IT SEEMS some at the police's public relations department are a bit miffed at last week's Citizen front page about the 118 per cent increases in allowances and expenses for members of the local police authority.

They've got a bit sniffy that we've made an issue of it and even invited readers to send in their views and opinions (call the cops!)

It won't surprise our regular readers to know that their disquiet causes us great delight.

Some people might consider it vulgar or a bit grubby to discuss monetary issues like this in the public domain but we reckon the public has every right to know that the authority's allowances/expenses budget has gone up from £87,000 to a startling £190,000.

Perhaps they think the public will view the 118 per cent increase as rather a lot for what used to be a non-paid voluntary position (of course it's still non-paid but the allowances are rather good)

Perhaps they think the public will wonder where the extra funding is coming from considering the fact that we're always being told there's no money in the pot.

And maybe, they think the public will have read last week's story and will therefore view this week's funding settlement story (see page 2) with a degree of disbelief.

It seems the police are struggling financially. Even the Chief Constable has said the funding is disappointing and could impact on operational effectiveness (ie. policing in our community won't be as good).

The Police Authority, invigorated by last week's 118 per cent allowances increase, has offered to help out and will no doubt be setting up a committee to discuss where savings can be made.

They might even send a delegation to London to lobby for more cash. First class train travel of course.

THERE are (extremely rare) moments when you do feel that our local representatives are worth every penny.

In particular, Citizen Smith expresses his admiration for any member of the council who can sit through, never mind get excited about, a sub committee meeting.

One recent set of minutes from the 'Regeneration Review Board' indicates that meetings -- especially away from the prying eyes of the press and public -- can get a little bit heated.

During a 'behind closed doors' natter about the intricacies of 'planning and building control structure' we discover that 'During the period of questioning there was a general disturbance and the Chairman ordered a short adjournment in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 21.5.

'Once the meeting had reconvened, the Principal Democratic Support Officer reminded the Review Board of the Council Procedure Rule 21 in relation to member's conduct at meetings and the questioning continued.'

Citizen Smith investigated, and, after a couple of phone calls, the plot thickened. It seems it wasn't the council's 'young bucks' who were behind the row, but some of its respected lady councillors.

The 'mother of the council' Cllr Janet Horner, is said to have so irritated the Chair, Cllr Sarah Fishwick, that she ordered Cllr Horner to leave.

At this point, two more venerable, stalwarts joined in on Cllr Horner's side -- namely Cllrs Jean Yates and Eileen Blamire.

Now, a bit of passion in the council chamber never did anybody any harm, but when we're getting to the stage where some of our longest serving councillors need to be reminded about how to behave, you really have to wonder what the point is.

The difficulty is that some councillors, like a lot of other people, don't like change very much.

A new way of doing things -- no matter how much better it is than the old one -- is always going to disturb a certain minority. Unless, of course, they are discussing increasing their own expenses. These meetings often pass very smoothly.