IN HIS response to the questions I raised at May’s area board meeting, councillor Stuart Wheeler tells us that the council operates in accordance with its constitution that ensures decisions are open and transparent.

The issue with the decision to remove the arts centre’s grant is that it was neither open nor transparent; it was possibly made contrary to the council’s own constitution.

He tells us that the decision to remove the arts centre’s grant was only made after the budget was agreed by the full council; he also states that the decision was made at cabinet level.

The full council meeting was on February 24, and the arts centre received notice of the loss of grant on March 3.

In that period, there was no cabinet meeting, so there is no record of any collective decision by the cabinet.

The individual members of cabinet may make decisions, but requires that they be recorded; in the same period there were only two decisions by members of cabinet recorded and neither was the decision to hit the arts centre.

There is also the commitment given in the approved budget report to consult with councillors when decisions are made as to where the cuts would fall.

In response to my question about how residents in Salisbury can hold the cabinet to account, he says: “Many of our councillors also value the approach we have to community area working in Salisbury through the area board that enables them to both engage with their local communities and for local communities to engage with them in resolving local issues.”

Every member of the area board is on record as saying that they knew nothing of the decision in advance of it becoming public.

When both the area board and the public have been kept in the dark, how can anyone claim there has been any engagement?

I repeat: How can the cabinet be held to account?

I call on the members of the area board to ask the appropriate officers and committee to determine whether the decision to remove the arts centre’s grant was made in accordance with the constitution (particularly Protocol 5).

If the decision did not break the rules of the constitution, then will they please demand an explanation as to how it can be “open and transparent” when it has not been recorded?

PETER WILLIAMS Fordingbridge