Braddan Commissioners Community Centre

[joebean]

A capital project such as this should always have a thorough business case, before any major capital is committed to it. It appears that the Roundhouse was commenced on a lot of optimistic assumptions about usage and revenue. Sure, all that hopefulness and ambition might have flowered into the cash cow they wished for, but to commit Braddan to that risk, without a full understanding of the possible liabilities and risks might not just folly, but irresponsible. We will wait to see how this pans out for Braddan ratepayers over the next 2-3 years. 
If, as I suspect it will, this turns into a monumental and unaffordable liability, it is a shame that the ratepayers do not have any avenue of complaint in order that an investigation into maladministration can take place. The general apathy surrounding local authority elections, in particular, allows the election of commissioners by very small percentages of eligible voters who can have significant impacts, potentially,  on the level of rates charged and the ability of the authority to fund and deliver services. The only recourse that exists is to remove the incumbents from office at the next election and hope that they don’t get elected again in the future. Maybe Braddan voters will turn out in higher numbers next time round. 

[WTF]

2 hours ago, joebean said:

 The only recourse that exists is to remove the incumbents from office at the next election and hope that they don’t get elected again in the future. Maybe Braddan voters will turn out in higher numbers next time round. 

who gets in doesn't matter, they can't undo what's been done just take more grief for it down the line.

[Hairy Poppins]

8 hours ago, Bosley said:

It could never have done. John Wright is largely right above in that the ongoing revenue losses of £2 million a year aren’t sustainable and shouldn’t be charged to the rate payers. It’s a pure folly because there was no actual business case to start with even without the road access. The rents they thought they could get are uncommercial and not based in reality at all to the point that they themselves are left staffing a largely empty £9 million pound cafe. Anyone who signs a commercial lease to have an independent business inside that unit would be mental at this stage. It’s going to suck a huge amount of ratepayers cash for 10 years or more. 

There's questions that need to be asked of the DOI's role in all of this sorry mess. 

It is them after all that have to approve any Local Authority borrowing of this size. Did they study the business case? How did they decide that it was feasible?

Edited July 20 by Hairy Poppins

[Bosley]

3 hours ago, joebean said:

The general apathy surrounding local authority elections, in particular, allows the election of commissioners by very small percentages of eligible voters who can have significant impacts, potentially,  on the level of rates charged and the ability of the authority to fund and deliver services. 

In Braddan the last contested election was over 10 years ago. Here there are no eligible voters. Jessopp got no votes from anyone. Then spent £10M of ratepayers money on his pet project. Not one person voted for him or any of the other commissioners either. The last person who actually got a vote off the public in Braddan was Buster Lewin and he’s been dead years. 

[Non-Believer]

It's worth going back to the start of this thread to read comments from the inception. With the exception of the usual gobshites of the time who were invariably wrong in everything else as well, everybody who contributed said that this was an un-needed financial disaster in the making for Braddan ratepayers. The opinion must have been held outside this forum too, why didn't BC listen?

[Banker]

3 hours ago, joebean said:

A capital project such as this should always have a thorough business case, before any major capital is committed to it. It appears that the Roundhouse was commenced on a lot of optimistic assumptions about usage and revenue. Sure, all that hopefulness and ambition might have flowered into the cash cow they wished for, but to commit Braddan to that risk, without a full understanding of the possible liabilities and risks might not just folly, but irresponsible. We will wait to see how this pans out for Braddan ratepayers over the next 2-3 years. 
If, as I suspect it will, this turns into a monumental and unaffordable liability, it is a shame that the ratepayers do not have any avenue of complaint in order that an investigation into maladministration can take place. The general apathy surrounding local authority elections, in particular, allows the election of commissioners by very small percentages of eligible voters who can have significant impacts, potentially,  on the level of rates charged and the ability of the authority to fund and deliver services. The only recourse that exists is to remove the incumbents from office at the next election and hope that they don’t get elected again in the future. Maybe Braddan voters will turn out in higher numbers next time round. 

As a ratepayer I attended the public meeting a few months ago when lots of questions were asked but not much response from Jessop & co other than Covid delays/cost increases/dhsc issues etc etc , no real apology etc

[Bosley]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

It's worth going back to the start of this thread to read comments from the inception. With the exception of the usual gobshites of the time who were invariably wrong in everything else as well, everybody who contributed said that this was an un-needed financial disaster in the making for Braddan ratepayers. The opinion must have been held outside this forum too, why didn't BC listen?

The Braddan ratepayers deserve all they get. Ten million spent on this and all they do is huff and puff and put on a meeting that they largely did nothing at. The commissioners know that all they’ll do is huff and puff too. That’s IOM local politics for you. Spent ten million, saddle the authority with a load of debt and overheads for thirty odd years, and side swipe the sad huffing and puffing of the public that will do absolutely nothing about any of it. 

[WTF]

the only excuse of a defence coming out of braddan is that their rates are still cheaper than douglas .

