Misogyny, arrogance and decision making unfettered by a grasp of the facts - an evening at Barnet Council

Last night's Constitution & Ethics committee demonstrated perfectly how a change to the governance system is an utterly pointless exercise. I spoke out about the proposal to cut speaking time at committees from 5 minutes to 3 minutes and to allocate a total of 30 minutes for both questions and speakers. I made the point that if the council read the consultation results they would see there is an strong appetite for more public engagement but that by restricting time given the public it would have the opposite effect. I also made the point about unintended consequences. Two and a half years ago the same committee made the decision to restrict what questions could be asked at residents Forums. The consequence of that was that far more questions were asked at committees. Squeezing time for questions at committees will simple force the public to ask their questions elsewhere.

The committee then moved on to discuss various aspects of the changes to the governance system and changes that would be required to the constitution as a result. Cllr Melvin Cohen insisted that the title of Committee Chair be changed to Chairman. Objections from Cllr Alison Moore that the title would be offensive to women were dismissed. Indeed Cllr Joan Scannell said "I am a lady and I am not offended" to which Cllr Moore replied I may not be a 'lady' but I am offended. Put to a vote the Conservative group voted through the change through using Cllr Cohen's casting vote. And so it went on, objection from Libdems and Labour out voted by Conservatives. Towards the end of the meeting we came to the subject of public participation. A little debate with Cllr Quigley-Turner ably demonstrating  that he hasn't got a clue how the current system of public questions works. I did shout out at this stage that he didn't know what he was talking about and Cllr Cornelius had to gentle tell him that the point he was making actually didn't happen. So nice to see Cllrs making decisions unfettered by a grasp of the facts.

Yet again Cllr Melvin Cohen used his casting vote to push through the cuts to public engagement after which the meeting drew to an end. The Council say that by moving to a committee system will make it more democratic. Last night's committee showed that the current ruling group will always vote on party lines and a change to a committee system will not change a thing while the ruling group can out vote any dissenting voices. I predict the new system will be a catastrophic disaster, no clarity as to which matters get debated at which committee, lack of clarity about precisely what decisions a committee can make and what will be referred to the all powerful Policy & Resources Committee conflict and rivallry between committees and lots of reports and votes at Council. This is all about jobs for cllrs along with a lot more special allowances for so many more committee Chairpersons.

You can see video extracts of the meeting dealing with public participation here and here thanks to the hard work of Barnet Revel

Barnet and the Art of Tautology

On Tuesday I attended the Budget & Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. I had submitted 30 questions well in advance of the meeting so I was looking forward to some detailed answers. Well that was not to be. Before I go through just a few of the answers I want to make it clear why I asked them. Some people have branded me an "activist" or "troublemaker" or "lefty". Personally I don't think I am any of those. I come from a business background and have dealt with contracts  and contractors over the last 27 years. Barnet is where I live and I want to make sure that the Council are not messing up mine and my children's future. That's all.

So coming back to the questions.

My first question was asking how much additional gross revenue would be required to generate the net income growth of £33.8 million that Capita are promising. The reason for wanting to know that is to understand how much additional business Capita are going to need to generate and what the ,margin is. If the margin is high, say 50% then Capita will need to generate an extra £67 million of gross income which might be achievable. However, if the margin is lower, say 10%, after you take into consideration all of the staff and overhead costs of providing these additional services, that would mean that Capita would have to generate an additional £334 million and that stretches the bounds of possibility. So a logical reason for asking the question and if I was a Councillor it would be critical to my assessment of their proposal. The answer back from Barnet was significant additional gross revenue. In other words we aren't going to answer your question.

Second question asked what circumstances have changes between March 2011 and today to justify a tripling in net income. The answer came back that the March 2011 business case was very prudent. Now this is important because back in 2011the council may decisions about how they would outsource these services based specifically on the business case and it has now been proved to be wrong by a factor of three. To my mind this entirely undermines the credibility of the original business case and the people who put it together as if may have ruled out other options which should have been considered.

The third question related to the cost savings that Capita are promising. In the original business case carried out just 2 years ago Barnet's consultants estimated that cost savings would be £19.7million whereas now Capita are only promising £5.3 million of cost savings. So I asked what reason has been given for savings that are only 26.9% of that originally forecast?  The Council's answer  to why the savings are so much smaller is "The bidder has identified a more modest saving". Now I think that must rank with one of the most useless answers of all time.

