Showing posts with label black hole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label black hole. Show all posts

Friday, 14 December 2012

Not relevant: the process of scrutiny in Broken Barnet

Resident Keith Martin leaves the committee table after his address is cut short by the Chair: Libdem Lord Palmer looks on, bemused.

Mrs Angry was tempted not to bother taking her notebook to last night's scrutiny committee. The result was a foregone conclusion, and the positions taken, and indeed some of the script had already been written by Labour councillor Barry Rawlings, who gloomily predicted the answers and questions that would follow in his own contribution, and had written them down before the meeting. 

If only, thought Mrs Angry, keen to leave the Town Hall as soon as possible and reconvene herself in the more appealing environment of the Greyhound, if only the Tory councillors would be so frank, and hand out transcripts of the meeting as we arrived, to save us all the bother of sitting through the stage managed tedium of what passes for scrutiny in Broken Barnet. Mrs Angry comforted herself with the thought that now we are about to enter into our long years of bondage to Crapita, no doubt in future their employees in Blackburn, Belfast, and Southampton will be obliged to email us copies of the minutes of all council meetings before we leave home, to save us the inconvenience of involvement in the democratic process.

Last night's scrutiny meeting was chaired by Councillor Hugh Rayner, in order, he explained to consider the call in of the NSCSO erm .... he seemed lost for words ... 'scam' suggested a member of the public. Item, corrected Hugh, sternly.

As Mrs Angry had arrived in the committee room, only two people were sitting in the public area, La Bloggeuse, the delightful new Barnet blogger, and Councillor Brian Coleman, the delightful new Barnet blogger: oh - how did that happen? Mrs Angry was tempted to ask Brian if he wished to examine her gusset, after his rather disgusting comments last week, but decided instead to grin horribly at him and sit in the same row. He looked awfully pleased.

When the councillors came drifting in it was very interesting to see deputy leader Daniel 'John' Thomas come straight over to his suspended colleague, keen to shake his hand, and then spending a long while whispering furtively together over some pressing matter. At the end of the meeting, again, Thomas came to Coleman and they continued their conspiratorial discussions. Bearing in mind Brian's vehement opposition to One Barnet, albeit a position that is lately adopted, and the prominent lead Thomas has taken in pushing on regardless with the programme, one might wonder what mischief, exactly, they are up to.

Blogger Mr Reasonable has been known to  make presentations on the subject of One Barnet, and when he does so he explains the concept in the guise of a big black box. It may be, thought Mrs Angry last night, that we have all been entirely wrong about the whole thing, and Mr Reasonable has completely misunderstood, because One Barnet, or at least half of it, is in fact a big white box. Tut tut, Mr Reasonable.

Yes: there was one arrival in the committee room, last night, which went largely unnoticed, but did not escape the all seeing eye of Mrs Angry: the ceremonial entrance of the Capita contract, in a large white cardboard box, the ark of the covenant that is One Barnet - or perhaps, in truth, more of a whited sepulchre. It was carried in with loving care and all due reverence by the High Priest of Barnet outsourcing, Mr John Newton, of our obscenely high maintenance 'implementation partners' and consultants iMPOWER, and then shoved under the table, to work its evil influence unmarked by the blackhearted councillors and their scheming officers.

There was only one public question, from a Mr Ron Cohen, the resident to whom Brian Coleman was forced, eventually, to 'apologise' to for calling him an antisemite and disloyal Israeli in a highly offensive email.

Mr Cohen asked a long and detailed question about the so called 'investment' promised by Capita. The officers looked on, bemused, and the response was typical of Barnet, officer John Hooton informed Mr Cohen what his question really meant to ask, and responded accordingly, rather than listen to what he said. He told him that he was asking: did the council know what it is getting in terms of investment? And the answer was yes, it did know. Mr Cohen left the table.

A few members of the public had been given special dispensation by the Chair to address the meeting. This seemed like a hugely generous gesture - until the first speaker, Mr Keith Martin, began to speak. After a minute or so, the Chair stopped him, claiming that the theme of his address was not 'relevant'. Relevance in the context of engagement with residents in Broken Barnet is decided of course not on the basis of reasoned argument, but on whether it touches on dangerous, subversive areas, ie philosophy which does not meet the approval of Barnet Tory thinking (let's call it thinking, for the sake of convenience). Keith protested and pointed out that he had told by an officer that he could raise the issues he was speaking about. He was told by the Chair that he had been misled. Mr Martin left the table.

Chair of Barnet Alliance, Barbara Jacobson 

Next up was Barbara Jacobson, the formidable Chair of Barnet Alliance. She gave the assembled committee a well deserved tongue lashing for their performance at last week's Cabinet meeting, where they approved the Capita deal. She quoted back to acting CEO Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers his remark, as reported by Mrs Angry, that dealing with so much of the potential trouble that will inevitably be caused by the contract will, in his words, 'be the job of our successors'. 

Travers glowered, and sat throughout her speech with arms gripped across his chest, making 'I have to listen to you but I really, really resent it' faces all the way. Barbara carried on, again picking up on a sensitive point, the question by Tory Cabinet member Tom Davey as to what would happen if Capita goes bust. She made a reference to 'Colonel' Andrew Harper, which made Mrs Angry laugh far too much, imagining that he therefore outranks Captain Craig Cooper, who clearly also found Councillor Harper's unexpected rise to a new position to be of no little source of amusement.  

Resident Julian Silverman sat down next. He is a magnificently obstinate man, in the finest tradition of the older citizens of Broken Barnet, rebellious,cantankerous, refusing to lie down and do his duty and accept the judgement of our Tory masters in the council chamber. The Graph of Doom bites back, in Broken Barnet. He invited the meeting to contemplate the foreword written by Oliver Letwin introducing a recent report by Capita, in which he tells us the government is committed to transfer control of the delivery of public services into the hands of users. 

