Community Facilities Referendum
The Community Facilities Referendum
was held from 15th June to 14th July 2006
The results of the referendum were announced on Monday 17th July at a meeting of the Town Council.
The winner was Option 1: A refurbishment to the existing Parish Hall, with 53% of the vote, followed by Option 2: A complete rebuild of the Hall on the existing site, with 43%.
Over 50% of the electorate voted.
There were some difficulties with the referendum, which was undertaken by the Electoral Reform Society. Some residents did not receive ballot papers and others questioned the overall process. The Electoral Reform Services have issued a statement in response which is on the Council's web-site and notice board.
How the vote worked in detail
A count of the first choice votes resulted in:
Option 1 - Refurbishment of the Parish Hall - 756 - 43%
Option 2 - Complete Rebuild of the Parish Hall - 685 - 39%
Option 3 - Extending Ceddesfeld Hall - 170 - 10%
Option 4 - None of the Above - 147 - 8%
According to the rules of the single transferable vote system, Options 3 and 4 were then eliminated and the final result was determined by adding the second choice votes to the first choice count.
INFORMATION AND LETTERS FROM SEDGEFIELD NEWS
Don’t miss the chance to vote
In its wish to be impartial in the matter of the referendum on the Parish Hall and Ceddesfeld Hall, the Town Council appears to have fallen foul of the regulations for the use of the electoral roll.
Last year when we filled in our electoral roll returns some of us ticked the box which indicated that we do not wish to have our names released on the ‘edited’ version of the electoral roll (which the district council sells to commercial and other organisations) - so that we would not be pestered with junk mail. However, as a result we appear to have been deprived of automatic inclusion in the mailing list for the referendum; unless we have taken note of recent notices in the village and requested a form (at the cost of having to phone ERS at our own expense) we cannot take part.
The Electoral Commission website states:
'The full register has the names and addresses of everyone registered to vote and is updated every month. Anyone can look at it, but copies can only be supplied for certain purposes, such as elections and law enforcement. Credit reference agencies are also allowed to use the full register, but only to check your name and address if you are applying for credit, and to help stop 'money laundering'. Anyone who has a copy of the register will be committing a criminal offence if they unlawfully pass on information from it. You do not have a choice about your name and address being on this register.'
Having read that, one might ask, did the Town Council take advice on their decision to hold a referendum and from whom did they get any such advice, as it may well be that the referendum in question is just such a 'certain purpose'.
Electoral Reform services being the accredited national experts check whether this referendum could be classified as a 'certain purpose' as described by the electoral commission and if not why not? And did they advise the Town Council of the problems? Councillors who have access to the full electoral roll would well be able to establish the scale of this problem.
Electoral Reform Services is the leading administrator of ballots and elections in the UK, are part of the Electoral Reform Society and as such are recognised as a professional organisation. It is extremely difficult to understand that they allow such a referendum as we are having, where such a potentially high proportion of the electorate may be disenfranchised due to no fault of their own.
We may well hope that this issue will be referred to both the Electoral Commission and the ERS and their responses published.
Name & address supplied
In fact Sedgefield News has learned that a total of 722 electors could be excluded from the referendum unless they apply to the ERS. However there is still time to act if you wish to take part.
Referendum confusion
I received my referendum papers in this morning’s post and was surprised at what I read. The letter from Sedgefield Development Trust in June's Sedgefield News had lead me to believe that Option 2: Complete rebuild, would be the cheapest and best option. The Referendum papers indicate that it will be the most expensive for the Council Tax payer. I am confused!
Mel Brown
Sedgefield Development Trust replies
When the letter was written, it was assumed that the information sheet would indicate that Option 2 was for the transfer to and financing through Sedgefield Development Trust at little or no cost to the Council Tax payer.
The Town Council, however, at the last minute changed the wording on the information sheet to effectively cut out the SDT from this option entirely.
As the Town Council does not have the same access to funding as a development trust, a large part of the cost would devolve onto the Council Tax payer.
Sedgefield Development Trust is still willing to take on the task of raising the funding to rebuild the Parish Hall.
John Fitzpatrick,
Company Secretary, SDT
Referendum consultation process - Trust issues disclaimer
On the information sheet enclosed with the referendum papers it is explicitly stated that the Town Council worked with various groups including the Sedgefield Development Trust, to bring forward the options and the summary of their implications in the information sheet.
Whilst representatives of SDT did work with the group, we wish to make it absolutely clear that the options were chosen by the Council and no debate was allowed. The Trust believes that they do not reflect the real choices, which should revolve around the cost of the schemes when carried out in different ways.
Discussion of the implications of each scheme is not properly reflected in the information sheet. Despite the recommendations of the consultation group, the Town Council met on 22nd May and significantly re-wrote the information in 46% of the boxes. The Trust disclaims responsibility for the information given to the electorate.
John Fitzpatrick, Company Secretary, Sedgefield Development Trust
Has anyone any idea what the 'Single Transferable Vote' method means?
I assume that regular voters and political activists are clued up on this method, but what about all of the people who are not, and have no idea what impact this will have on the final result. Perhaps some thought should have been given to including a short explanation of this in with the Ballot Papers.
Clearly, from the Example Ballot Paper, thought had been given to guidance as to where to mark your options in the appropriate boxes.
Gloria Wills
These are my personal views and not those of any other organisation.
Dear Sir
The sample ballot paper sent out with the referendum papers seems to be a blatant attempt by the Town Council to influence the result, showing as it does the responses they would like to see - in other words their plan to extend Ceddesfeld Hall, the number 1 choice, etc.
Do they have no respect for the electorate? Do they think we can’t see through them? Does this community deserve to be treated as no-brainers? I think not.
I will be voting for my choice of outcome, regardless of their 'auto-suggestions'.
This is Sedgefield after all, not the Kremlin. Although hang on - I am a bit uneasy about giving my name!
Name & address supplied
Given that the format of the referendum on the Parish Hall is more complex than the usual voting system, I was pleased to see that the Town Council had provided a sample for information.
I was amazed, however, when I examined the example, to see that it include the real options and showed a voting pattern that appeared to match the Town Council's preferences!
Several residents have indicated to me that they are confused by the process so will 'just fill it in like the example'. Surely the overview by Electoral Reform Services should have prevented the real options being matched against the Town Council preferences in the guise of a sample sheet.
Name & address supplied
From Information Provided by the Town Council
The planned referendum on the future of a Community building for Sedgefield will be held through the second half of June and the first half of July.
The voting papers will be accompanied by an information sheet which lists the costs, timetable and limitations of each of the four options.
The Town Council hope to have plans and/or models included in a public exhibition in the Library during the voting period.
Referendum (Article from Sedgefield News)
The opportunity to play a part in the crucial decision on a future hall for the community comes your way this month, in the form of a poll organised by the Electoral Reform Service. The voting papers will be posted to each member of the electorate in Sedgefield Village.
The status of the current Parish Hall, which has been such a great asset to the people of Sedgefield, has been hotly debated for years with seemingly no end in sight.
Now, however, we can all make our views known and with a bit of luck this sorry saga will find a resolution behind which the whole village can unite.
With our population rising and a growing number of interest groups needing space for their activities, it can’t be stressed enough how important it is that we all take part, to ensure that there will again be an up-to-date public hall in Sedgefield, with the capacity to serve this and future generations.
Even if you have never set foot in the place, it is in your family's and the whole community's interests to use your vote.
See also Sedgefield Extra (included with Sedgefield News, June edition).
