• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, revisiting award-winning Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council – of Private Eye fame – and speculating on whether or not SBC Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON is fit for purpose.

~~~~~

Hard on the heels of the farcical shenanigans at Hinderwell Parish Council, when Chair Councillor Arthur JACKSON abandoned the Council meeting rather than submit to the terms of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (which authorises members of the public to film/record Council meetings), comes a timely reminder that even our humble Parish Councillors – those giants bestriding the political stage – are subject to the law of the land.

Readers will perhaps recall the Private Eye coverage of events at Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council (S&CPC) back on 12th November 2013:

Councillor Harry SMITH is no longer the Chair of S&CPC; that honour now falls to Councillor Helen MALLORY, whose other noted position in public life is at Scarborough Borough Council (SBC), where she now holds the Cabinet Portfolio for Finance, Procurement & Legal Services (in recognition, presumably, of services rendered to the out-going Leader, Councillor Tom FOX – now the Mayor of Scarborough). That (presumably) makes her something of an expert on Council legalities. Councillor Helen MALLORY is herself a former Mayor of Scarborough. (Here she is, caressing the Council mascot – symbol of the pace of positive change in our local pseudo-democratic institutions).

Even in her humbler rôle as Chair of Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council, Councillor Helen MALLORY should, in my view, be expected to keep a close eye on the veracity of the declarations made by her members for their respective Registers of Interest – the more so since 1st July 2012, when the Localism Act 2011 came into force, requiring (inter alia) that Councillors declare their personal interests within 28 days of election (or when the member first becomes aware of a disclosable interest), so that any potential conflict is transparently displayed in the public domain. Indeed, in some circumstances it is a criminal offence to fail to do so.

So S&CPC Chair Councillor Helen MALLORY should be aware that her predecessor in the Chair at S&CPC, Councillor Harry SMITH, has declared his membership of the Freemasons under Article 14 of his Register of Interests – but (according to the S&CPC web-site) Councillor David RAINE has not.

And yet here is a suited-and-booted Brother David RAINE entering the Masonic Hall, St Nicholas Cliff, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, YO11 2ES.

And again (unless I am mistaken) here is Brother David RAINE (highlighted in the red box), listed as ‘Inner Guard’ on this recent ‘summons’ to attend Leopold Lodge 1760 at the same address.

It would appear to me that Councillor David RAINE may have had a duty to disclose his membership of the Freemasons under Article 14 of his Register of Interests.

The S&CPC website currently displays the Registers of Interests of all of its members – a legal requirement under the Localism Act 2011.

Here is Article 14 of the current S&CPC Register. Note that Councillor Harry SMITH (winner of the Private Eye “Rotten Boroughs” ‘Open Government Award’ 2013) openly declares his membership of the Freemasons (seventh column from the right), whereas Councillor David RAINE (second column from the right) does not:

When my colleague and fellow Enquirer contributor Tim THORNE alerted Scarborough Borough Council Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON to a similar omission from the Register of Interests of former SBC Councillor Tim LAWN (at that time also Chair of the North York Moors National Park Authority Planning Committee), the matter was referred to the North Yorkshire Police – and Tim LAWN, quite rightly, resigned.

So it will be interesting to see whether or not Councillor Brother David RAINE emulates Tim LAWN and pursues the honourable course.

Incidentally, both Harry SMITH and Tim LAWN featured prominently in the BBC ‘Inside Out’ documentary that vindicated all nine of the RealWhitby/NYE exposés that Colin JACKSON examined.

Councillor Helen MALLORY, as SBC Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement & Legal Services, has a clear duty to report this matter to her Portfolio Support Officer, Director of Legal & Democratic Services and SBC Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON (also featured in that BBC ‘Inside Out’ documentary), who has a clear duty to report Register of Interests infractions to the North Yorkshire Police.

Hands up, everyone who believes that any such thing will now come to pass . . .

Readers who do not believe it will happen could always write to either (or both) of those ladies and ask them why the devil not. After all, nobody is above the law – not Freemasons, not Councillors, and most certainly not Mayors – with the notable exception, perhaps, of prolific paedophile Scarborough Mayor Peter JACONELLI, friend and accomplice of the execrable Jimmy SAVILE, who offended for four decades without being put behind bars.

My point is this:

The prevailing culture, at every level of local government here in North Yorkshire, is one of corporate stone-walling and denial.

If even our Parish ‘coolies’ (who see themselves as ‘mandarins’) are free to transgress our laws with total impunity, small wonder that the upper tiers of local government attract so many self-servers and white collar criminals.

What is needed is a Monitoring Officer who actually monitors – rather than ‘spinning’ the regs to defend the indefensible.

What is needed now is a sea-change in the way our local government institutions operate – and can be seen to be operating. Transparency and accountability.

What is needed, and urgently, is the appointment of a Monitoring Officer with moral courage and ethical convictions, rather than the present yes-person, who could not, in my view, be trusted to monitor the class pencil-sharpener with due diligence. Which brings us to a key question: who was responsible for securing the appointment of the present Monitoring Officer – and what have they to hide?

What is needed is a new broom.

And in my view, there is only one way forward: the only way is ethics.

Related Reading

HM Government Guidance on Openness & Transparency

SBC Members’ Code of Conduct

The Masonic Oath

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on an attempt to invoke anti-terrorism legislation to prevent legitimate reporting of a major event of conspicuous public interest.

