Greater engagement with the public will be actively pursued by Port Erin commissioners, it was decided at a meeting held last week.
The decision follows a notice of motion proposed by Godfrey Egee.
He suggested the board ‘engages with ratepayers, through traditional and electronic means, including social media, in order to gauge [their] opinion that the current number of elected representatives to serve the village district . . . is acceptable and use the opportunity to ask for opinions on any other aspect of local government which they would like to comment on.’
At the March 17 meeting, a notice of motion by Martin Norbury that the authority asks the Department of Infrastructure to set up an inquiry into reducing the board by two members failed, as did a subsequent amendment to reduce the board by two members. Their discussion raised the question of what ratepayers thought about the size of the board.
Last week, Mr Egee said: ‘I feel it’s important to engage with our ratepayers, particularly as the election is in 12 months’ time. At the election they will have no choice but to vote nine [members] in. I’m not saying there should be less. What will it hurt to get feedback?’
Nick Watterson said: ‘We are voted in to make decisions. If we cannot make decisions without going back over them [and asking the ratepayers] we may as well not be here. I’m not sure how you get opinions of any validity when you ask: “Do you think this number is correct?” When they do not know the ins and outs it’s going to be difficult.’
He added there are various routes of communication, including a website and email, and said: ‘I do not know what can be gained.’
Martin Norbury said: ‘It’s a balancing act between getting on with the job and keeping in touch. I cannot see the harm in asking, it’s in the best interests of everybody.’
Also in support was Ged Power who suggested they could hold a public meeting or surgeries. He added: ‘We have not engaged enough in the last three years.’
He said issues they could discuss include how to make cost savings, reducing numbers and working with other local authorities.
Against the proposal was Will Halsall, who agreed with Mr Watterson. He said they discussed and voted against reducing the board at their last meeting, and that raising it again was ‘ironically stifling democracy’.
He added: ‘We surely have more important things to discuss. Regarding social media, a lot are not on it.’
He said too much engagement with the public could lead to members being lobbied by the public, adding: ‘I could not give a monkey’s what other local authorities do.’
Engagement using ‘traditional means’ would involve cost, he explained, and having fewer commissioners would risk ‘cliques’ forming. He said: ‘I’m absolutely against it.’
Barbara Guy was against it because of the extra administrative burden it would put on the office staff. She added: ‘Engaging [with the public] should be in our own time. It would be interesting to have a surgery and see how many people turn up.’
Mr Power proposed an amendment, that the authority pursues greater engagement through various means and was seconded by Mr Norbury.
Mr Halsall and Gerry Callister voted against.