Unitary Democracy?

So after the announcement of cancelled elections earlier in March it now seems that there is no democratic component in the establishment of the West Northants and North Northants Unitary Council. Conservative government and Conservative Councils think it's OK for you not to have a voice.

Children's Service's in Northamptonshire inadequate OFSTED grading

The Council’s inadequate grading of it’s children’s services by OFSTED is deeply disappointing primarily for those that use the service but also for those that work so very hard in extremely challenging working conditions in the service. Northamptonshire County Council runs one of the most expensive children’s services departments in the country and is currently heading to a £6.3 million overspend in that single department. With some sections running at extremely high levels of agency workers, (particularly the section that it responsible for initial responses to those citizens needing childrens services called the First Response Teams). These teams are running between 60 -88% agency staff, some with no permanent social workers. This together with a failure to achieve savings by recruiting social workers from overseas or to get agency workers to convert to full time social workers results in not only inadequate but very costly services. The Council is being told that the route for a stable and well skilled workforce is by acquiring something nebulously termed a “Career Pathway”. This is entirely uncosted and doesn’t seem to address the fact that the council does not pay as much or offer similar or better terms and conditions. It seems strange that the Career pathway is not juxtaposed as a strategy to returning to national pay, terms and conditions for staff as an alternative approach. This would not be something that difficult to cost, so why not?

After last months cabinet, Councillor heard from discussions with council staff and council commissioners that there were four new senior management posts being created in Childrens Services. This was not in the budget passed in the spring and it is unclear whether this is in the £6.3 million overspend. The OFSTED report is being presented to cabinet with one of the briefest papers I have ever seen also including a hazy statement under consultation and scrutiny:

“ This report will be reviewed through this structure as appropriately determined. “

There is no clarity as to the plan to improvement and no statement of the four new senior management positions on £100,000 a year and their role to taking the council to a better Children’s Service department.

Although in a previous Overview and Scrutiny meeting, the existing Director of Children’s Services has stated unequivocally that she accepts the findings of the OFSTED report, there is still a sense that this statement is not owned by the department as a whole. Three days before the OFSTED report was published at a time when senior officers would have had some idea of the impending OFSTED decision, I attended a Corporate Parenting Board meeting. At the meeting there were a number of slick presentations and some very gritty input from care leavers living in new supported accommodation in Northampton assisting them to move on to independence. However, one of the most shocking things in the report is the practise of the department in placing some of those in local authority care in “unregulated placements that are unsafe and unsuitable”. Some of my constituents have asked whether this practice has increased in the move to “Next Generation Council” ways of working. I have asked questions on this but have been unable to get an answer to date. It is also still unclear why this particular fact has not in the past few months been brought to the Corporate Parenting Board, particularly in the light of a dedicated Children’s Scrutiny Committee being abolished last year. Portfolio holder, Fiona Baker admitted that the Corporate Parenting Board should have coonsidered  this but were not provided with the opportunity to do so.

This time two years ago, the highly critical LGA peer review of Northamptoshire County Council was published. Although it was distributed to Councillors there was no content in the covering paper expressing an analysis of the report or a strategy of dealing with the findings. This was highlighted in  the spring 2018 Government Inspectors report by Max Caller report. After the report was published there was much baring of the administration’s soul about lessons being learnt. Yet here we ware again with a independent highly critical report, not given the consideration it deserves and not giving Councillors the detail to effectively contribute to the governance literally is a matter or life and death to some of our most vulnerable children.

It seems that Councillors (or maybe it is just opposition councillors) are being kept at arms length. Sad when there is so much more we could contribute.

If you want a change in the way things are done and a better Northamptonshire, for the many not the few, take a look at this and consider donating.

Openess and Transparency - Doing Democracy Well

It seems like Northamptonshire County Council has been facing stick forever. After the recent Judicial review victory by Library campaigners, it’s worth stating that the stick seems well justified. Most criticisms have focussed on the the deterioration in services but there have also been failures in the organisational culture, as anyone whose had any kind of engagement with the Council may have noticed. As an opposition councillor it is extremely hard to influence budget decisions and this is why my immediate focus will be on the organisational culture.

Here’s some statements made by others about this.

In the Local Government Authority (LGA) Peer Review;

“Decisions taken by the Cabinet need greater transparency. Council members and scrutiny chairs need access to more information. There was a desire expressed from some cabinet members for greater discussion and challenge across portfolios. However, where challenge has been provided, for example from the Audit Committee, that has not been welcomed.”

(Financial Peer Review - Northamptonshire County Council, Dates: 12th – 14th September 2017, Feedback Report)

Max Caller (the Government appointed Commissioner) in his report stated,

“the approach adopted made it very difficult for any backbench councillor to establish what was going on and the absence of effective controls made the job of budget management an exercise”. (2.12)

“Even if there was a concern about the publishing of confidential information, most authorities have protocols and practices which make it possible for key information to be shared and protect the authority. To refuse it outright is just wrong.” (3.82)

“challenge and criticism was to be discouraged as senior members and officers knew best.”

“The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism. Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the executive would allow. When external agencies reported adverse findings these were not reported with an analysis of the issues and either a justification or an action led response to a relevant decision taking body. At its most extreme, the two KPMG ISA 260 reports, stating an adverse opinion on Value For Money matters were just reported to the Audit Committee without comment and the unprecedented KPMG Advisory Notice issued under the 2014 Act was reported to full council without any officer covering report giving advice on what the response was recommended to be.”

Since my first Council meeting, on 1^st August, I’ve noticed a distinct shift in dealing with the public in County Council meetings. I’ve regularly attended Council meetings, as a member of the public, often registering to speak. Even when not registered to speak, as a member of the public I was able to sit in the public gallery and watch proceedings. But, since 1^st August, members of the public who haven’t registered to speak at least two days before the Council meeting, are ushered into a side room where they can only view one camera angle from the Council chamber and thus unable to see all the speakers. This additional resource comes without council papers (which were previously available) but with a security guard. 

The creation of this distance from the public shows the Council failing in it’s requirement for transparency at the very time that it is most needed. Without transparency, there is less likely to be confidence in the decisions taken by the administration. It also indicates the Council’s wish for distance between decision making and the community. The Chair of the Council has on at least two occasions stated that members of the public who heckle in public would not be given the right to speak at Council again.

At a time when communities, families and staff are promised swingeing cuts and massive job losses, the Council’s Chairman requires decorum to continue above all else. This approach denies the reality of the pain being felt in the County. It denies the passion that local people have about their public services and denies the life and death nature of some of the decisions being taken in the Council. Hearing the views of members of the public who often give a context to how decisions made or about to be made would impact on their communities, is an important element in local democracy. But we are now seeing an erosion to these rights. The three minute limit is often reduced to two, which makes it more difficult to make a point.

Prior to February of this year Council meetings were webcast, so anyone across the world could see what was happening and the decisions being taken. But the contract was allowed to run out and because most meetings happen during the day it’s now impossible for the majority of the public to view what goes on. More evidence that the Council wants decisions taken out of sight and out of mind of the public.

So, whilst the people of Northampton can still express their views directly to the Council it is no longer possible to sit in the public gallery unless you have registered to speak (remember to register two days in advance).  And for those who choose to speak they would like you be polite, stick to your two minutes and go away and don’t expect anyone not able to be present to hear what you have to say.  Yet another example of the dysfunctional organisational culture at the heart of this Conservative administration.