The resounding rejection of an elected mayor for Brighton and Hove leads logically to the consultation on committee structures for councillors and provides an opportunity for reflection, too.

You might reflect on why we need councillors at all, living in the era of cost-cutting par excellence, so-called Best Value.

So, what true value for money do our councillors deliver?

Their costs are high. Before the recent hike in their allowances, Brighton and Hove's annual accounts showed the costs of members' allowances have increased from £429,970 in 1998/99 to £583,542 in 1999/2000 and £777,895 in 2000/01, representing increases of 35 per cent and 33 per cent respectively, while you and I are restricted to 2-3 per cent increases if we are lucky. Small wonder council tax has to rise by 11 per cent.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Members' allowances are but a part of the true costs of councillors.

What about the free parking spaces at either Brighton's Bartholomew Square or Hove's Town Hall car parks while we who foot the bill must pay exorbitant parking rates?

Ah, but they represent the people, you say. Nice idea, but consider reality.

At best, 30 per cent turnouts for local elections and falling fast.

Of this, typically 35 per cent vote for the winner in the first-past-the-post system - perhaps 10-15 per cent of the electorate, though variable across the city.

So, 85-90 per cent of voters didn't choose the councillor that purports to represent them.

But they do a good job, you say. Maybe. But there is, surprisingly, no job description for councillors to tell them what we expect from them. How can we ever know if they represent us effectively?

What would happen if the voters of Brighton and Hove said we didn't need elected councillors? Would we be losing so much? I doubt it.

-Hon E St Labore, Brighton