~~~~~

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Today’s news, as reported on the Guardian website under the Helen PIDD by-line, that Sheffield Star reporter Alex EVANS has been threatened with arrest under anti-terrorism laws and intimidated into erasing his footage of an event of exceptional public interest, will inevitably remind readers of events at Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council on Tuesday 20th November 2013.

The very idea that on that occasion Parish Councillors believed that it was appropriate for them to call members of the public “anarchists” and to call out the North Yorkshire Police to evict them from a public meeting – for no other reason than that they intended to embrace the urgings of Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric PICKLES and film the proceedings for the public record – is so preposterous as to beggar belief. The BBC ‘Inside Out’ documentary, aired on 10th February 2014, exposed that outrage to getting on for a million viewers, yet nobody from Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council has ever apologised – much less resigned – though Councillor Harry SMITH no longer holds the Chair.

Such is the antiquated and authoritarian mind-set of the lowest tier of local government.

Just as a little knowledge is widely know to be a dangerous thing, a little (perceived) power can rapidly escalate, through hubris and arrogance, to a malignant authoritarianism that knows no constraints and  no accountability. Time and again we see them acting ‘ultra vires’ – beyond their powers.  (For a terrifying account of the ultimate development of this disregard for human rights and equality under the law, I strenuously recommend to readers Anna FUNDER’s remarkable book “Stasiland”, published in paperback by Granta Books [ISBN 1-86027-655-3]. (Having lived for a little while in East Berlin, in the period immediately following the collapse of the wall, I can vouch personally for the authenticity of Anna FUNDER’s account).

Having been refused admission by one Parish Council recently (who, sensibly, have since proffered humble and contrite aplogies – which were readily accepted), I have been scoping out possible cases for study – one of which I will be covering in some considerable detail in my next article.

But for the moment, I leave the reader to contemplate the inexorable and accelerating drift the ‘authorities’ in this country are exhibiting in their departure from the future of sparkling transparency mapped out for us by the Prime Minister in the aftermath of his 2010 rise to his present position:

“For too long, those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it’s called transparency”. [David Cameron – September, 2010]

Well, the Prime Minister’s wrecking ball was not visibly in evidence at the Freedom Ride, the pensioners’ long-running anti-cuts-to-free-travel protest meeting, at Sheffield Station yesterday. Instead, the British public has been treated to a scene not so very far removed from Cold War Berlin.

Those who engage with their soaps and their football matches should better heed the warnings of those of us who engage with our local authorities.  We know what Anna FUNDER was writing about.

~

– an “In My View” report by NIGEL WARD

~

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

All Fools’ Day 2014 will mark the 40^th Anniversary of the implementation of the Local Government Act 1972. Progressively, throughout those forty years, elected members and paid public servants have entrenched themselves in a position of perceived invulnerability to scrutiny, exposure or even criticism.

