The first paragraph of the linked material reads:
A 21st Century Councillor is one who is a supported, confident, talented and professional community leader. One who understands but can also transform their place. One who can think strategically, as well as be informed and inspired by their local roots. In short, being a 21st Century Councillor is a role that many more people should understand and aspire to fulfilling for at least a part of their lives. Where this is not the case, change is not going to come through statutory obligations alone.
Taking it sentence by sentence: A 21st Century Councillor is one who is a supported, confident, talented and professional community leader. - I would question "supported" - surely even in the 21st century their is a place for the independent. I would question "professional" - the politicians of this country already cost us more than enough money - making councillors entirely dependent on their income as councillors will make local government even more expensive than it already is, and ensure that councillors are only politicians - the process needs gifted volunteers from business and academia and hairdressing.
One who understands but can also transform their place. - in the way that MPs have transformed their second home places, perhaps - this statement is at best ambiguous.
One who can think strategically, as well as be informed and inspired by their local roots - OK, except that "one" is singular and "their" is plural" (for more detail on this problem see Yahoo education.
In short, being a 21st Century Councillor is a role that many more people should understand and aspire to fulfilling for at least a part of their lives. - This is a complete non-sequitur. It is not at all clear from either the context or the punctuation that we have completed the "one who"s. What has been presented here so far to imply any of this - indeed if you adopt councillorhood as a profession (sentence 1) then in many cases it cannot only be for a part of your life.
Where this is not the case, change is not going to come through statutory obligations alone. - another non-sequitur - where what exactly is not the case? Thouhg I do agree that statutory obligations are massively over rated.
It is impossible to take seriously any campaign which promotes such drivel. Especially not one purporting to improve leadership.