FreeCorby (FC)
You lost the referendum by 880 votes, how do you feel about this?

Ray Rodden (RR)
Very sad at the time, although elated as well. You have to remember that our campaign had no money to spend yet still managed to achieve 46% of the votes cast. While the 'no' campaign of Phil Hope MP and Council Leader Rob Hearne had money to spend and council backed organisations such as the Volunteer Bureau and Fortac actively backing them.

FC
Do you think the council helped the 'no' campaign as well?

RR
We have no evidence of this. If they did I suppose we will never know. However, the council did withhold information from the 'Yes' group which would have assisted us to dispel some of the lies told by the 'no' group.

FC
Such as?

RR
Well, you have to go back to the start. It was obvious to us, from our research, that a major scare story that would be put about by the 'no' group was the 'cost lie'. This would be an inflated, fictitious figure as to the costs of an elected mayor.

In March/April 2002 we approached Corby Borough Council Finance Department and requested information as to the costs of various items. Namely: The costs of the unelected Mayor, the costs of the previous leadership system and the costs of the new 'committee style' system to cover a 3-4 year period.

FC
Surely this is sensitive confidential information?

RR
Well, no it isn't.

Under the Local Government Act 1972 the council are obliged to provide this information on request. It is a legal requirement punishable by a fine of up to £5000 if they fail to comply. Simply put - It is a criminal offence.

FC
So what happened?

RR
They broke the law - and continue to break the law everyday.

We made several attempts to get this information, the last time in September 2002 - When the 'no' group also broke the law by issuing their illegal leaflet. We are still waiting.

This secrecy, this willingness, by the council, to break the law is a major threat to our democracy. It seems pandemic across Corby Borough Council. They use exempt information legislation to stop the public knowing about, for example,  the refurbishment costs of the TA Centre, to stop the public knowing details of the covenant on the old Civic Centre/Swimming Pool site, to hide details of why Weldon Plant was put back on the council tender list for contracts after being 'banned' during the police investigation, etc, etc.

They ignore legitimate requests for information at will. They show no inclination to obey the law. It's institutional, it's rife.

The only recourse is to go to law, which one member of our group is already  pursuing.
.
FC
Why didn't you  issue estimated figures on the true costs?

RR
You have to understand the situation in Corby at the time. For many years the people of Corby have been misled, lied to and, basically, treated with contempt by our elected leaders.

The 'Yes' group made a conscious decision at the beginning of our campaign. 'give Corby people the facts and let them decide'. This is an important ethos for us. To put out fictitious information would make us 'no better' than the people we wish to replace. No information or costs were ever published which we could not back up. It's called honesty. I believe that's why we did so well despite not having a major campaign.

FC
Why didn't you approach various individuals for campaign funds?

RR
A good question. The answer, again, is simple. If you take money from, lets say a prominent business person, you have an obligation to that individual. As you say on another page of your web site 'pay back time'. Should we have sold our integrity to win? If we had won, do we cheat the people of Corby by pushing a candidate simply because we owed a debt? That's not our way. If it was we would all join the Labour Party or the Tory Party :-)

FC
Do you have estimated figures now?

RR
Yes, we always did. The 'no ' group fictitious figure was £500,000. What this was over we can only guess, they were never clear. I believe it was over the 4 years of an elected mayors term of office.

Currently the un-elected mayor costs £60,000 per year - or £240,000 over four years.
The costs of the current leader, deputy, etc (including mobile phones, etc) - over four years bring this total to about £400,000.

Therefore, in reality, our contention that an elected Leader need cost no more than the current system is valid, bearing in mind that they artificially inflated their figures in the first place.

FC
What about the Volunteer bureau and FORTAC.

RR
They were looking out for themselves.

Since the referendum, despite cuts in March 2002 and the threatened cuts in the coming years, the Volunteer Bureau and FORTAC seem to be 'exempt'.

The Bureau are now  in line for a new building, refurbished using many thousands of pounds of public (council) money.

FORTAC were given £10,000 and now we hear £17,000. Almost £30,000 for an organization that only managed to get 3 people to attend their AGM, have no elections and attend council meetings on the pretence of speaking on residents behalf.
Strange how silent they were over the March 2002 budget cuts that affected every person living in Corby Borough. But not surprising when you consider they had their 3000% budget increase the previous September!

FORTAC have been made 'agents of the council' in housing matters by our councillors. The council are obliged to provide financial information upon request.

We requested, the council refused. AGAIN breaking the law.

FC
Why do the council continue with this secrecy?

RR
The $64,000 question!
At our meeting with the District Auditor that was the question he asked. Why? Why? Why?
The council have their own agendy in this. You will have to ask them!
By the Way, best of luck.................................

FC
What is the way forward?

RR

Much is wrong in our town, with vested interests putting their own 'well being' ahead of the peoples.

The council tried to cheat the public by manipulating consultation figures on the option of a referendum. They had the MORI poll which indicated the  'significant minority' test had been passed. They used attendance at 13 meetings to say this support 'drifted away'. The MORI poll was of over 1000 people. The 13 meetings consisted of just 7 people at one, NONE at another, others simply were not held.

Mr Hope et al know perfectly well that the present system MUST change when our population reaches 85,000. A figure Mr Hope's own participation in Catalyst Corby champions.

We have missed a great opportunity to put in place a dynamic leader who will push Corby forward, but that's democracy.

However, a warning to these individuals.

We can't have another referendum for 5 years, by law. However - 46% is a significant minority. Any attempt to try to implement an un-elected leader and cabinet by stealth WILL be brought to the attention of the Corby public.

FC
Many thanks for the interview . We wish your group well for the future.