Now many of the other responses displayed similar tautological dexterity, however there were a few nuggets of information which came out as follows:

• Capita will receive £18.5 million in profit and overhead recovery
• 30% of the staff will be on joint employment contracts, i.e. employed by both the Joint Venture and Barnet Council. How that will work in practice is anyone's guess!
• The Council can veto any director of the Joint Venture being paid more than £150,000 - so that will mean a bunch of unelected people will sit on the board of a JV company running Barnet and as long as they are paid salaries of £149,999 or less then there will be absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
• The extended opening hours at Hendon Cemetery and Crematorium and pre-purchasing of graves which Capita are saying will generate additional revenue, are actually in operation now before the contract has been signed.
• Capita will not have any contractual requirement to hold open meetings with the public to explain what they are doing but they will "provide Community Liaison Officers to attend Town Centre Forums  - sorry but don't council officers do that already?

My last question asked if the chairman would consider separate workshop meeting so the public could ask more questions to which the response was:

"It is not appropriate for Scrutiny members to hold workshops with members of the public on matters that are the domain of executive decision making". 

As it so happens I was reading just yesterday about a Scrutiny Camp run by the Centre for Scrutiny Studies. Take a look and see examples of best practice where local authorities engage with and involve local people, something that simply does not happen in Barnet.

I would add that actually there were 77 questions in total asked and the answers do make interesting reading which you can see here. Barnet is fortunate in having a very inquisitive and questioning resident base and that should be something the Council embraces not evades.

One Barnet DRS Contract - Another Disastrous Decision

Today, Barnet Council have announced they have selected Capita as the winner of the Development and Regulatory Services (DRS) contract. This is the second large contract to be awarded to Capita and now gives them control over most of what the Council actually delivers. Just for those of you who are still unaware of what this contract includes it is the following (as set out in the original tender notice):

"Services furnished by business, professional and specialist organisations. Land management services.Architectural, engineering and planning services. Technical planning services. Urban planning and landscape architectural services. Architectural services for buildings. Miscellaneous building structures. Housing services. Development of residential real estate. Feasibility study, advisory service, analysis. Project and design preparation, estimation of costs. Draft plans (systems and integration). Calculation of costs, monitoring of costs. Approval plans, working drawings and specifications. Determining and listing of quantities in construction. Supervision of building work. Supervision of project and documentation. Architectural, engineering and surveying services. Architectural and building-surveying services. Construction management services. Funeral and related services. Funeral services. Cemetery services and cremation services. Cemetery services.Cemetery maintenance services. Cremation services. Work environment services. Civic-amenity services. Car park management services. Civic betterment and community facility support services. Facility related sanitation services. Disinfecting and exterminating services. Pest-control services. Rat-disinfestation services. Fumigation services. Services related to noise pollution. Noise control services. Noise pollution protection services. Noise pollution monitoring services. Noise pollution advisory services. Environmental institution building or planning.Environmental issues consultancy services. Environmental planning. Urban environmental development planning. Environmental services. Environmental management. Environmental impact assessment other than for construction. Risk or hazard assessment other than for construction. Environmental standards other than for construction. Environmental indicators analysis other than for construction. Environmental Impact Assessment EIA services other than for construction. Environmental monitoring other than for construction. Highways engineering services. Highways consultancy services. Administrative housing services. General public services.Administration services. Engineering design services for the construction of civil engineering works. Quantity surveying services for civil engineering works. Health and safety services. Health and safety consultancy services. Advisory and consultative engineering services. Building services. Building-fabric consultancy services. Building consultancy services. Building services consultancy services. Building surveying services.Building-inspection services. Infrastructure works consultancy services. Structural engineering consultancy services. Environmental engineering consultancy services. Noise-control consultancy services. Environmental impact assessment for construction. Risk or hazard assessment for construction. Environmental standards for construction. Environmental indicators analysis for construction. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) services for construction. Environmental monitoring for construction. Commissioning of public lighting installations. Structures and parts of structures. Structures and parts. Miscellaneous structures. Parts of structures. Road traffic-control equipment. Traffic control services. Traffic monitoring services. Records management. Road transport services. Public road transport services. Support services for land transport. The London Borough of Barnet is looking for a Strategic Partner (SP), single bidder or consortium, to transform the delivery of its Development and Regulatory Services. The London Borough of Barnet wishes to work with the SP to provide a joined-up environmental regulation, design and management function that will develop and maintain the quality of the built environment and help to ensure the health and well being of our citizens. The services in scope are as follows: Strategic Services:
— Regeneration,
— Strategic planning and housing strategy,
— Highways transport and regeneration,
— Highways strategy operational services:
—— Building control and structures,
—— Planning development management,
—— Land charges,
— Highways network management,
— Highways traffic and development public health, consumer and regulatory services,
— Environmental health,
— Trading standards & licensing,
— Cemetery & crematorium".
(The registration and nationality services were originally included but have subsequently been excluded from the contract)

