"Judge a man by his questions" not in Barnet

Last night's Constitution, Ethics & Probity Committee was a case study in chaos. From the very start the meeting was on a collision course for disaster. The redoubtable Barbara Jacobson had submitted a series of questions about the prohibition of questions at Overview & Scrutiny Committee (OSC) meetings. With responses tabled at the meeting she was then asked to submit her one supplementary question. Barbara seemed surprised. But the rules say we get a supplementary for each question. Ah, not tonight Barbara. The thought police have a new chief and her interpretation was just one supplementary. It was a classic case of light the blue touch paper! Cllrs looked deeply uneasy as residents in the public gallery shouted out their condemnation. Cllr Melvin Cohen who was supposed to be chairing the meeting seemed to lose control with everyone trying to speak at once. Eventually, after trying to justify the unjustifiable, the council backed down and Barbara asked her supplementary questions. Did she get an answer - not likely! Tirza Waisel also tried to ask her supplementary questions but again no answers.

We then moved on to speeches. I was up first. I set out my concerns and why I thought this knee jerk response could have knock-on consequences. I have included my speech below for those who might be interested. I was then questioned by Labour and Lib Dem Councillors (Tory Cllrs were mute at this stage). I made the point that having analysed the last 32 OSC meetings, public questions were asked at only 8 of those meetings - so 75% of meetings are question free. I also made the point that the questions that were asked focused on three main topics, Friern Barnet Library, Pinkham Way waste site and the NSCSO contract, three issues which are both controversial and deeply unpopular and also which have been banned from discussion at residents forums. I suggested that residents could either be viewed as a resource, the 12th man on the OSC team, or as an adversary, the Council clearly viewing us as the latter. I suggested that if the council closes one channel for residents to ask questions they will simply find another channel. The unintended consequence of stopping residents asking questions at residents forums has stimulated more questions at OSC meetings. Stopping them at OSC meetings will  simply mean they pop up at other meetings but with residents even more frustrated.

Julian Silverman then gave his speech and Daniel Hope, who had requested to speak, did not attend.

Cllr Richard Cornelius asked what all the fuss was as the scrutiny committees were going to be abolished in a year's time. Exactly Richard, why tamper with the constitution if things are going to change in 2014, just leave the rules as they are now.

It was apparent that the Council thought these amendments would simply be nodded through and as such Cllr Melvin Cohen had made arrangements to go off to another engagement. "Can we deal with these amendments in 10 minutes?" No, so the meeting was adjourned and another meeting will be held on 10 April to allow further consideration.

Barnet have consistently underestimated the value residents place on the ability to challenge and question the council and yet again last night they showed just how out of touch they are with public opinion. the Council need to think long and hard about the consequences if they introduce these amendments. I hope common sense prevails.

Speech to Constitution Committee

"The amendments proposed tonight will reduce democracy in Barnet. I will start with amendments to article 3. 

You have amended 3.01d from public participation to public engagement, a subtle shift which appears to show the council’s true motives, a rejection of public participation. The rest of the paragraph appears to contradict proposed changes you are making elsewhere in the constitution. It states that:

Citizens have the right to ask questions and make comments at committee meetings, make representations at Residents’ Forums and contribute to investigations initiated by Overview and Scrutiny Committees (such as Panels or Task and Finish Groups). 

However, other amendment you are seeking to introduce tonight will stop residents asking questions at Overview & Scrutiny  Committee meetings and make it even more difficult to ask questions at residents forums. 

At article 10, residents forums, you are seeking to move the deadline for asking question back from 6pm the day before the forum to 10am two working days before the forum. Until two years ago, when you imposed restrictions of residents forums, residents could ask questions on the evening. This was especially useful for 1 in 5 who do not have access to the internet.  You have made no attempt to identify if the changes you made 2 years ago have been successful yet you seek to impose even more restrictive practices without consultation. 

Moving onto article 6, clause 6.03 sets out the specific functions of overview and scrutiny committees including the requirement “to consider and implement mechanisms to encourage and enhance community participation in policy development”. Indeed, Mr Craig Cooper’s statement at the Judicial Review last week said that one of the roles of overview and scrutiny was “to amplify the voices and concerns of the public”.

Yet as part of these proposals you are seeking to stop members of the public asking questions on call ins and pre decision scrutiny. 

That’s not amplifying the voices of the public that’s gagging the public. Many of the call ins are delegated powers reports which will never be subjected to public questioning without call ins. As for ruling out pre decision scrutiny questions that may be a resident’s only opportunity. That is because clause 5.1 of the public participation rules specific excludes the public asking questions “On any matter which has been the subject of a decision of any committee in the previous six months” and that rule was used to prevent me asking question on a post decision scrutiny review in December 2010. On that occasion it was only thanks to the common sense and discretion of Cllr Rayner who agreed to suspend public participation rules that enabled me to ask my questions.

So there you have it. You want to stop us asking questions on pre decisions and call ins and rules already prevent residents from asking questions on post decisions so that means no public questions at scrutiny full stop.

