Barnet residents - Who will really benefit from a change in the governance system?

Last night was the Constitution Ethics and Probity Committee a rather grandiose title for a navel gazing talking shop. One of the key agenda items was the proposed change to the governance system. "Cabinet bad committee good" seems to be the mantra but I am suspicious of their motives. The Council have proposed a new committee system which seems exceptionally complex and impenetrable. It will keep residents in the dark but maybe that is just the way that Councillors and officers like it. I spoke to the meeting but I got the impression that the decisions are made, the mindset fixed. There will be a public consultation meeting on 20th November 7pm at Hendon Town Hall so please try and get along if you can. If your voice isn't heard they will assume what they are doing has everyone's agreement. PLEASE NOTE. Yet again the council requires you to register in advance if you wish to attend this public meeting. Click on this link to register.
Set out below is my address to the committee:

"You set out on this review with four key principles in mind:

•       Transparency;
•          Accountability
•          Inclusivity and engagement and
•          Durability and flexibility

  You have before you a proposed structure with 18 committees, 6 subcommittees, 4 boards and a panel. That is a perfect recipe for obfuscation, deniability, exclusivity. I also suspect that with Barnet’s population rising to around 400,000 before this system can be changed again, it will also lack durability.

92% of citizen panel respondents have not attended any council meeting in the last 12 months and only 7% fully understand how the governance arrangements work. Shockingly 68% of respondents don’t even know who their councillor is. That suggests to me you have a major problem and from what I can see it is a problem you have either chosen to ignore or completely failed to recognise. The proposed structure will simply make the governance landscape even more confusing and inaccessible to the public. Based on the feedback I have received the council is body that imposes and dictates to residents not something which is there to listen and respond to residents. But I believe there is an alternative.

You have developed a system where committees are differentiated by function but it appears  that no consideration has been given to differentiation by location. What I mean by that is bringing the committee system closer to the people who it is there to represent and creating a structure that actively encourages engagement between councillors and the electorate. For example you could have developed a structure where a very limited number of strategic or statutory matters are considered at an authority level with as many other matters as possible dealt with at a local level, either groups of wards or along parliamentary constituency boundaries. Local decisions could be dealt with at a local level including planning and licensing with local councillors getting much more involved. By making issues more relevant for local people at a local level that should encourage increased engagement. Budgets could be devolved giving a much greater financial incentive for local people to get  involved with the way their council is run.  It would certainly make local councillors much more accountable. The views and recommendations from each local committee could then be integrated back into the council to give a strategic view and assist in clear decision making. That integration could be in the proposed Policy and Resources committee or some other strategic committee run by representatives of the local committees.

I know that this is the first stage in the process and that further consultation will take place but you are not giving people a real choice because you haven’t identified the all the options and therefore any views will be formulated within a framework that has already been set by you.

Ultimately the question is what is the change in governance system really for? Is it to make the system more efficient. Probably not because for all its failings the cabinet system is efficient. Is it to give every councillor a job, probably because with so many committees, sub committees, panels and boards I’m sure every one of the 63 councillors will have a committee role. Will it make the council more transparent or encourage engagement – definitely not.

As the saying goes plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, and that is what you are presenting us with tonight, change without really changing anything. Please consider a much more local structure as one of the options".

Barnet's Constitution & Ethics Committee a (very) small victory for common sense

Mr Mustard, Mrs Angry and Mr Reasonable sat in the front row of the public gallery last night, the resolute guardians of the public interest in Barnet. The meeting had two main agenda items: first the proposed change from a cabinet system to a committee system and second changes to the residents forums.

First up were public questions submitted by myself and Mrs Angry. Mrs Angry had asked if the council had taken legal advice on whether the previous changes to the residents forums had breached the human rights conventions. Cllr Melvin Cohen tried to head this off by saying that he was planning to reverse the changes to the residents forums to allow people to ask anything they wanted. However what became apparent was that they didn't take legal advice previously.

I asked about whether they would hold public meetings to discuss the introduction of the committee system. Although the answer was unhelpful and non committal later in the meeting it was agreed that yes they would hold a public meeting - not just consult the secretive citizens panel.

Next up came the speeches to the committee. Dan Hope (Barnet Bugle) asked for the new committee system to be pushed through post haste and was concerned that Officers were prolonging and complicating what was a simple change. Richard Cornelius agreed and said that some of the language was unhelpful and not clear. Personally, I would like them to consider it more carefully. With Capita taking over the running of so many services I think they need to see how that works out in practice and then develop a system that is most appropriate rather than dive into a system which we will be stuck with for the next five years which may prove inadequate to deal with the commissioning council model.

Next up was my turn. I gave a presentation on my alternative residents forum survey. You can see the presentation below:

Residents Forums Survey Presentation 8 July 2013 by ReasonableNB

Next up was Mrs Angry who was nearly overlooked (big mistake - never overlook Mrs Angry). She tore into Cllr about the previous changes to residents forums. The Cllrs sat there with deadpan expressions and at the end, any questions - sadly no.

The Committee then debated the change to committee system and the residents forums. The net result is we will get a public meeting to discuss the change to a committee system of governance and the residents will be allowed to discuss anything at residents forums and the meetings will start at 6.30pm even though the council's own survey and mine suggested 7.00pm would be a better time. In terms of being able to ask questions on the evening that was a step too far and even though Cllr Schneiderman argued that it had worked perfectly well in the past he was outvoted.

There was a small addendum to proceedings when an officer was asked to explain changes to the procurement rules which allows officers to approve contracts to a single bidder for contracts up to the value of £173,000 so long as they have "tested the market". There was some to and fro between the officer and Cllr Cornelius and eventually it was agreed that they should have sent the assistant director who could explain exactly what they were trying to do.

Overall a very small victory for residents forums but certainly what what residents deserve and expect. BTW the survey will remain open for another week in case you haven't filled it in already and I will update the results.

"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."