Even at Parish level, petty martinets have ensconced themselves in positions of imagined power which they now defend – even when their only strategy is to disregard the law. In my view, it is high time that the Children of Scarborough (the Parishes) escaped these forty years in the wilderness and came at last to the promised land of genuine democracy.

Let is begin with Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council (S&CPC), whose present members are: Cllr Harry SMITH (Chair) Cllr Hayley PICKLES (Vice Chair) [Lab] Cllr David RAINE Cllr Dorothy MORRISON Cllr Kate MALLINDER Cllr Tony INGHAM* Cllr Roxanne MURPHY* (also a Scarborough Borough Councillor) [IndGp] Cllr Helen MALLORY* (also a Scarborough Borough Councillor) [Con] The Clerk is Mr Antony SPENCER. (Those marked with an asterisk (*) were not present at the Meeting of Tuesday 12^th November 2013).

Background

Notable amongst the absentees, was Cllr Helen MALLORY (attending an SBC event elsewhere). Cllr Helen MALLORY took a real hammering from Chair Cllr Harry SMITH at the previous meeting (8^th October 2013). She wished to access her own personal (as opposed to SBC-provided) i-Pad to consult documentation necessary to the meeting but not available in hard-copy on the night. It is worth a moment to digest the transcript of that exchange:

Chair Cllr Harry SMITH:“Just a minute, Councillor. Standing Orders say that no electronic devices can be used in the meeting and that is what I am going on, so there we are. The other point is, would it be okay? It would be fine if we all had i-Pads provided, but we haven’t. So if you want to make a proposition later on to purchase i-Pads for the council, that’s fine!”

Cllr Helen MALLORY:“No. I was not proposing that. I was proposing that if members have there own i-Pads, they would be allowed to use them in the meeting.”

Chair:“Yes, that’s fine – but disadvantaging to other people, and it’s more distracting to other people, and we are not having that topic debate now, Councillor.”

Cllr HM:“Can I have it put on the agenda for the next meeting, please?”

Chair:“Just let me tell you. The Standing Orders say ‘No electronic devices’, so therefore we follow the Standing Orders.”

Cllr HM: “I am sorry I wasn’t aware that that was the case.”

Chair:“That’s what I quoted to you in the first place.”

Cllr HM:“What you said to me was . . . ”

Chair: (interrupting) “Months ago.”

Cllr HM: “With respect, what you said in an email was that Parish Councils are not fortunate to have been given free i-Pads by the Borough Council – and I have still got the email.”

Chair:“I sent you that email?”

Cllr HM:“Yes.”

Chair:“Yeah?”

Cllr HM:“So it was nothing to do with Standing Orders?”

Chair:“I reported to you. I am not arguing with you anymore. I quoted to you the Standing Orders of the Parish Council previously . . . ”

Cllr HM: (interrupting) “Well, I’m sorry.”

Chair: “. . . about i-Pads, and it says ‘No electronic devices’. That is it. We will move on.”

Cllr HM:“Yes. Thank you for that. But if I can ask, with respect, that the item can be put on the Agenda for the next meeting, then Standing Orders can be looked at again, in order that the Parish Council, for those that do have an i-Pad, will be allowed to use them at meetings. They can come to the meeting with the information that we are going to discuss at . . .”

Cllr. David RAINE: (interrupting) “The reason why every Borough Councillor was provided with an i-Pad was so that they were all treated equally.”

Cllr HM:“. . . no . . .”

Chair: (slamming the gavel down violently, in the middle of Cllr DR and Cllr HM speaking, and with loudly raised voice, causing one of the female members to shriek) “I have heard enough of this! We have talked about it long enough, right, with Councillor making a proposition for the next meeting. We will discuss it then.”

Cllr HM:“Thank you, Chairman.”

Chair: “Can we get back to normality now, then?”

Now this segment of low drama – albeit enlivened by the Chair’s acidly sarcastic tone – would be trivial enough, were it not for the events of the following month’s Meeting . . .

