Residents' Association magazines have always had a relaxed attitude to the truth. Recently we've seen various RA ward chairmen valiantly try to defend the actions of their out of touch group of RA councillors. They desperately seek to persuade their residents that the budget cuts aimed at the most vulnerable in our borough are the only option even when RA councillors refuse to make the council leaner and more efficient in the numerous ways open to it that wouldn't hit the vulnerable.
In a way this is to be expected. RA chairmen are but political activists for the registered political party that is the Residents' Associations of Epsom & Ewell.
The honourable exception has been Bill Slaughter who has led Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association (SARA) in a brave campaign against the RA councillors' decision to close the borough's public toilets. On this issue they have put their residents' interests before that of the political party they support. It is clear that RA councillors have lost the confidence of their supporters in Stoneleigh and Auriol.
It is therefore unfortunate that SARA's own magazine cannot escape inaccurate reporting of what is happening on the council. The culprit in this instance is the leader of the RA councillors, Robert Leach. Cllr Leach tries terribly hard to persuade his residents of the merit of his unpopular approach to the budget. As an example of the wonderful savings he and his colleagues are making he tells us that the Mayor's chauffeur "leaves in August". True, the Mayor's chauffeur has retired, but why doesn't Cllr Leach tells his residents that he has simply employed a new chauffeur at taxpayer's expense! Does he not think this is a relevant piece of information or is he simply practicing to deceive.
Cllr Leach writes about all the great staff savings he has made (a nonsense contention in and of itself), but doesn't tell his residents that his group sought to create a brand new climate change officer at significant expense until I questioned how this fitted in with the council's plans for staff savings.
Cllr Leach suggests that RA councillors accepted a small reduction in their allowances. What he doesn't mention is that he and his colleagues increased their allowances by 14% after the last elections in 2007 and the reduction he mentions was one councillors had no choice about accepting as it came about because of a decrease in inflation (and was only 0.4% if I remember correctly).
Perhaps this is all just another example of how desperate a position RA councillors are in. Clearly out of touch with their residents they now resort to blatantly disingenuous comments to justify their position. This cannot continue and one suspects that for Cllr Leach, if the RAs have any sense, it won't be allowed to for much longer.
