The refusal to be straight with residents extends beyond Officers to elected Councillors. One local resident who has shared their correspondence with us has spent January trying to participate in the Budget Consultation, only to be met with obfuscation.
In early January, having written to their ward councillors (including Deputy Leader Cllr Bianco) asking for the methodology behind specific line items in the budget, specifically:
- The £3.7m cut in pension contributions (Line 033).
- The £75k cut labelled “Cost of Older People Discount” (Line 059).
- The £22m-25m gain from the “Fair Funding Review” (Line 013).
Instead of answers, they were ignored for weeks. As they wrote to the councillors:: “Transparency is highlighted as vital in the Constitution, but it is clear that in practice, the priority is to obfuscate.”
When the resident also challenged the Cowley Meeting Hall consultation (see point 3), asking why it wasn’t on the website, they were told by the Disposals Lead that using a printed newspaper advert met the “compliance with the current (1972) law.” they astutely observed that:
“Relying on a tiny 10 cm square advert buried in the classifieds… makes a mockery of the claim that the Council is ‘inviting’ representations.”
Whether it is budget cuts or land sales, the strategy appears increasingly to do the legal minimum, hide the details, and ignore anyone who asks questions. If they cannot explain the savings to one resident, and cannot admit the actual cost of the bailout to the Full Council, how can we trust the numbers?
We suspect that £3.7m ‘saving’ on the pension is not an efficiency or a service improvement. It seems more likely to be a reduction in payments to the Pension Fund – effectively an elected ‘contribution holiday’ taken because the fund is fortunately in sufficiently good health. This would make it a one-off use of cash, not a sustainable saving going forwards.
Read more of our February 2026 series
- Introduction: Mistakes, misjudgements, or systemic breakdown?
- 1. The £150m Bailout: “Accounting Adjustments” vs Reality
- 2. The Culture of “Late”: From Accounts to Budgets
- 3. The “Theo’s Café” Scandal: Claims of cronyism and confirmed secrecy
- 4. The Silent Treatment: 12 Weeks and Counting
- 5. Putting Residents First? Not always
- 6. An addiction to “Special Urgency” – for secrecy or last minute work?
- 7. The secret £3.3m planning system
- 8. Decision-Making Based on Flawed Data
- 9. Are they taking heed of the “Section 24” warnings?
- Summary: The Case for Concern – is something broken at our Civic Centre?
- What Now? What do you think? You have until Wednesday to tell the Council
Comments are closed.