In six weeks time we will be going to the polls to elect our representatives on both Rye Town Council and Rother District Council for the next four years. It has been this way since the government of the day changed the system of local government and the majority of the powers of our town council were transferred to a new overriding local authority, Rother.
Since then there has been an often-fraught relationship between the two councils with differences of opinion and often a feeling in Rye that Rother is only concerned with the interests of Bexhill and that Rye, being on the far east of its empire, is worthy of little or no consideration.
This is, in fact, not true, but it is understandable particularly when we hear, for example, that RDC, whilst pleading poverty, is able to find millions of pounds to top up the grant to maintain the De La Warr Pavilion – surely the biggest white elephant in East Sussex – and Rother Cllr Prochak tells us in her article this week that proceeds from Rye litter fines are being used to fund a new initiative to keep all the bus shelters clean. There is, of course, just one old bus shelter in Rye but many, including some new, in Bexhill. Neither is it helped by the rest of Cllr Prochak’s piece, where she tries to convince us that the litter enforcement agents are in fact polite, agreeable gentlemen doing their best to persuade us to be nice and tidy, when there is plenty of evidence (admittedly anecdotal, but plenty of it, nevertheless) to suggest otherwise. The implication is that she has no intention of changing the system (from which, far from being a cost to Rother, they are actually paid by the enforcement company – no wonder the agents concerned are so keen to extract every last penny from both residents and our visitors).
This may have sounded so far like a Rother-bashing piece, but it is not intended to be. There are faults on all sides, but it is possible to work together for the common good. Currently our excellent mayor and his team are ably demonstrating this by their success (so far, at least) with negotiations to re-open the swimming pool and also by persuading Rother to take the future of the Landgate seriously. We should also remember that some of the perceived problems were brought on by Rye itself when the then town council handed over so much of the town’s assets to the new district council during the local government reorganisation of the 1970s.
Some while ago the editor, news editor and this writer (being a former editor) had several informal meetings with representatives of RDC including the chief executive and several senior councillors. At these meetings, a genuine interest was shown in working with Rye and trying to find more that would unite us rather than divide us. And if one thing came out of these meetings it was the necessity for communication and for everyone in Rye to know what decisions were being taken and why.
Without trying to attribute more power to Rye News than is the case, it is nevertheless, a fact that the majority of our readers hear what goes on at councils – whether town or district or even county – through our pages. We are, after all, one of the only disseminators of truly local news left in the area. It is vital, therefore that we are told what is going on.
So far as the Rye council is concerned, we are in touch with the town hall and, of course, we are able to publish regular updates and reports from our mayor, a practice which hopefully will be carried on by future mayors. However we hear little, if anything, from Rother, which means from our RDC councillors. They may well be doing an excellent job, but we don’t know that. They may well be trying hard to persuade nearly 40 other councillors, the majority of whom will have no interest in Rye, what is needed here and how the town differs from, say, Bexhill. But, again, they haven’t told us.
All we have had recently is another RDC councillor who does not represent the ward of Rye and Winchelsea, nor, so far as I am aware, lives in Rye, regularly using our comments columns and trying to convince us all that our councillors and Rother know best. Cllr Prochak’s, if one may say so, slightly insensitive contribution this week, is a classic example of this lack of understanding of our town.
Which brings me back to my first sentence. We will have two elected Rother councillors on May 5 and at least one will be new to the job. Regardless of their political affiliations, their job is to get Rye’s message and our needs and problems through to the rest of the council and also TO TELL US. If the town knows, it may not always agree, but it will at least understand.
So, councillors, tell Rye News what you are doing and why. Your constituents want to hear from you and the pages of this paper are open to you, please use them and then perhaps we can all work together, not just on emergency projects such as the swimming pool, but on everything else as well.
