South Wales Evening Post - 5 February 2009
A quick look at the attendance record of our elected officials makes easy reading for the person tasked with keeping the register.
Just two of our city councillors have a record above 90 per cent and a disappointing 27 per cent have a record below 50 per cent.
And the councillor who leaves his chair empty more than most is Conservative group leader Rene Kinzett, who has turned up to just 12 out of 92 meetings since last year's election.
However, despite his 13 per cent attendance record, Councillor Kinzett was defiant saying many meetings were pointless.
He said: "The member support and development working group is a total waste of time. It does not make any decisions whatsoever. What is the point in attending meetings that have no decision-making powers?
"The constitution working group is another talking shop. Nothing of any use ever comes out of this meeting. A lot of councillors sit around creating a lot of hot air."
"I have good attendance at council, which is the only place I can properly hold this Lib Dem-run council to account."
And a quick look at the attendance records of some of the city's best-known councillors may suggest he has a point.
According to the figures on Swansea Council's website (collated last month) council leader Chris Holley had been to 34 out of 75 (45 per cent), Labour leader David Phillips had attended 41 of 89 (46 per cent) and Plaid's Darren Price had been to 25 of 66 (38 per cent).
However, when it comes to the attendance at full council meetings, all the members mentioned above have good records.
Does this prove Councillor Kinzett's point — that full council is the only meeting worth attending?
Councillor Price said that backbench councillors do have an influence on council policy — as proved by Councillor Kinzett's record.
He said: "While it is true to say that full council is the only meeting where backbench members have an opportunity to formally reject or change cabinet member recommendations or policy, as seen recently with the issue of post-16 transport, it is not the only forum where backbench councillors can play a full role.
"The overview and scrutiny boards, for example, play a key role in challenging cabinet decisions and overall council policy.
"Only last year there were some good scrutiny reports into areas such as use of consultants and indeed, the council's e-government programme – a report, incidentally, which was driven by the scrutiny board chaired at the time by Councillor Kinzett. The recommendations from these boards were then fed into the decision-making process and have since become council policy – with all the work done by backbench members.
"If backbench members do not attend then it obviously dilutes the quality of the work being done by these boards.
"I understand his point with regard to some meetings not being as productive as others, and there are occasions when some simply become talking shops — this is pointless, particularly for those of us who have to work. The challenge for the council is to identify these bodies and to decide whether there is in fact a purpose for these meetings, and whether they actually need to meet on such a regular basis if there is a lack of business."
Swansea Council is run using a cabinet system, which means that major decisions are taken by nine councillors and then presented to the full council for formal approval or rejection.
However, does this leave too much power in the hands of a small number? And is it fair that the majority of our elected members only get to on council policy.
Four-and-a-half years ago, one of the most vocal opponents of the cabinet system was the then leader of the opposition on Swansea Council — Chris Holley.
In an interview with the Post, in May 2004, he said that Labour's cabinet-style of government had "destroyed much of what was good about local government".
He said: "It has meant that less information is getting to opposition and backbench councillors as well as to the public. Cabinet meetings are fully orchestrated affairs in which there is no real discussion or disagreement on key policies."