Tuesday 12^th November 2013

When I arrived – just in time for the 7:00pm start – a member of the public (one of only three) was busily setting up a video-camera on a tripod directed towards the Councillors and Clerk, who were visibly agitated at the prospect of having their deliberations recorded. Why?

Chairman Councillor Harry SMITH then rapped his gavel (a vital instrument of his ‘authority’) and instructed that all electronic devices must be turned off. He then (correctly) deduced that the video-camera was still running. The Chair asked for the video-camera to be switched off. The member of the public with the video-camera – in fact, Nick HENDERSON – declined, instead providing the Chair with a copy of a letter from Eleanor SMYLLIE, assistant to the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (reproduced in full in our earlier article “Pickles: Go Forth & Scrutinise”), and patiently explained that the Secretary of State has made clear on several occasions that members of the public may record, film/video, ‘live-stream’ and even ‘Tweet’ Council meetings – in fact, he encourages us to do so, in the name of transparency and accountability. Who could take issue with that?

But the Chair, supported by his Clerk, was adamant in his view that his Council’s out-of-date Standing Orders (prohibiting SBC Councillor Helen MALLORY and the public at large from using electronic devices) actually ‘prevail’ over any and every Act of Parliament. It would seem that the arrogance of some public servants is exceeded only by their crass stupidity. So infatuated are they with their titles of ‘Councillor’ or ‘Clerk’ – which, in their minds only, set them ‘above’ their fellow citizens and ‘above’ the law – that they are blissful in their obdurate ignorance of the duties and responsibilities that Parliament has seen fit to impose upon them.

The upshot was that the Chair instructed his Vice-Chair to call the Police – to uphold the omnipotence of his Council’s Standing Orders. During the few minutes that elapsed before the arrival of the ‘riot’ squad (I speak figuratively; the inordinately large team of Officers responding to the call were very discreet indeed, waiting in the lobby, with the exception of one very pleasant and reasonable Officer who conducted himself in an exemplary manner), I asked the Chair’s leave to broach another legal matter, which, mistakenly anticipating some respite from the video-camera ‘issue’, he graciously granted. The matter that I then raised was the matter of s.29 (7) of Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011 (which came into effect on 1^st July 2012 – sixteen months ago), stating:

• (7) A parish council must, if it has a website, secure that its register is published on its website.

Seamer & Crossgates Parish Council does maintain a web-site. As readers will already have surmised, it does not display the Registers of Interests; nor does the SBC website display the S&CPC Registers (with the exception of those recorded for Councillors MALLORY and MURPHY, and – curiously, Parish Councillor Tony INGHAM). My exchange with the Chair and the Clerk can be heard here. When pressed for a date when the Registers might be expected to appear on the web-site, the Clerk told me, “I would say, within the next six months”. At this point, Chair Councillor Harry SMITH can be heard slamming down his trusty gavel (a mason’s maul). Harry is not entirely amenable to negative criticism.

Enter The ‘Riot’ Squad

Further discussion was curtailed by the arrival of the Police – in force. The lead Officer asked us to join him in the corridor, where he invited us to offer him our perception of events thus far, which we duly did. We showed him the documentation mentioned above. He immediately stood down the other Officers (“Sarge? Can you cancel 792?”) and asked us to wait for a few moments while he stepped outside to check the legalities with his ‘Super’, by radio.

Presently, he returned to tell us that we were absolutely in order and that, provided that we were not causing an affray, which we most certainly were not, he had no power and no wish to prevent us from attending the meeting and video-ing/recording events, as we wished. I then asked him to be so good as to make that information known to the Chair and the Clerk. This, the Officer was more than willing to do – not, perhaps, anticipating the hostile response his information would evoke.

The Chair and the Clerk (encouraged by Councillor David RAINE, who had falsely asserted that the Seamer & Crossgates Councillors’ Registers of Interests are, in fact, on the SBC web-site) asked for the Officer’s name and collar-number, with a view to lodging a complaint. I kid you not. Thereafter, the Chair (once again resorting to his trusty gavel) declared the meeting closed – with no attempt to address even a single Item on the Agenda.

