|
|
 |
| |
We were gagged over ballot
• JORGE Mella questions the lack of debate on the current ballot and the drafting of a constitution for the proposed Islington Leaseholders’ Association (Two months to mend a leak, March 2).
Having spent an evening a week for some three months working with Islington Leaseholders’ Forum’s committee which drafted the constitution, I share some of Jorge’s concerns but not his conclusion.
Had Jorge, and other leaseholders, shown any interest whatsoever in leaseholder affairs by attending forum meetings things may have been different.
The sad fact is that Jorge was probably not aware of the forum’s existence, or that it holds open meetings every month in the Town Hall.
I was first elected to the forum some eight years ago. From that moment we asked to be able to contact leaseholders so they could be informed of what was happening. The council always refused this. The forum was also denied access to leaseholders’ addresses, which ruled out any kind of direct voluntary leafleting.
As far as the ballot is concerned, the council refused to let us include any kind of publicity material and even cut a letter introducing the ballot. Similarly, a reference to our website was cut from the questions-and-answers page. Effectively, the council has gagged its own consultative body.
So, it’s little wonder that this ballot may have come as a surprise to Jorge and the vast majority of leaseholders.
The only reason the council is holding the ballot now is to demonstrate to the Audit Commission that it has taken positive steps to improve its consultation and involvement with leaseholders.
By refusing to allow the forum to take its case to the public the council has calculated that leaseholders will see the proposal as the kind of quango which Jorge fears. The council’s aim all along was to stymie the ballot while giving the appearance of being in favour of the association.
That being said, if the ballot should succeed in establishing the association, let me assure Jorge and all leaseholders that they will have more opportunity than ever before to influence leaseholders’ affairs.
It was the forum’s intention that the association should be as democratic as possible. Hence the constitution is only a draft. The association will produce regular leaflets advising leaseholders of meetings and the issues which may come up.
Nothing is set in stone and everything is open for leaseholders to discuss. Jorge and everyone else will have their opportunity to stand for the committee or make suggestions and vote on policy. But only if the ballot is won.
If the ballot proposal is rejected, leaseholders will have denied themselves a strong voice and will lose the services the association has proposed. Consultation with the council will stay as it is now and no one will be any the wiser. The only winner will be the council, which will continue to muzzle and ignore its own consultative body.
RICHARD ROSSER
Highbury New Park, N5 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
