THANK you for your reporting of council debates.

I attended the first hour of the meeting of the debate of Councillor Atkinson’s motion on cuts to allowances until the leader’s summing up. It wasn’t just reaction to the debate – I had to return to my car because of new parking charges for visitors and staff.

The costs of installing the meters alone was nearly £4,000 and the councillor responsible did not know the running charges or why local streets were filling up when there were empty places. Those of us who pay are only too well aware of the cause.

But councillors are economising – they did have water instead of coffee and biscuits. I believe this detail is relevant to the narrow focus of council business.

Surely the bigger question is why new councillors put forward a motion that was greeted with such distaste? You report factually so the tone and inflammatory language are omitted. No one supported the motion to reduce councillors’ allowances by 10 per cent.

If it was a “populist move to curry favour”, why was there no evaluation of the importance of leading by example or the need to convince constituents of the value of their work? Most of all, doesn’t it show frustration with colleagues and the system?

Value for money was addressed but only in general observations such as “if you pay people peanuts...” which I consider is an insult to the present councillors and to all low paid workers and volunteers.

There was much made of the importance of having able people willing to be councillors regardless of finances but no discussion about the number of people who would be councillors if they thought the system allowed them to contribute effectively.

The leader, in summing up, made the point that more could be saved if the system of government was rationalised. He also said he preferred to appoint chairmen for their ability to do a good job.

At no time did I hear any sense that the people who pay, or as I see it, elect them should be consulted about how they expect to be served or the skills required. How about training in building consensus?

I wrote and expressed pleasure when a cabinet meeting achieved this. I can respect different outcomes if they have been achieved by rigorous argument, attention to detail and courteous behaviour.

I would like to see much more rigour with a clear chain of accountability. Why was the motion to record votes withdrawn?

Let us see the briefings given, the specifications, the details. Treat your fellow councillors and your electorate with respect.

On a positive note, I was very grateful to attend the Wye Valley NHS Trust AGM on July 23.

We are very fortunate to have such real achievement presented so well, especially in the detailed plan for personalised care for pregnancy and early years and the recognition given to the importance of emotional health. That is what makes a good community.

Thank you to all who took part.

BARBARA FERRIS, Wits End, Dinedor.