This was rather unfortunate for the (absent) Councillor Helen MALLORY, who (a little bird relates) had arranged for a colleague (Councillor Kate MALLINDER, perhaps?) to ask the Chair for the precise Article in the Standing Orders that the Chair has construed as forbidding her the use of her own i-Pad.

As the meeting broke up, one Councillor (I believe it was Councillor Dorothy MORRISON, but I cannot be certain, since she vehemently refused to identify herself) took photographs of the public without their consent. Presumably, she wished to be able to identify those members of the public who had responded positively (and lawfully) to the urgings of the Secretary of State to scrutinise Council activities.

The following day, word came to me along ‘the grapevine’ that Councillor Hayley PICKLES (I have no reason to believe that she is related to the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES – although readers may form their own opinions regarding any hint of family resemblance) had been reporting to colleagues that the Parish Council meeting had been ruined by the arrival of a group of three  ‘thugs’ – ‘anarchists’ no less – who had acted aggressively, terrorising two old ladies in their nineties and frightening them half to death. Not only is this totally untrue and derogatory (and therefore slanderous), it is a repetition of remarks caught on the video (which continued to roll while we were out in the corridor with the nice Police Officer). So I emailed Councillor Hayley PICKLES inviting an apology. Shortly afterwards, she responded with the following one-liner:

• Clark@seamercrossgstes.plus.com

An email address that does not even function; the word ‘Clerk’ is mis-spelt. So much for the Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life. I replied, asking her to explain herself. She responded, informing me that she could not recall using the words ‘thugs’ and ‘anarchists’ and was therefore unable to apologise; she would be taking legal advice. I think she should. She later sent me another email, referring me to SBC Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON. I guess she thinks that that is where the buck stops. So I responded to Councillor Hayley PICKLES; for transparency, here is the email:

From: ‘Nigel’

Sent: 13 November 2013 18:38

To: ‘hpickles’ Cc: ‘Lisa Dixon’

Subject: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST [01]

Importance: High

Councillor Hayley PICKLES – Seamer Parish Council

Cc: Mrs Lisa DIXON – Monitoring Officer – Scarborough Borough Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Hayley,

Thank you for your emails.

I note that you have not explained the matter of the erroneous information in your email of 16:24 today. Once again; please do so. Regarding your most recent email (of 17:14 today), I was hoping that it would not be necessary to lodge a Formal Complaint against you with the Monitoring Officer.

Aside from the unnecessary burden on the public purse, it must involve bringing other (innocent) parties into the matter for the provision of statements, etc. You are perhaps by now aware that other complaints may be pending, the pursuit of which will inevitably raise issues including bringing the Council into disrepute. A full report will be prepared and forwarded to Eleanor Smyllie, assistant to the Rt.Hon. Eric PICKLES, Secretary of State for Local Government & Communities, who has urged members of the public to exercise the right to utilise all available technologies to scrutinise Councils.

It is not acceptable to abandon a meeting rather than comply with the law in respect of the foregoing. It is not acceptable to castigate members of the public with pejorative language for pursuing their legal democratic rights. When word comes to me from an independent and unbiased source regarding the tone and language of your volunteered version of events, and includes reference to “thugs”, “anarchists”, “terrorising two old ladies, one in her nineties” and “frightening everybody with their aggressive behaviour”, I am reminded of certain passages in the recordings from yestereve, in which a female voice can clearly be heard describing some of those in the public gallery as “anarchists”.

Each of these characterizations is completely unfounded. The recordings prove that I was courteous, patient and utterly unconfrontational.

I hope you will not take issue with that, and I look forward to your confirmation that such was the case. It may be that, having heard such forms of words from the mouths of others, you have incautiously allowed them to appear in your own utterings, rather than any witting and/or intentional characterization on your part.

That much I could forgive, if such were the case.

Quite irrespective of any Formal Complaints or civil action, the matter is rather likely to be resolved in the court of public opinion, in virtue of the probable publication of the entirety of the unedited recorded material on the internet. This would leave the viewer/listener in little doubt regarding the degree of respect evinced by some of the Councillors and/or the Clerk.

