Agenda item

Question

In the calculations for the costs of running elections, the standard “How Much will it cost / save” statement on the attached papers is zero for Years 1 - 3, yet in Appendix A there's a cost of just over £4 million allocated to “Disruption”.

Please can you help the public understand exactly how the £2.032 million cost per year figure has been arrived at?

Answer

I think you are referring to this table here?  None of these things that we are talking about tonight are going to happen in the current financial year, the next financial year or the following financial year.  So how much it will cost/save, the answer is indeed zero for those.

In answer to your question about how did we get to the £2.032 million, all I can say is that how did we get there?  The number that was calculated as a tangible saving from three elections over a four year period versus one every four years, which is £316,000.  This equates to £79,000 per year.  The figure includes such things as the cost of staffing and the facilities needed to run events, including polling stations and printing costs.  However, there is an estimate of a less tangible cost at £1million per year.  This is the approximate cost of the opportunity of the Council not moving forwards with the Council’s overall business as a result of disruption caused by having annual elections.  I am informed that the less tangible costs were made from a high-level estimate made in consultation with the Council’s Corporate Leadership Team.  It is an estimation of the impact on Council business that is not taken forward as a result of the focus on Elections in the months building up to them, including the period know as Purdah, and similarly the focus after the elections formulating and orientating the new Administration of Councillors.  This figure should be taken in the context that it is only 0.2% of the Council’s annual size of business and that it is only an opportunity cost and therefore it actually does not translate into real cash.  We also need to respect that the Council is not a commercial business and lots of its functions are not done for financial gain.  It is here to serve the needs of our residents and must remain fully accountable to the public that it serves.  Therefore, we cannot accept financial savings as being the only motivator to change our current system.

So, for clarity, the amount per year of tangible combined with less tangible costs, is just over £1 million not £2.032 million per year.

Supplementary Question:

Thank you for providing the answer to my question on behalf of the Council.  You use the words ‘estimate’ and ‘not real’ as well as ‘tangible’, so my question comes almost in two parts based on those two items. 

On the one hand if it is real then why did the Council not put in place an improvement programme to save that circa £1 million a year over the last 20 years under Conservative administration?  If on the other hand it is a mathematical inexactitude, then why is it along with any other inexactitude sent to Members but not the public around 8.30am yesterday morning?  Why was it released for this debate under a Liberal Democrat led administration?

Supplementary Answer:

I am assuming that you are referring to the report that was sent to Councillors and not publicly available? I am afraid I am not sure I really have an answer for that one because I think you are referring to something which is not in the public realm.  Maybe that is the question.  We can give you a written answer.