Forum Topic

As I wasn’t able to go myself I asked Jonathan Calloway who was Chairing the meeting to ask some questions. He kindly emailed the following summary: We got some answers from those attending (William Liu could not attend for family reasons) Q1 – yes they all support the increase; final decision will be by Defra given the opposition of both Wandsworth and Merton councils.
Q2 – Update of 1871 Act: yes but the cost of repealing it and replacing it with another act was put at £1 million, although much less if they get a few changes via a Statutory Instrument.  The feeling seemed to be it’s best left in place, imperfect though it is for the modern age, rather than spend any money on changing it. Q3 – How can we assure greater number of Putney residents on the board: Nigel Ware (Home Office appointed) spoke on this.  Apparently they’d love to see more engagement by Putney residents but when he asked the audience for ideas none was forthcoming.  I said the PutSoc has tried to find volunteers, and certainly spread the word about the need for a Putney candidate, but if people do not feel compelled to come forward there is little more we can do. —————- My own thoughts on getting more Putney residents involved and also attracting younger candidates would be to pay Trustees a fee for becoming Conservators. Not a huge amount, but something worthwhile. Also for the Conservators to mount a much more effective advertising campaign before the cut-off date for applications explaining what is involved. Nick



Nicholas Evans ● 58d

Martine, I think it would be difficult to design a voting system which equalised the number of Trustees between Wimbledon and Putney. But the 1871 arrangements using the old “Parish of Putney”, boundaries which includes some of Roehampton is very out of date. Perhaps a that rule that everyone living within three-quarters of a mile of both Commons should be able to vote, not just those in Merton and Kingston. 
I think when John C and I were elected as Conservators there were also Trustees from Roehampton and Putney. Unfortunately WPCC does not include a list of past and present Trustees (Conservators) on their website, so it’s all hidden away. I only lasted for half my term as I could not stomach the decisions made by the majority. I resigned in protest. They didn’t bother to hold a by-election and also excluded JC from meetings on, in my view, entirely spurious grounds. I expect I will not use all my five individual votes. I will go to one of the Hustings before I decide. I do not support the increase in Levy which received support from around 13% of levy-payers. Hardly a ringing endorsement. I would like to know why WPCC has allowed the closure of the drop off and pick-up included in the planning permission for the Oasis school which is now used for staff parking.  It’s had the result of pushing parents to park in adjacent roads like mine. I’d also want to know how much revision of the constitution will cost. And why on earth does the Secretary of State for Defence and Home Office get to appoint Trustees?
Finally, I believe the charity needs to live within its present means, not be given an unjustified increase was above inflation. There is room for cost-cutting. Perhaps we need to pay Trustees a fee for being Conservators which might encourage younger people to run for election. Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 67d

Katrina, while you exhort us to vote for the conservator candidates you don’t really single out why we should do so. Here’s some background I hope will help.
Looking at the list of just 6 candidates for the 5 elected positions, two are present Conservators (Johnson and Bucknall) and four are new. It seems all live in Wimbledon although it is difficult to be sure from their candidate statements. incidentally the Chair of Trustees is normally selected by the board from those elected, not from appointed Trustees. Apart from the five elected Trustees the board also has three Trustees who are appointed by government departments — Defence, the Home Office and Environment. It is something of a concern that yet again there appears to be no candidates living closer to Putney or Roehampton than Putney Heath. Of course Wimbledon Common is larger than Putney Common geographically but the number of electors is actually greater in Putney. This is mainly because the boundaries were drawn up when the original Act of Parliament which established the WPCC was passed in 1871. These designate that any person on a Local Authority Electoral Roll who lives within three-quarters of a mile of Wimbledon Common/Putney Heath or in the old Parish of Putney as it was in 1871 have a right to vote. Voting on-line is cheaper for the charity than using the reply paid envelope supplied. You can see a Levy area map here: https://www.wpcc.org.uk/downloads/election-2021/levy-area-boundary-map---2020.jpeg Looking at the candidates it is a familiar list drawn almost exclusively from white middle-class Wimbledon resident professionals, often retired. Bear in mind that the Trustees are not paid. This is not exactly representative of the Putney population as a whole. Just one candidate seems to be from a multi-ethnic background, and only one (Susan Bucknall) is a woman. Bear in mind that five of these six candidates are sure to be elected whatever votes they receive. Of the 65,876 eligible voters in 2021 just 13,122 valid votes were cast, a dismally low number in my view — around 19% in Wandsworth.  let’s have a look at the list: David Ian Brown: retired ex corporate lawyer and management board director. Wimbledon resident. Treasurer of a local Wimbledon Residents’ Association. Wants to prioritise community and communication  Susan Bucknall: Barrister and Teacher. Ex-Conservative Councillor and CEO of Lawworks charity. Wimbledon resident. Existing Conservator. Supports agreed Business and Management Plan and therefore proposed increase in levy. Michael Johnson: Trustee of Buglife charity, existing Trustee.  Supporter of existing policies, but focus on ecology and environment and conservation role.

William Liu: Architect. Seemingly younger than most other candidates. Wimbledon resident. Wants policies thar align with the community's best interests.
Mauro Mattiuzzo: Retired corporate lawyer. Previously Trustee of a leading cancer charity, non-executive director of a shipping group. Suggests debate on whether existing corporate plan can be progressed and, if so, how it can be made fit for today’s requirements. Wimbledon resident.  David McLean: Worked in investment banking, fund management and governance. Member of local Residents’ Association and Royal Wimbledon golf club. Supports update to WPCC constitution. Hope this rather long explanatory email helps.
nick



Nicholas Evans ● 68d