it first unveiled its budget plans in January.

I don't believe that county councillors should have to go around wearing hair shirts. They deserve some financial compensation for the work they put in. But these are uniquely challenging times for councils wrestling with the impact of austerity measures forced on them by the government.

In a week they unveil proposals to raise care charges for elderly and vulnerable people, their decision to agree a fairly miniscule reduction in their own pay does look a little selfish. Was it too much  to expect them to take a bigger hit - even if only for a year or two?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Social services chief Malcolm Newsam is to be commended for deciding that transparency is the best  policy when it comes to dealing with the challenges of turning around Kent's troubled children's services.

One of the greatest problems KCC had over recent years is what one county councillor described as "the culture of fear" that existed as things started to unravel - staff knowing that things were going badly wrong but finding it impossible to tell anyone.

For years, KCC basked in the glow of independent inspection reports that suggested it was a five-star service. When it commissioned internal reports assessing the resilience of children's social services, they came back saying everything was more or less OK - with the odd caveat about workload pressure.

At last, the politicians have grasped that they cannot take these things for granted. Too late for some but better late than never.

Well, the votes are in and counted. Kent has voted, it seems the turnout is up, and there has been a few changes. Predictably, the Liberal Democrat vote has capitulated in places (most notably Canterbury) and Labour has made gains.

Gravesham is a council Labour are championing this morning with a spectacular win, with Ed Miliband claiming ('the result proves' theory) his party 'are on the come back'. Alas, though; Dartford, Shepway and Medway have seen Labour fail to make any real gains; seats that were on the Labour target list. Conservatives have either maintained control or increased their representation. Thanet has fallen to No Overall Control (NOC), which is disappointing after Harriet Harmen and others visited this week. Labour failed to make, well, easy gains that they were expected to achieve.

Ed Miliband is touring the county and marching through the towns like a victorious Caesar, but it is covering up a modest night for Labour. And that is being kind. The infamous '+1,000 councillors easy' claim has proved to be false. The anti-cut message is not adequate due to Tory gains across the council. Cameron is the true winner in Kent.

More worrying, the Liberal Democrat vote did not move to Labour – it shows signs of the Tories benefiting. Canterbury, for example, has seen the Tories increase their councillors to over 30 with Labour (again) have no genuine presence on the council. Only 3 councillors.

Kent is still blue, and strongly blue, with a few spots of red and yellow.

note: Liberal Democrat leader at Canterbury City Council had this to say on twitter;

@ AlexCanterbury It was like sending your batsmen to the crease only for them to find their bats had been broken by the team captain #libdems

A three-day week might be great for some but it presents challenges for us journalists. News doesn't stop and we are still producing the same number papers and pages, web updates and radio bulletins as any 'normal' week. It's an incredible busy time with politics to the fore, a certain marriage, and the climax of the football season with Gillingham giving us fans the usual palpitations.

Gravesend has become an election battleground with Ed Miliband, Baroness Warsi and Ken Livingstone on the stump, as Labour bid to wrest control of Gravesham from the Tories. We're expecting a heavyweight visit today.

In Medway tonight we're gathering the three party group leaders on the council as well as a Green Party candidate to ask the simple question: Who should run Medway? Also joining them on the panel is Professor Tim Luckhurst of the Centre for Journalism at Kent University, which is hosting the hustings meeting. Chaired by our political editor Paul Francis, it takes place at the Pilkington Building at the University's Medway campus in Chatham.

While we'll be concentrating on local issues, the little matter of AV might come up. There's a view that there is widespread ignorance of the system and how it works. Our reporters are putting this to the test today in a major exercise to establish how Medway is likely to vote and do they understand what AV is about.

It's Olympic deadline day for ticket orders tonight and we're asking people have they applied and if so, what have you bid for. Have you taken a punt on being one of the lucky few to watch Usain Bolt defend his 100m title or have you chosen a less mainstream competition like synchronised swimming? It will be interesting to see if the folk of North Kent really take advantage of being on the doorstep of the 2012 games.

Like I said, there's a lot going on ...

Politicians are prone to grumble that Freedom of Information requests cost too much time and money councils and others spend dealing with them - particularly from the media - might be better put to other uses.

But how much of a burden is it? And are the costs really making a significant dent in the finances of public bodies?

Kent County Council produces some interesting data on the issue which suggest that some of the assertions from politicians might be over-stated.

In 2010, KCC dealt with 1,539 separate requests - about three times as many as when the Act first came into force in 2005. It estimates that the hours spent dealing with these requests was 4,779 and the average cost of dealing with a request was £78 - compared to £71 the previous year.