The services will be run as a joint venture - but we forbidden from knowing what that means or how it is structured and the contract will run for 10 years. We have been told it will save £3.9 million a year and that staffing will be kept at "broadly the current level" whatever that means. However everything associated with this contract is shrouded in secrecy because it is "commercially sensitive".

The residents of Barnet were never consulted on this matter (Justice Underhill says so) and we are unlikely to ever know the details. Ten people have now awarded two contracts worth around £500 million with the potential for significantly more and we, as residents, have no say.

And were these services terrible when the outsourcing was first envisaged. No, actually they were highly rated and efficient but that is no what this process is all about. It is about political dogma. George Osborne will be able to claim a whole load more private sector jobs have been created because every job outsourced to the private sector is claimed as a new private sector job forgetting that it is a job lost in the public sector. Now you will know next time the Conservatives claim they have created a million new private sector jobs exactly where they came from.

What gets to me most of all is the calibre of the politicians making these decisions, or as Brian Coleman put it "Young boys who are keen but don’t have the time because they are busy building their careers or relationships, or sad old pensioners who just won’t go away". All the analysis has been left to faceless consultants whose names we are not allowed to know, who have no connection with the borough and who won't be around when it all goes wrong.

This is not democracy and it is wrong.

Barnet Judicial Review - is this justice?

Yesterday, the judgement on the Maria Nash's judicial review was published. I would urge as many people as possible to read this judgement because it illustrates just how unfair the justice system can be at times.

The judge, Lord Justice Underhill is critical of Barnet and is quite clear that they failed to consult with residents. However, the law believes that ordinary residents without a law degree, need to do things like study the Official Journal of the European Union  (OJEU) with great rigour, to read between the lines on council papers, even when they are not explicit and to seek legal redress at the earliest possible opportunity even though they don't know what they are objecting to.

Barnet failed miserably to consult - and in  the judges words;

"Although I have, out of deference to the attention given to it in the evidence, and to some extent also at the hearing, summarised the nature of the consultation about the 2010/11 and 2011/12 budgets, there is no real dispute that it did not constitute consultation about outsourcing as such.  “Alternative service provision” was mentioned in the materials supplied, at least for the latter year; but no relevant information was supplied, and the exercises were plainly not designed to elicit views about it".   He went on to say:

"It is clear that in the present case the Council did not make any attempt to consult on the specific question of whether the functions and services covered by the NSCSO and DRS contracts should be outsourced", and in summary he said:


"It follows that if the application for judicial review had been made in time I would have held that the Council had not complied with its obligations under section 3 (2) of the 1999 Act in respect of the decisions taken in 2010/11 to outsource the performance of its functions and services, covered by the proposed NSCSO and DRS contracts".  

BUT...   the case is out of time so tough luck!


I believe it was Lord Hailsham who coined the phrase "elective dictatorship" and that is exactly what we have in Barnet, a weak group that fails to represent the broad views of the residents but is able to drive through whatever policies it wants aided by the weaknesses of the democratic system we have in place. If this judgement stands it will send a green light to Barnet to be even more secretive about what they are doing, to completely ignore meaningful consultions, to ignore the broad range of views of the 356,000 residents and to go ahead with whatever it wants, because it can. 

I understand that Maria Nash is going to appeal and I hope for everyone's sake she is successful.

Does Free Speech Exist in Barnet?

A couple of weeks ago I spoke at the Constitution, Ethics & Probity Committee when the Council were proposing to stop people asking questions at Overview & Scrutiny Committee Meetings. I talked about whether the Council viewed residents as a valuable resource or an adversary. In my opinion the Council definitely put residents in the latter category.  However I was somewhat heartened that at the follow up meeting of this committee the council dropped the proposal to stop people asking questions at Scrutiny Committees.