[Non-Believer]

There should be an inquiry into this, examining the roles of everybody involved, elected and unelected. To include who did the sums, their working and the basis from which any projections arose. One might suggest already that there were clear flaws and omissions.

[Dirty Buggane]

But its the same for Government/civil service, they fuck up no comebacks just shrug of shoulders. There should be a real chance of if you caused it you face financial repercussions or if you fraudulently claimed or acted in a manner to deceive jail time. Might make assholes think twice about crossing the t's and doting the I's on the feasibility of these schemes.  

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Bosley said:

In Braddan the last contested election was over 10 years ago. Here there are no eligible voters. Jessopp got no votes from anyone. Then spent £10M of ratepayers money on his pet project. Not one person voted for him or any of the other commissioners either. The last person who actually got a vote off the public in Braddan was Buster Lewin and he’s been dead years. 

This keeps coming up, the fact that they were returned uncontested is just a fact of democracy and doesn't limit what they can do in office.  It is just another effect of an apathetic electorate. 

That is not to say this is proving to be a wild folly, but the fact that they were returned uncontested is irrelevant. 

The electorate should make sure they vote and interested candidates should stand to avoid uncontested results. 

[Nellie]

There should be a statutory cap on the % rate increases which local authorities can impose on rate payers.

Any excess liabilitities which the authority decides to take on, should be surchargeable to the local authority members personally. That would focus a few minds! 

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, Nellie said:

There should be a statutory cap on the % rate increases which local authorities can impose on rate payers.

Any excess liabilitities which the authority decides to take on, should be surchargeable to the local authority members personally. That would focus a few minds! 

It would, but it would also stop a lot of stuff and dissuade even more people from standing. 

[Mercenary]

44 minutes ago, Nellie said:

There should be a statutory cap on the % rate increases which local authorities can impose on rate payers.

Any excess liabilitities which the authority decides to take on, should be surchargeable to the local authority members personally. That would focus a few minds! 

Agree with this except the surcharge on members, that's unrealistic. 

 

But there should be a cap on increases so a LA can't just keep doing double digit rises to bail them out. In the UK they would have to file a notice and effectively put themselves under special measures with greater scrutiny on spend and all non essentials cut.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Bosley said:

In Braddan the last contested election was over 10 years ago. Here there are no eligible voters. Jessopp got no votes from anyone. Then spent £10M of ratepayers money on his pet project. Not one person voted for him or any of the other commissioners either. The last person who actually got a vote off the public in Braddan was Buster Lewin and he’s been dead years. 

Your comment owes more to anger than accuracy, but for the record here are the Braddan elections this century, courtesy of the IOM Elections website:

2021:  (Deferred from 2020) Elected unopposed:  

• Andrew Charles Richard JESSOPP
• Neal Maurice MELLON
• Andrew David MORGAN
• John QUAYE
• Peter SCOTT

2016:  Elected unopposed:

• Christina CORKILL
• Andrew Charles Richard JESSOP
• Neal Maurice MELLON
• John QUAYE

The remaining seat was filled by David Dentith after a second un-contested election.

2012:  Seven candidate for five seats (elected in bold):

• Frederick Raymond Corkhill  213
• Juan Richard Stephen Cottier  211
• Peter Halsall 358
• Margaret Ann Hodge 295
• Andrew Charles Richard Jessopp 262
• John Quaye  317
• Colin John Slinn  239

2008: Some familiar names appear.  No numbers available but elected in bold:

• Kate Beecroft (LV)
• Charles Lewin
• Margaret Hodge
• Ray Corkill
• Andrew Jessop
• Peter Halsall

To quote from this archived piece:

Former Clerk and Chairman of Braddan Commissioners Charles 'Buster' Lewin is attempting to make what would be an extraordinary return to local politics.

Mr Lewin, who was sacked as Clerk to the local authority for alleged serious misconduct a year ago today, says he submitted his papers first thing this morning.

He says he wants to put Braddan back on the map and is concentrating on quality of services for rate payers following, what he calls, an 'obscene' nine per cent increase in rates.

Mr Lewin was a member of the parish board for four years from 1986, and served as Clerk for 17 years from September 1990.

Read the full piece for the full picture.  Lewin's conviction for attempted vote-rigging tends to make us forget all the other dodgy stuff.  And to be fair to Jessopp he was one of the few that stood up to him.

2004:  Again no numbers for votes cast - elected in bold:

• Alexander Garry BEATTIE
• Alan Gerarrd BLANEY
• Frankie Samuel CANNELL
• Frederick Raymond CORKHILL
• Peter HALSALL
• Margaret Ann HODGE
• Andrew Charles Richard JESSOPP

Links on year should go to the appropriate IOM Elections page and you can click through to manifestos in some cases if you are interested.

So Jessopp has been voted for on a number of occasions, while Lewin wasn't on the one time he stood recently.  But recent elections haven't actually shown great enthusiasm for the process.