These latest proposals send one very clear signal and that is you want to eliminate public participation in Barnet. Two years ago you ignored the views of the public and pushed ahead with the draconian restrictions to the residents forums. They are now in their death throes and you want to kill them off permanently. With no outlet to question the council in residents forums this led to more public questions  at Overview and Scrutiny. So your response is to kill off participation in those meetings too. Perhaps that in turn will lead to far more FOI requests. 

In summary these amendments seem to be an incredibly ill timed response considering the events that took place in the Royal Courts of Justice last week. Legal challenge increasingly looks like the only way residents can get their questions answered in Barnet. Please think very carefully before agreeing to these amendments as in time they may prove to be disruptive and a very costly error of judgement."

Police Summoned to Move One Barnet Lobby

Today there was a polite and good natured lobby against One Barnet outside Chipping Barnet Library. The lobby group of BAPS members had set up their table next to the bench outside the library.

These are not anarchists or trouble makers. They are decent respectable people who are seriously concerned about the massive £1 billion gamble the Council is taking by outsourcing 70% of the council's services to private companies.

Sadly the library summoned the Police and two PCSO's turned up.They instructed the Baps supporters to move the table from the safe and wide path leading to the library to the narrow pavement all of 6 feet away.

The Lobby then went in to present a report to Councillors holding their Saturday morning surgery.

BAPS are doing a great job of informing the public about what the One Barnet outsourcing programme entails. It just amazes me that Barnet Council feel they can impose such a radical plan without explaining any of the details to the residents they are supposed to represent. Sadly we have an oligarchy in Barnet with a handful of people who think they can impose their misguided will on all 350,000 residents without any opposition whatsoever.

Well I'm sorry to tell you Barnet but the residents aren't a push over.

One Barnet Outsourcing Is destorying the Council - Yet more evidence

Today I received an email from Barnet Council.

Dear Mr Dix,

Thank you for your request for a review (of an Information Request) received on 18 April 2012.

I apologise on behalf of the council for the delay in acknowledging your request. Due to an error on our case management system your email requesting an internal review was not picked up until late last week.
 
I am however sorry to that you are unhappy with the council’s response to your request for the following information:

Please provide me with the Members Allowances paid for the year 2010-11.

We will now conduct an internal review.  The review will be independent and impartial, will reconsider the merits of the case, and will identify any errors in the handling of your request.
 
We aim to complete internal reviews promptly and in any event within 20 working days from receipt of a complaint.  In exceptional cases we may take longer, but we will not exceed 40 working days.  This is in line with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner. In these circumstances however, we will aim to complete the internal review 10 working days from today.

Quoting guidance from the Information Commissioner is a bit rich considering they ignored my request for an internal review for 8 weeks. It is also shocking that more than a year after the financial year end I had to submit an FOI request to try (but fail) to see Councillors expenses that still have not been published. However, this pales into insignificance compared to the 7 month battle I have had to get a response to another FOI request. I have emailed, telephoned, I have tried to be reasonable, some would say overly reasonable. The Council resolutely ignores my request.

It is clear to me that Barnet Council are utterly out of control and I blame it all on the fixation with One Barnet Outsourcing.  A year ago I spoke at an audit committee meeting where I made it clear that senior management had taken their eye off the ball to focus on One Barnet. Here is yet more evidence that the problem is just getting worse and worse.

I would again make a plea to Cllr Richard Cornelius. Pause this One Barnet Outsourcing programme now, get your managers refocused on doing what they should be doing which is running the day to day business of the Council properly. The Council has spent millions on consultants but complying with the law seems to elude them.

I am increasingly if the opinion that the destructive nature of this One Barnet programme will leave such a mess that both Capita and BT will either end up charging a fortune or they will simply walk away from this basket case. Frankly it is turning into a lose lose situation. Cllr Cornelius please take control of this mess before the One Barnet Zealots destroy this Council once and for all.

What price democracy in Barnet - £40,000 a year?

Barnet Council, in its wisdom, decided a year ago to reduce the number of planning meetings from three to two. Previously they were split by the three parliamentary constituencies but in order to save money they were reduced this down to two meetings East and West of the Borough. This has resulted in some meetings running over. To address the problem, rather than go back to three meetings, the Council has proposed that for a planning application to be referred to the committee, five people have to object rather than the current three people. The council have identified that this may save up to £40,000 a year in reduced officer and Councillors time (I thought Councillors were paid a fixed allowance irrespective of how many meetings they attended.) The problem is that with many planning applications the council informs residents of only those immediately adjacent properties meaning that often very few people know about the application.

I attended a planning meeting recently where two planning applications recommended for approval by officers were refused by the committee. This reflects the fact that most Councillors live in their local communities and are much more in touch with what is and what is not appropriate.

In 2010/11 planning application fees generated income for the Council of £1.58 million and when One Barnet Outsourcing is implemented they are forecasting that will rise by another £237,000 per annum. Trying to save £40,000 by reducing residents' right to speak at meetings seems both inappropriate  and ill judged. 

I urge every resident who has ever been affected by a planning application to write to their Councillors asking them to reconsider this stupid proposal. If this proposal goes through it will illustrate - yet again - that actually the Council is prepared to sacrifice the rights of residents all for the sake of £40,000 a year.