Cllr Jack Cohen had suggested that allowing people to speak informs the debate but that asking questions shuts down debate. My view then and now is that we need both. There are times when a question will elicit a specfic answer whereas other times, talking to a committee allows resdients to provide qualitative evidence.  So for Scrutiny both will remain in place. There was also a subtle  shift in the stance of  cabinet meetings where rather than expressly forbidding speakers it would now be at the Chairman's discretion.

And so it comes to tonight's cabinet resources committee. An expert on procurement and value for money had asked to speak on the topic of CCTV that the council wish to introduce. This expert had benchmarked the proposed contract and believes that it may not represent good value for money. Now if I was the Leader of the Council I would welcome someone who has valuable information to offer with open arms. "Please come along and give us your views. Help us be more efficient and save  money".

Well not in Barnet. The Chairman of the Cabinet Resources Committee, Cllr  Dan Thomas has declined to allow this expert to speak at the committee meeting tonight. I wonder why? Is it because he doesn't believe this person - unlikely as this person has a track record of identifying poor procurement and waste. Is it because this subject is controversial - not really it is just a CCTV contract. Is it because CRC simply don't want to listen to anyone because actually this is a rubber stamping meeting - almost definitely. Finally, is it because this expert is none other than apolitical Barnet Blogger, Mr Mustard, who has relentlessly identified problems with council contracts - ah well there you go.  Cllr Thomas actually believes that public question time is "adequate for public participation during the meeting".

So in Barnet we can on have free speech if it adds little and doesn't have any impact on what the council does. Anyone with good ideas, good business sense or an eye for detail are definitely not welcome. Cllr Jack Cohen said that questions shuts down debate. Well tonight that is precisely what Cabinet and Cabinet Resources want - no debate.

"Nothing About Us Without Us" - Why Barnet ended up at Judicial Review

On Tuesday and Thursday this week I have been at the Royal Courts of Justice listening in to the Judicial Review Hearing. There has been much written about the case and I would urge readers to visit Mrs Angry's blog for one of the most comprehensive and entertaining reads around. (For what it's worth I believe that Mrs Angry is one of the most talented writers in the UK and deserves much greater recognition of her talents).

The quote "Nothing about us without us" came from Maria Nash and it runs to the very heart of the problems in Barnet. The court hearing has revealed  that the Council have assumed that they know best and that residents are incapable of understanding the issues involved. The Council have made oblique references to what 'One Barnet Transformation Programme' was about and left it to residents to join up the dots. Barnet seem terrified of consultation in case residents say something the Council don't like. In summary it appears that the Council will do what they want irrespective of what residents think or want and worry about the consequences afterwards. 

Over the three days of the hearing not one single Conservative councillor has shown up to see how the case is going or to understand some of the reasons why this dispute has made it all the way to Judicial Review. Perhaps they were worried about the public opprobrium, perhaps they didn't understand the issues, or perhaps they simply didn't give a s**t. Whatever the answer, their absence speaks volumes about their disengagement from residents on such important matters. Maria's words clearly show that Barnet's stance is simply untenable.

Irrespective of what the judge rules, it is clear to me that the Council will struggle to recover from this case. They have demonstrated a contempt and disrespect for residents which at times was breathtaking. They have shown that there is a complete (and justified) lack of trust for the Council and that will continue with the current regime in place.  Without a regime change and a complete revolution on openness and true consultation, I suspect that that the Council will face many more Judicial Review requests and that risks bringing the Council into a state of complete paralysis.

 

Who pressed the self destruct button - Barnet Cabinet

Last night Barnet's cabinet members voted for the award of the NSCSO contract to Capita and in so doing pressed that big red self-destruct button. They have successfully shown their complete disregard for the electorate by their resolute refusal to engage in debate, to inform residents, and involve them in the outsourcing process. When you see polite, knowledgeable, middle aged and mature voters incensed by the arrogance of the people who patronise or ignore them, you start to understand the massive gulf that has opened up in Barnet. Last night the cabinet went a step too far. They could have quite easily put the programme on hold and spent time explaining to residents much more of the detail in the NSCSO contract and listened to the very real concerns of residents. Instead they stuck two fingers up to the residents and pressed ahead with what will be a massive risk. Any references to the DRS contract last night were dismissed as not relevant to the NSCSO contract. However, the two are inextricably linked due to the IT and customer services that will be shared and, as a result, I suspect Capita will be awarded the DRS contract in just a few weeks time. 