Mrs Angry has looked at this foreword. Indeed this is exactly what Letwin claims. In his introduction to the report, entitled 'Catalyst Councils' he tells us councils must have regard for the 'nuances of local need'. He continues:

"That is why this Government is committed to the transfer of power and influence over how services are delivered – away from the center, and into the hands of those who use them. It is why we are seeking to support innovation, excellence and greater access to capital investment by opening up the delivery of publicly funded services to a diversity of providers."

Yes: away from the centre, into the hands of those who use them, from a diversity of providers. In other words, a pragmatic approach, a mixture of different solutions to different needs.

What Mr Letwin does not say, empty headed Tory Councillors of Broken Barnet, is that we want public service delivery to be taken out of the hands of those who use them, and handed over to one giant company to exploit, whilst removing the process of democratic control over a ten year period.

Yet again, bonkers Barnet Tories are deliberately moving in the opposite direction to that of their own party's policy: not a Catalyst Council, a Catastrophic Council, incompetent, financially reckless, and heading for political meltdown : the Three Mile Island of Conservative local  authorities.

And this is only Part One, readers: can you bear to wait for the rest?

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Mrs Angry, Mr Travers, black holes, and some impertinence

Look - Mrs Angry has received a nice letter from Mr Andrew Travers, the long term 'interim' deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance officer of the London Borough of Broken Barnet:


Andrew Travers: £1,000 a day - value for money?


Dear Mrs Angry

I refer to your email communications to Mr Hooton dated 25th July 2012.

I confirm that the Council, in reviewing the documentation, took account of the decision in the case of Veolia and carried out the necessary, balancing exercise. Having done so, the Council arrived at the view that, in the circumstances, the public interest in the maintenance of valuable commercially confidential information outweighed the public interest in transparency.

With regard to inspection of original documentation, I must take issue with your view that original documents must be provided for inspection: there is nothing in s15 of the 1998 Act which expressly provides that the original of the document, as opposed to a copy, must be provided. The fact that provision is made for an inspecting interested party to take a copy away with them does not of itself mean that the document so inspected must itself be an original.

With respect to redaction of information which identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified, the redaction was carried out in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Council’s Redactions Policy. In addition, the auditor has confirmed that information relating to individuals working for suppliers should not be disclosed.

So far as personal information about members of staff is concerned, redaction has been carried out in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Council’s Redactions Policy.

The Council does not accept that it acted unlawfully in carrying out the balancing act set out in the case of Veolia and in concluding that the information should, indeed, be redacted.

Finally, I would reiterate that:

1. protection is afforded to the public interest by the auditor’s right to access the documents; and

2. the Council fully appreciates the importance of the role played by electors in assisting the auditor in his audit and has no intention of obstructing you and/or any other resident from viewing the accounts, in accordance with the rights and subject to the reservations set out in 15(3), (3A) and (4).

Andrew Travers
Deputy Chief Executive


Mrs Angry has replied:

Dear Mr Travers

Thank you for your reply, which made me laugh quite a lot.

Please send me a full copy of the council's Redaction Policy - unredacted, if possible.

Your answer is in fact rather naughty as it implies that you consulted the auditor in regard to a full consideration of the balancing act between disclosure and the public interest before our visit, when in fact, as Mr Mustard was told by Mr Hughes himself, his advice was sought after the event, and was anyway limited to approving only personal information - which was not something in which we had any interest.

I note your observation in regard to the rule that 'information relating to individuals working for suppliers should not be disclosed'.

Am I right in thinking that this definition therefore includes you and a large number of longterm 'interim' consultant colleagues paid either directly into your own private companies, or via an agency such as Hays or Penna?

If this is the case, please explain how information such as contractual arrangements (just supposing there are any) being removed from public scrutiny enables residents to ensure that such off payroll employment offers value for money for the taxpayers of the borough?

I note also that you do not refer to the question of alleged 'commercial sensitivity', which was the only reason given to us for the redactions at the time of the visit.

This was a ludicrous excuse, as much of the detail redacted was clearly not in any way definable as commercial information, and in one case the company had clearly expressed that there was no requirement to exempt any information on this basis. This was a company in receipt of millions of pounds of tax payers' money, and it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that we should have the right to know how and why so much of our money is being diverted in their direction.

Last year Mr Reasonable was able to see all such information unredacted in order to raise issues with the district auditor, as should be the case.

The only difference this year is that in the intervening period we have exposed a widespread culture of incompetence in the procurement and contractual processes of the authority, an issue which was clearly in the public interest to investigate. Preventing further examination of the accounts would enable us to continue to audit the council's actions in this area, and clearly the authority is deliberately obstructing us from doing so for this very reason.

The real purpose of the right to inspect accounts is in order to do just exactly what Mr Pickles says we armchair auditors must do, keep a beady eye on the financial administration of our own local authorities, and exert our right to hold you to account. Imagine if, for example, all the nasty black redactions were covering up, say, an even nastier black hole in the accounts: how would we know?

Unfortunately, in Barnet, the council appears to misunderstand, or perhaps to deliberately ignore, the need to observe the spirit of the localism agenda, and its principles of transparency and accountabilty. One might speculate as to why that is the case, but it most certainly does not in any form enable the democratic process or empower the residents of Barnet to take a proper role in the governance of their own community.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

PS: talking of value for money, I note that Barnet is yet again in the Rotten Boroughs section of Private Eye. Well done - a great read, and a real bargain at no, not £1,000 a day - only £1.50 a fortnight.

Do rush out and buy a copy.

Lord Gnome: £1.50 a fortnight - value for money.