It has, somewhat astonishingly, been two years since I became Suffolk's representative on the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) under somewhat unusual, albeit worryingly typical for me, circumstances. And, as nobody seems to mind that I continue, I'm still in post.
In that capacity, I attended NALC's Annual General Meeting on Tuesday, expecting a not terribly exciting meeting but keen to do my bit for the organisation. I say "not terribly exciting" as it's an off year for elections to the Executive Board and the various committees, and the only items likely to be debated were a motion from our Northamptonshire colleagues on Clerks and some constitutional amendments.
The Northamptonshire motion, one which had the support of the Suffolk delegation, noted issues in terms of recruitment and retention of Clerks and called for a benchmarking exercise to establish a clearer sense of requirements.
I spoke in favour, noting the difficulties for small parishes, where the position of Parish Clerk perhaps required four hours per week, meaning that you couldn't really make a career of it, and making recruitment challenging, to say the least. Having had to act as Clerk for nine months myself, I noted my rather greater appreciation of the knowledge and skills required.
There was some opposition, from those who didn't see how a benchmarking exercise would work, or were opposed to the engagement of a consultant, but the motion was eventually passed.
Most of the constitutional amendments were lost, as the proper notice hadn't been given, which was slightly awkward, but as none of them were felt to be urgent, it probably didn't matter much, even if the Task and Finish group who had been given responsibility for producing them might have wondered why they were encouraged to get the job done in the first place.
That left a proposal to change the way NALC runs its elections, introducing the Alternative Vote system for single vacancy contests and the Single Transferable Vote system for multiple vacancy contests. It was unfortunate that the mover of the motion was semi-inaudible for reasons that never entirely became clear and that the seconder found it impossible not to over-complicate matters, thus stirring up confusion and thus opposition.
I did try to offer a very brief explanation of the benefits, rather than explaining the mechanics, but it was clear that the mood of the meeting wasn't favourable enough and, whilst each of the elements of the proposal won a majority, it wasn't enough to reach the two-thirds majority required. That probably means that we won't be revisiting it for a while, which is a pity.
A meeting that was gently steered, rather than strictly managed, by our Chair, Keith Stevens, ran pretty much to schedule and I do see improvements in the way that NALC is run along the lines of better reporting and transparency, but we still have a bit of a problem with wider engagement across the sector. That's partly the nature of the beast, I think - after all, how many Parish councillors have much interest in events beyond their borders?
But I am enjoying the role and, if my colleagues in Suffolk are minded to let me continue, I'd be happy to carry on. We'll find out the answer to that question next month...