I watched the Barnet Bugle's recording of the second half of the cabinet meeting held in private. I got a sense that some of the cabinet members still have some concerns but were subtly covering their backsides by shifting the responsibility to officers and consultants. There is one comment almost at the end (49mins 30 secs) where Cllr Cornelius is drafting a recommendation thanking officers for their help in "providing the information which we have relied on to make an informed decision." My immediate reaction was nice side step Richard, blame shifted to officers if and when it goes wrong. Well sorry but that won't wash because cabinet members rigidly ignored any concerns expressed by residents, unions or external experts such as APSE.

Indeed, over a week ago I wrote to my three ward councillors including two cabinet members, Joanna Tambourides and Robert Rams expressing my concerns and asking what steps they had taken to validate what they had been told by officers and external consultants. I think that it was a perfectly reasonable question and the one non cabinet member (Cllr Barry Evangeli) responded within a couple of hours with a courteous and considered response. However the two cabinet members have simply ignored my email. Such utter disregard for your own ward electors shows that council tax payers have become irreverent. Robert Rams has found plenty of time in the last week to tweet about his various activities including responding to an insulting email yet he has completely ignored the concerns of someone who has spent a great deal of time investigating the issues at stake.

Last night confirmed to me that cabinet members don't give a stuff about the people who voted for them. In so doing they pressed the self destruct button that will see them swept from control in 2014.

The Guardian in Barnet - Observing the North London Revolution

Over the last couple of weeks, John Harris and John Domokos from the Guardian has been spending time in Barnet talking to people and experiencing the issues we face. Here is his video which makes great viewing. Yet another condemnation of the One Barnet folly.

Please forward the link to your friends.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/nov/14/barnet-outsourcing-easycouncil-revolt-video

Packed house condemns One Barnet

Last night's question time on the One Barnet outsourcing programme must have made Cllr Richard Cornelius feel very uncomfortable. Several hundred residents crammed in to the Greek Cypriot Centre to tell the conservative councillors their concerns about the huge risks and unknown consequences of outsourcing so many core services to the private sector.

There were many telling comments like Andy Mudd, (consultant from APSE) who said that Barnet was probably one of the worst contracting authority he had come across. Jack Cohen talked about being kept in the dark and Richard himself said that he didn't know what was in the contract. A

However, for me the most telling moments were the comments made by residents. Many expressed their concern, alarm and incredulity that the council should be entering into such long and complex contracts without knowing any of the detail. A council employee talked about the problems with the outsourced parking contract. Barnet Homes tenants talked about the problems arising when the outsourced maintenance contractor went bust.  Someone from Somerset also spoke up about the problems at SouthWest One.

I was sat close to conservative councillors David Longstaff and Lisa Rutter and Cllr Rutter looked particularly concerned during the meeting. It may be that she is worried about the lack of details and transparency on One Barnet. It may be that she is happy with the policy but worried just how badly the council have communicated the concept to Barnet residents. It may be that she is entirely comfortable about the whole process. However, I suspect that this morning many conservative councillors will be wondering if embarking on this high risk programme is really worth the risk, risk of it going wrong and risk of them losing their seats at the next election. This isn't going to go away. Barnet residents are asking a lot more awkward questions, the national media are putting Barnet under the microscope and it is receiving widespread coverage.

Many people have shown that there are alternatives to this massive outsourcing but the conservatives' commitment to the policy suggests that they are either bankrupt of ideas or ideologically wedded to the concept irrespective of the evidence. We have a window of two weeks before councillors decide on whether they are going to commit every single Barnet resident to what may be a financial disaster or to call a halt to proceedings.  Conservative councillors, please use your common sense, halt the process and at least take some independent financial advice on the nature of the proposed deal.

Party Dogma 1 - Common Sense 0 - Barnet Heads for Disaster After One Barnet Vote

Last night demonstrated to me why local government needs radical reform. A motion of no confidence in the leader was all about the Barnet Council's obsession with handing over the running of council services to a private company.

Sadly there was very little factual discussion very little analysis of the key facts, very little evidence. There was, however, a great deal of offensive, unpleasant party politics. Cllr Dan Thomas had the bare faced cheek to say that the One Barnet scrutiny process has been open and transparent. Having asked numerous questions over the last two years I have never had a straight answer and any tangible evidence had always been hidden behind the cloak of "commercial sensitivity". Cllr Cornelius blamed the EU; Cllr Marshall blamed the last labour government; the unions got blamed for protecting their member's jobs.

