Reigate Liberal Democrats

Debate : How to make our resources go further.

When I was first told about this debate, a few days ago, the first thing I thought about was the definition of the terms.

What are these resources - and which of them are ours.

The dictionary says that resources can be a source of supply or support,

a natural source of wealth or revenue,

or a source of expertise or information.

We have to assume that they are all finite, so we need to prioritise what we have at our disposal, appropriately.

Hence the question.

I have asked around to see what some people thought of as resources,

and almost everyone mentioned money - cash.

That very easily comes within the 'source of supply' definition.

Most of us would agree that "If you have enough cash you can do anything".

Given that it's finite though, the Council needs to spend what it has at it's disposal, in a way that gives the most benefit to the largest number of people.

Especially as it's their money.

We are told that we are lucky to live in the wealthiest part of the country. People seem to assume that we should have enough money to pay for anything that we need -

but just look at the roads.

Some people mentioned the more permanent resources like the land - an obvious 'natural source of wealth' -

and the buildings, but still recognised that you need to spend money on them both,

to keep them useful.

This newly refurbished Council chamber and the old town hall are a couple of examples where large amounts have been spent to maintain usefulness.

One probably more obvious than the other.

A still smaller group mentioned people as a resource - (possibly another source of natural wealth) -

and a subset of those people I asked, also mentioned peoples time.

Some people are paid for what they contribute, (they wouldn't do it otherwise)

other people give their time for free and still achieve a huge amount of benefit for the community. There's potential value for money.

All they usually need is a little bit of support and appreciation,

so that they know they are doing some good and not wasting their time.

An example would be, if Council officers and members volunteer to attend an evening meeting, and then some crucial members don't bother to turn up or send their apologies.

It's a complete waste of everyone's time, - yet it happens.

Another example would be if a group of local people got together and proved a need for a service that's of great benefit to a section of the local community, but they are unable to get support from the elected representatives of that community. - It happens.

One definition I haven't touched upon is a 'source of expertise or information'.

If they are useful resources also, then they should receive some attention.

Volunteering types in the community - remember those 'value for money' resources - often have a great deal of expertise to offer, and they sometimes become local Councillors.

Local organisations often ask for a representative from the Council to help and advise them when necessary. Wouldn't it make sense if those people with the appropriate expertise and experience were given the opportunity to benefit the community when they offered, rather than someone being appointed for entirely political reasons.

If the appointee doesn't have the necessary skills, then they may not be motivated enough to bother turning up to the arranged meetings. - It happens.

A source of information is a very useful thing when used appropriately and the information can be much more useful if the flow is two way.

Ward councillors are best placed to filter and concentrate information from ward residents.

As I found out during this mini survey, all they need is the information to help them form opinions and make informed judgements.

We have the Borough News as an 'information out' vessel, but that is only four times a year.

We have a web site which is becoming increasingly useful and has the ability to be two way.

We could use poster boards in the shopping areas to provide a much more frequent news update.

What about other money saving schemes.

There are numerous pieces of paper that are still printed and sent out to all members completely unnecessarily. Some even come individually by post. Copies of Press Releases, for example could stay on the Council web site and be referred to by email.

Now that all members have networked computers, we should seriously review all member communications to see if we can minimise the amount of paper produced and posted. Sending paper by post should become the exception rather than the rule. A combination of email and the members website should suffice in most cases.

Now, how about money making schemes.

Some people have asked me if they could pay to get married in the Old Council Chamber. Maybe we should look into it.

At the end of the day, as I said before, it's all a matter of priority.

If our residents were given the choice of prioritising the Paddling pool in Priory Park or the Mayors limousine, which do you think they'd choose?