OPINION: “Let’s import our own triple-lock into every BID ballot”
Written by Paul Clement
From time to time, the team at Locus will be writing opinion pieces that we hope will be relevant to place-management practitioners; whether from BIDs, DMOs, local authorities or the private sector. We intend them to be relevant, thought-provoking and, hopefully, leading to discussion and contribution from others. Along the way, we will be inviting a few guest writers to update on their areas of expertise.
But, for the time being, I have the dubious honour of going first and I wanted to touch on a topic that has bemused me for some time – why do English BIDs not talk about turnout anymore?
As a reminder, English Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are bound by the requirement to operate a ballot at inception and then, at least once every 5-years, to ‘renew’ their term. The declaration is based on a dual-lock mechanism of majority by number and majority by rateable value. Fall short on either and the ballot is lost.
As the BID Regulations were adopted elsewhere in the UK, a triple-lock on the result was added in certain parts, that of turnout. Here, if the number of businesses taking part in the ballot falls below the prescribed minimum, no majority by number or rateable value will suffice, and the proposal fails.
I must admit that I am no great fan of minimum thresholds, primarily because the bar (only 25%) is usually set too low. As a result, it almost legitimises low turnouts. But that is not the cause of the bemusement that I hinted at earlier. It is that, elsewhere, all BIDs used to declare their turnout, even though it was not required to achieve a result. But, over time, most have stopped. In my view, this is bad for the industry.
Ensuring that as many people as possible participate in BID ballots is just as important as achieving a large majority in favour. Ballots are opportunities to ‘get out there’, to engage, to explain and to convince and, irrespective of how a business might vote, we should want them to vote.
“Get the government to amend the Regulations” I hear some cry. Well, firstly, as I have said, I’m not sure that turnout thresholds work. But secondly, with Brexit, levelling-up, post-covid, the pending cost of living crisis, a possible war in Ukraine, and ‘clearing up’ after a series of parties to deal with, I’m not convinced that too much government time is going to spent on this any time soon. So, we need to do this ourselves.
Having operated the Ipswich ballot last November, the Locus team is more aware than most of how hard it is to achieve a high turnout, particularly with more people now working remotely. But, as we proved, it is still possible if you use every one of the 28 ballot days available to you and have participation as a key measure of success. So, my suggestions are:
If you have a ballot in 2022, have turnout as a target alongside winning by number and rateable value.
Declare the turnout alongside the percentages in favour by number and rateable value, as if your ballot were subject to a triple-lock.
Industry bodies need to report all three elements and, for those BIDs not providing turnout information, they should be bold enough to say, “not provided”.
BIDs will become even more important to the recovery of places from the economic shock of covid. But, if we are to live up to this heightened importance and relevance, we must also face up to some of the recurring criticisms of the model; namely issues of democratic accountability and transparency. This must start with each ballot result. If turnout is high, let’s celebrate it; if it is lower than we would have hoped, let’s face up to it, learn from it and commit to increasing engagement throughout the term.
Join the conversation on LinkedIn.