I just wish they would stop blaming other people and look at themselves for a minute. How many members have read all of the papers, how many members have been to speak to councillors in Somerset or Essex or Liverpool or Edinburgh where they might have actually informed themselves and drawn their own conclusions. I tried to ask a question recently as to whether councillors had spoken to councillors in Somerset to talk about SouthWest One  where Somerset County Council is being sued by their private sector outsourcing partner but my question was banned. Councillors seem happy to be spoon fed what officers and external consultants tell them. Their naivety is sometimes breathtaking. Last night Cllr Marshall said that we are safe because we have a contract! What planet is he living on. Luckily he was immediately followed by Lord Palmer who speaks with authority and common sense are who showed Cllr Marshall what utter rubbish he was talking.

The constant mantra last night was there is no alternative. Not true and later today I will publish the Mr Reasonable One Barnet alternative.

One Barnet Scrutiny - Too Little Too Late

In a late addition to the Council papers for tonight's meeting there is a paper setting out the additional scrutiny meetings that will review the DRS and NSCSO One Barnet contract decision. Sadly this has come two years too late and two additional scrutiny meetings for each is simple not enough on a contract valued at £1 billion over ten years. Hopefully the replacement of Brian Coleman as Chair of the Budget and Performance Overview & Scrutiny Committee will at least allow a modicum of debate. However, by this stage the decision will have already been taken by senior officers and external consultants and these meetings will simply be a rubber stamping exercise.

Based on the questions and answers for tonight's Council meeting it looks like Richard Cornelius is still going to try and press ahead with this highly risky and discredited process even though the evidence suggesting it is likely to be a failure is overwhelming. He says in response to one question (q37) that there are lots of other local authorities who have outsourced  services and that is perfectly correct. However, there is no other Local Authority that has successfully outsourced so many services together on the scale of One Barnet and that is why it is so risky.

Tomorrow I will publish an 8 point plan to deliver exactly the same savings as the two outsourcing contracts but without any of the associated risks - just prudent management. That will show that with a little more common sense and without the help of expensive consultants there most definitely is a plan B.

Joint Letter to Barnet Councillors - Think Again -Halt One Barnet Now

Dear Councillors

In the next few days you will be asked to vote on a motion of no confidence in the Conservative party leader Richard Cornelius.

You will no doubt be asked to express your loyalty to Councillor Cornelius and to defeat the motion.

As local residents we would like to ask you to think very carefully about the consequences of such an action.

We know that many of you are now deeply concerned about the future of the Conservative administration, that you have profound misgivings about the viability of the One Barnet programme, and that you are also concerned by the response of the leader to issues arising from the arrest and consequent charging of your colleague Councillor Brian Coleman, in relation to an alleged assault. The announcement today that the much trumpeted Landmark Library plan has fallen through can only add to your sense of misgiving.

The continuing difficulties felt by residents and traders over the contentious parking policy has caused enormous damage to the relationship of trust between this administration and the residents of Barnet, and now it has become abundantly clear that the massive scale of privatisation of a further £1 billion worth of council services envisaged by the One Barnet project is hugely unpopular not only amongst residents and voters, but within your own ranks.

Last week Andrew Travers, the newly appointed 'interim' Chief Executive of Barnet Council, affirmed to a committee that the 'Joint Venture' model was still very much under consideration, despite the fact that elected members have not been involved in the discussions for such a proposal, and that the leader has stated previously that he was being excluded from such discussions.

Councillors must ask themselves why they are being distanced from policy decisions of such vital significance. Who is in control of this council, councillors or the officers of the senior management team?

Once the £1 billion contracts are signed, of course, elected members will effectively lose all control over almost all of our council services, which will then be in the hands of unaccountable private companies for a period of ten years, with huge financial penalties to the authority, that is to say to residents, should any serious difficulties arise, which they inevitably will.

Councillors must also ask why there never been an independent assessment of the risks posed by the One Barnet programme, and why there has been such a clear failure to mitigate the risk of conflict of interest raised by the exchange of senior officers between the council and the private companies bidding for contracts as part of the One Barnet programme.

Such an apparent lack of regulation might reasonably be said to have compromised the whole procurement process, and to have exposed the authority to legal challenge, a prospect already a clear possibility on the basis of the blatantly inadequate consultation with the residents and stakeholders who will be bearing the full impact of the privatisation of almost all our council services.