But the bulk of requests did not come from journalists. The media accounted for 16 per cent of all requests; private individuals accounted for 58 per cent and companies 18 per cent. The costs of dealing with 246 requests from the media were £19,188. In the context of KCC's annual £2.4billion budget, that represents 0.00007995 per cent of its total spend. Now, to me that's pretty small beer.

It's far less, for example, than the £1.7m KCC has to spend on members allowances and expenses each year which, we are usually reminded, accounts for 0.07 per cent of its budget.

But the issue is not just about costs, it is about value. It strikes me that a lot of the information that is elicited by journalists has brought into the public domain data and information of bona fide public interest. That our politicians grumble about it rather reinforces this point.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ed Miliband was cautious to  play down Labour's prospects in Kent at the council elections on May 5. You can understand why. Although there are some hopes the party may wrest control of two or three councils - Dover, Thanet and Gravesham are being targeted - the party is starting from a very low base after being wiped off the county's political map over recent years, culminating in the catastrophic general election last year when they lost all their remaining MPs.

The view is that despite the cutbacks and continuing recession, the disaffection with the coalition government has not yet reached a point where people are out to give it a serious bloody nose. More like a gentle reproach. The Conservatives have also been fortunate that the backlash has been more pronounced against the Liberal Democrats over what the public perceive as broken pledges.

So I don't see major upheaval in Kent happening in a fortnight. What will be interesting to see is how the Lib Dems fare. Candidates appear desperate to detach themselves both from the leader Nick Clegg and in some cases, even the party. I'm told that election literature from some candidates in north Kent carefully avoid mentioning who they are standing for. 

IS employing interim managers cost-effective? KCC has a few on its books at the moment as it continues with a rather complex re-organisation that has seen several experienced senior officers recently depart and, if the opposition Liberal Democrat leader Trudy Dean is to be believed, sinking morale at Invicta House.

Some of the costs associated with the appointment of four "external interim directors" currently in post were revealed this week after opposition parties tabled questions seeking the information at a full council meeting. It follows our report recently that the man overseeing the shake-up, Jeffrey Hawkins, was costing the authority £165,000 for his services over ten months.

According to an answer provided by the council leader, the monthly costs in March - including a fee  to the agency KCC used to recruit them - was £69,825, a not insignificant sum. The daily rate ranged over the month from £750 a day to £1,250 a day.

How does this compare with the costs of permanent appointments? Direct comparisons are a little tricky but Cllr Carter revealed that the weekly costs - I emphasise weekly - of KCC's former children's services director Rosalind Turner was £5,300 while the weekly cost of the interim  corporate director in the same job, Malcolm Newsam, is £3,900.

There are various arguments in favour of interim directors. KCC doesn't have to make any pension payments; they don't get sick pay and any leave is unpaid. They come in with a specific brief; do the job and then move on. They don't come with any cultural baggage and can offer fresh perspectives. If they don't do a good job as a short-term troubleshooter, it may make it more difficult to get work elsewhere in a similar capacity. The other side of the coin is that they don't necessarily have any knowledge of Kent, they have no long term commitment and if things do go awry, they can deflect the blame on to the authority.

So, there's a case for interim directors to be made. But the real test of whether they represent value for money will be the results they deliver. Not whether they are cheaper than having permanent appointments in place.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ever poked a stick at a wasps' nest? Senior Lib Dem county councillor Martin Vye did the political equivalent when he ventured to suggest that if Kent was serious about tackling pollution and poor air quality, it perhaps ought to consider a county-wide congestion charge. Cue outrage and frothy indignation from motorists and his political opponents.

It was a brave call, if not exactly the most judicious moment to try and trigger a debate (especially so close to council elections). You could argue that while we have seen an exponential increase in car use in recent years, the spiralling costs of motoring are in any case having an impact by compelling people to find alternative ways of travelling to work. Kent is not a county that would be well-suited to such a policy in any case, with large numbers travelling to towns to work from rural areas where public transport connections make commuter journeys on trains and buses next to impossible.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Meanwhile, Kent County Council wants us all to say no to AV. Why? Well, county councillors held a debate at this week's full council and the Conservatives, with their comfortable majority, succeeded in adopting a policy that the council is formally opposed to AV and is encouraging residents to just say no, too. There was even an official pres release issued about it, too which struck me as slightly odd.

Is it any of KCC's business, you might ask? (The opposition parties didn't think so - saying that such a debate was an abuse of power and nothing to do with KCC but cleverly managing to weave in to their anger comments articulating precisely why they thought AV was actually a rather good idea).

I wasn't too bothered about the fact that councillors had a debate although I have to say that it was a fairly pedestrian one with both sides trotting out the well-rehearsed arguments from either side.

And I'm inclined to think that when it comes to putting their crosses on the ballot paper on May, the last thing voters will have on their mind is the fact that KCC doesn't want to abandon first-past-the-post.