Those who are uncomfortable at the prospect of appearing in video clips on the internet have perhaps failed to fully appreciate that, given modern technology and the policy of the Government on transparency and accountability, it is an inevitable concomitant of public life.

In this sense, each of us is free to decide for ourselves whether or not a place in public life is desirable or appropriate.

I have complied with your request to apprise Lisa DIXON of these matters – by copying her into this email.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

I need not have bothered; Councillor Hayley PICKLES has gone to ground. I invite readers to listen for themselves. Can you hear the word ‘anarchists’? I can. Have a guess who used it. There are 39 Parish and Town Councils in the Borough of Scarborough. I wonder how they will measure up to Seamer & Crossgates. Perhaps it is time to for us to find out?

Lights, Camera, Action! Councils ‘Pickled’

Once again, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is in the news, reiterating his loud and clear announcement of June this year, regarding the right of the public to film, record, ‘live-stream’ and Tweet of Council Meetings:

• “In June this year, Mr Pickles published guidance to councils asking them to open up to overt filming and social media, but since then several councils are still continuing to prevent reporting.”

The message does not seem to have been received here in the Borough of Scarborough – at Parish, Town and Borough Council levels.

In an email dated 11^th September 2013, Mrs Jools MARLEY, Clerk to the Newby & Scalby Parish Council, had this to say:

Council’s standing orders specifically state “Photographing, recording, broadcasting or transmitting the proceedings of a meeting by any means is not permitted without the Council’s consent”.

The Minutes of the Full Council Meeting of Whitby Town (Parish) Council held on 2^nd July 2013 include:

098/13 FILMING RECORDING OF MEETINGS BY AN IMPARTIAL BODY

RESOLVED that Whitby Town Council do not allow the filming of any meetings of the Council and its committees due to cost, security and copyright issues within this building.

As recently as 17^th October 2013, Lisa DIXON, Scarborough Borough Council’s Director of Democratic and Legal Services told Yorkshire Coast Radio:

“We don’t currently allow filming or voice recording at council meetings but this is currently under review and we are exploring how we can make our meetings more widely accessible in the future.”

But a member of the public here in the Borough has asked Eric PICKLES for clarification on the matter of Councils interpreting the legislation in such a way as to prevent the public from exercising the right the Secretary of State has insisted is theirs – in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability.

The Department for Communities & Local Government has now provided the following response, actively encouraging the public to exercise its right to use available technology to ensure that councils act openly and transparently. Here is the full text of the letter:

“Thank you for your email of 11 October addressed to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles regarding Newby & Scalby Parish Council. I have been asked to reply to this as I work in the team which has policy responsibility for local democracy issues.

To answer your questions, the law on recording council proceedings can be found in section 1(7) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. The Act provides for councils to permit the taking of photographs of any proceedings, or the use of any means to enable persons not present to see or hear any proceedings (whether at the time or later), or the making of any oral report on any proceedings as they take place, but does not require a council to give permission. However, the Government wishes to encourage all town and parish councils to maximise transparency and openness wherever possible as media reports about the public or press being denied access to meetings or being prevented from filming, recording or reporting live by tweeting about meetings can only weaken local people’s confidence in local democracy and their elected representatives. I would therefore encourage you to ask your parish council to reconsider its position and allow citizens to use electronic devices to report on proceedings.

With regards to the declaration of interest, please see below a link to the Government Guidance, ‘Openness and Transparency on Personal Interests: a guide for councillors’ which you may find helpful.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240134/Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf

The law on this issue can be found in The Localism Act 2011 particularly chapter 7.

I am sure you will appreciate that local authorities act independently of central government. Parish councils are accountable for their actions to their electorate, the auditors and ultimately the courts. I would encourage you to continue to attend meetings, ask questions and hold your parish council to account so that they act consistently and are open and transparent.

Yours sincerely,

Eleanor Smyllie

Department for Communities & Local Government

Eland House

Bressenden Place

Zone 3/J1

London

SW1E 5DU”

Progress, however incremental, is progress – even if  local authorities in the Borough of Scarborough have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the age of democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~