WHAT is the point of councillors?

I only ask this seemingly obvious question because of a strange internal dispute at Bournemouth town hall.

Councillors are elected to represents their ward and their voters.

They are there to make key decisions and to help fashion policy, although the extent to which they are able to do so varies.

Some local authorities are so tightly controlled, sometimes enjoying such large majorities, that political power is concentrated in the hands of just a few people. Or indeed just one.

Councillors also have one other fundamental role and some might argue it's their most important. Scrutiny.

Like MPs, councillors are there to support and sustain (although clearly a council won't fall if it doesn't have a majority, whereas a government may fall) but also to challenge and criticise.

Which on the face of it, makes the issue I'm referring to at Bournemouth appear extraordinary.

Three complaints have been made against Conservative backbencher Cllr Nick Rose by members of the borough's communications team, claiming he breached the Code of Conduct when he responded to a circular by calling their work "trivial".

Earlier this year, the council's managing director, Jane Portman, issued a circular to staff and members, praising the authority's comms team's work in dealing with a rough sleepers issue.

A two-week media firestorm erupted after the death of one homeless man and the 'bars on benches' controversy.

Mrs Portman wrote: "Whilst we have pushed back in social media all week, we have not been able to stem the overwhelming tide of negative publicity.

"I am sure you will join me in thanking our communications team very much for their work and all efforts to manage this intense media interest."

But in a reply-all message, Cllr Rose said that by countering social media critics the borough was "providing them with more oxygen for their cause and more ammunition."

"To be frank, in my informed opinion, the corporate communications team will have made matters worse," he said.

This of course was his opinion. He is entitled to hold it.

Cllr Rose, who would probably come last in a popularity contest at the council, also described the communications budget as 'eye-watering' and some of the responses as trivial.

Mrs Portman wrote back that it was humiliating and upsetting for staff to be criticised in this way.

Three individual members of the communications team then made formal complaints about Cllr Rose.

These are thought to make reference to a 'challenging' period of crisis communications management, tireless work 'above and beyond the call of duty to serve the council' and long days, out of hours working and personal lives and commitments being put on hold to help protect the reputation of the council.

Cllr Rose's comments were described as belittling, disrespectful and tantamount to intimidating behaviour.

It is is perfectly natural for Mrs Portman to come to the defence of her staff.

But Cllr Rose is equally entitled to question the council's approach and strategy.

Indeed, if he or any other elected feels a matter like this needs airing, it is their right and duty to do so - free from the fear that they are likely to be on the receiving end of a formal complaint.

Far from an entire corporate team being intimidated by one outspoken, maverick councillor, one might easily the view that he is one entitled to feel intimidated.

It may be that journalists, used to dishing out criticism on a daily basis, are more able to soak it up.

But I can't help feeling that those making these complaints are being far too sensitive - as dedicated and professional as they undoubtedly are (and we deal with them on a daily basis.)

That over-sensitivity may have led them to lose some some of perspective on the role of elected members.

In any event, reaching for the complaints form in these circumstances, when a councillor is well within his rights to question what the council is doing, is a dangerous road to go down.