By pushing her personal opinions on the Capital of Culture and where else campaigns (Letters, November 11), Councillor Jackie Lythell steps well beyond her legitimate mandate as public servant and spokeswoman for her constituents.

Her letter also gives a very incomplete picture. While rushing to defend Brighton and Hove City Council's policy by declaring how much of its budget is allocated to public services - education (£120 million), social care (£65m) and so on - compared to the £150,000 spent on the Capital of Culture campaign, she fails to mention the huge cream-off of council money made by rubbish collection firm Sita (a nice chunk of the £14 million she quotes as the figure for refuse collection and street cleaning).

And why was £500,000 spent on embedding gimmicky and useless discs in Brighton's pavements while already relatively tiny grants - a few thousand pounds each to struggling services such as homeless charities, the Women's Refuge project and the Unemployed Centre - were slashed?

Surely the sole function of the council is to serve the interests of everyone within its boundaries? What moral right does it have to act in anyone's interests except those of its constituents?

That is paternalism, not democracy, and Coun Lythell's attempt to sell us the Capital of Culture project - "events and initiatives enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people" - and the dismissive "I don't mind if people disagree that culture creates employment... but that is the sincere belief shared by our 11 rival cities and our true purpose" betray an abandonment of her mandate to her constituents and, furthermore, a contempt for many of their opinions.

If that is not paternalism, I don't know what is.

-Gary Kemp, Florence Road, Brighton