Another question that must be addressed is the extraordinary level of cost to local taxpayers of Agilysis/iMPOWER, the consultants who are acting as the One Barnet 'implementation partners' - newly released figures reveal that their bill for September alone cost us nearly half a million pounds, and spending on all consultants, wildly out of control, is now estimated to reach a staggering total of £9.5 million.

Such extravagance with taxpayers' money at a time of austerity, with no return in the form of savings is clearly a reckless indulgence, benefiting no one other than the consultants themselves. In combination with the loss in revenue as a result of the newly privatised parking service, it perfectly illustrates the improbability of the delivery of any of the promised savings from the outsourced profit of the One Barnet programme.

Last week Cornwall County Council voted to halt their own Joint Venture proposals at a late stage in the negotiations, due to the extent of concern felt by councillors and residents over the plans for their large scale privatisation of council services. The Conservative leader lost a vote of no confidence, having shown a determination to proceed with the plans in the face of enormous opposition.

Now here in Barnet you, our elected representatives, face the same choice as your Cornish counterparts - and now is the time for you to have the courage to act.

Please use this opportunity to bring a halt to the One Barnet programme and instigate a fundamental review of a commitment which will place the long term future of our borough, our services, our residents, in the hands of unaccountable private sector companies using us for their own profit.
Please take this last opportunity to stand up for what you know is right, what is the sensible thing to do.

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Who runs Barnet Council? A question for Barnet leader Richard Cornelius from the Barnet bloggers.

Dear Councillor Cornelius,

We wrote to you last week in regard to the announcement by Pam Wharfe, Barnet Council’s ‘interim’ Director of Environment, Planning and Regeneration, that a decision has been made to abandon the One Barnet Strategic Partnership proposals for the outsourcing of  £275 million worth of our local services in favour of a ‘Joint Venture’.

You have since contradicted her statement, saying:

“No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such as case. The decisions will be made by elected members in due course.”

In a subsequent message to staff Ms Wharfe has informed staff that:

“...the project Board recommended to Corporate Directors Group that this be formally advanced in discussion with bidders and indeed is currently our preferred option.”

Neither the DRS project board nor the Corporate Directors Group includes any elected members of the council. Membership of the DRS project board, we understand, is restricted to a small number of senior council officers and two consultants from Agilisys/iMPOWER, the company working as ‘implementation partner’ to One Barnet, at an average cost to local tax payers of £250,000 per month.

It would appear that Barnet Council is preparing to commit the financial security of this borough to a new model of outsourcing – one that its own consultants’ advice identified as more risky and costly than the one originally chosen, and that this decision has been made by senior officers before any consideration or approval by the elected members of the council.

Ms Wharfe’s own comments about the new Joint Venture seem to suggest that senior management are not at all concerned by the increased risk of failure that this new commitment will entail, or the increased responsibilities for the authority that this option would involve, as a result of guaranteeing more favourable terms for the successful bidder at the conclusion of the dialogue process. 

As residents, however, we are concerned: and we believe that you should be too.

We would ask you and your colleagues to consider the real possibility that in the event of the new Joint Venture failing, the council will still be left with the duty to provide the affected services, whilst the successful bidder may simply walk away with no obligation.

We believe that Councillors have clearly not been fully informed as to the details of the Joint Venture, and that the scale of risk that the One Barnet programme presents is simply not fully understood by members. It seems that the need for members to be fully informed of developments and involved in the formation of policy at all stages of the dialogue process has been deliberately overlooked.

Perhaps as well as a decision to pursue a new model of outsourcing, the council is committing itself to a new form of local government, in which the democratic process is set aside for a bureaucratic dictatorship, entirely controlled by the senior management team. 

If Barnet is indeed determined to bypass the democratic process, and to give the role of policy and decision making to senior officers, rather than to the political leadership of the Conservative group and the Cabinet, we would suggest this makes the role of the elected members completely redundant, although of course it may well offer a new opportunity for cost cutting exercises in the withdrawal of members’ allowances. 

Failing that, may we ask you to assert your authority as leader of the council, recognise that the outsourcing programme has been totally discredited, and instruct your own officers to follow a course of action which is the result of proper consultation and policy formation rather than one shaped by the motivations of their own agenda.

Yours sincerely

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne