Yesterday I chaired the December meeting of Warlingham Parish Council. We normally have at least nine councillors attending but yesterday all eleven were present. Although this can prolong the meeting, the larger number must help better decision making.
We had a number of items which required a fair bit of time to discuss. One was our annual grant allocation. Most parish councils put money by in order to contribute to worthwhile local projects. Normally requests for funds exceed the money available so there needs to be some method of determining who should get how much. This takes place once a year but in the past the Parish Council has suffered because so often councillors have a connection with at least one of the applicants. This connection disqualified the councillor from taking part in the allocation because they might be influenced by their association with the applicant. Since councillors tend to be the sort of people who get involved with local groups, in the past the number of councillors eligible to take part has been dangerously low.
So last year I drew up a new procedure for considering the grants which allowed councillors to express their views on all the applicants other than those they had connections with. The procedure merges all these views in such a way as to allocate the money in line with councillors' opinions. That was the good news. The bad news is that this meant a relatively complicated process for the councillors to follow. This was worsened by my attempt to build into the procedure some encouragement to consideration of allocation criteria. For example, the council agreed that specific projects were to be favoured over general running costs.
When we came to carry out our new procedure this year, we found that the total of funds requested was actually smaller than the amount we had put by. We could have just given everyone what they asked for, but at least some of the councillors felt that some of the applications did not deserve the full amount requested. We could have simply carried out the procedure as previously agreed, but this would have meant at least one, and probably several, applications would have been given more money than they had requested, which we felt would have been undesirable.
So we decided to stick with our procedure, but to allocate only on the basis of the total amount requested (about £3,600 rather than the £4,000 we had put aside) and to cap any resulting allocation at the amount requested. Since some of the councillors had held back indicating their feelings on the various applications, there will now be a few days grace for them to think further.
We always said the only sure way of ensuring an effective and efficient procedure was to get something defined and to try it out, knowing full well this would identify details in the procedure which needed to be polished. Now we have done this, hopefully in future years everything will run much more smoothly.