Consider very carefully: Broken Barnet and the Tory councillors - your heritage in their hands, their history in yours

 Church Farm House, Hendon

Updated, 4th March - see below

As we move rapidly towards the May elections, here in Broken Barnet, it is time we began to review the performance of our Tory councillors, and assess the value of their efforts on our behalf, since they returned to power, four years ago. 

Readers may recall that the entire Conservative group, with one honourable exception, were so convinced of their worth that at the same time as lecturing us all about the demands of austerity measures, and the need for painful cuts in budget to vital services, had decided we should reward them with a whopping great rise in their allowances. They attempted to do this unnoticed, by sneaking the proposal into a meeting on the spurious excuse of urgency, but were found out, and exposed. 

This did not deter them from their brazen plundering of the public purse, and the rise was agreed, but the public outcry eventually forced a partial retraction. 

It should be remembered, however, that senior Tory councillors who were fortunate enough to have been bestowed the patronage of the leader's choice as committee chairs did manage to grab an increase of a staggering 54%. That's right: 54%, more than £15,000 extra to add to the standard pay they already receive.

You can refresh your memory of the full details of this troughing exercise, at our expense, here:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/making-allowances-54-councillor-pay.html

 

In the years since our Tory representatives awarded themselves their pay rises, how has their performance matched up to their rate of allowance? 

Are we getting value for money? 

What are the KPIs by which we should evaluate their electoral contract with us, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet?

Perhaps one way of assessing this administration is not in the material terms they would choose, although even by their own monetary standards, they would fail dismally.  

This is, after all, the administration which lost untold millions of our council tax through incompetent procurement and contractual monitoring, and then handed our council services over to Capita to make profit for their shareholders, for minimal 'guaranteed' savings - after spending more than half the theoretical savings in preparation for the privatisation give away, and then giving Capita back £16 million of the capital investment our Tory councillors had told us we would be getting from them ... 

Oh, and they would claim as a magnificent success the fact that they are making the pre-election 'gesture' of a 1% cut in council tax, which will give you maybe 40pence a week back, but will mean that budgets for the provision of care to our most vulnerable residents will have to be cut.

Major fail, then, I would say, wouldn't you, on their own rate of performance?

Mrs Angry has her own system of assessment, based on a more esoteric range of indicators. Perhaps the most elusive, but most telling measurements are the ones that really matter, in the end.

The negative shapes are often more eloquent, in any composition, than the form itself, aren't they? The impact on the background of a line, a curve. The sound left hanging in the air, when the note is struck. You can't see it, or touch it, but you feel it.

What is left, in the landscape of Broken Barnet, after four more years of Tory rule, is not as important as what is gone: what we have lost, for ever, as a result of their blundering policies.

The second act, on regaining office, of our craven councillors, after sticking their hands into the coffers and helping themselves to more cash, was to take a look at the view, and calculate how much they thought they could make from selling off as much of it as possible. 

Asset stripping, in other words, of not just our council services, but publicly owned buildings, and plots of land - anything, in fact, that wasn't nailed down. 

The valuation department of the council was put into action, and every last corner of Broken Barnet that might be of interest to developers was investigated, assessed, and considered for sale. 

In this part of Finchley, alone, for example, a small patch of pot-holed, tarmacked wasteland at the back of our local chip shop was suddenly re-identified as 'a children's playground', and residents and traders told to stop parking there, as the council wanted it back. To sell, it seemed. Bluff, of course, and luckily nothing came of it, after objections were raised.

Then the family living as tenants of the lovely Edwardian park keeper's lodge in Victoria Park were evicted, after being told the house was to be sold. Three years later, it stands empty and decaying, because of an awkward legal restriction contained in the deeds of the property. 

 The old park keeper's lodge in Victoria Park

Not until Mrs Angry kicked up a fuss about the deliberate neglect of the building did the council take any steps to make it secure from further vandalism, and the risk of greater damage. Now they seem to be relying on time and lack of maintenance to do the job we all know they want done: the abandonment and deterioration of this historic property to the point where it can be demolished, and turned into development opportunity. In the meanwhile, another needy family in Barnet waits hopelessly for accommodation which this house could have provided.

The story of Friern Barnet library, built more than eighty years ago with funding from the  Carnegie foundation, followed the same course in the early stages: closed in the face of all protest from the local community, robbed of its books, put up for sale to the highest bidder, rumoured to be a supermarket chain. The building mysteriously had the four corners of the roof covering carefully peeled back, causing rainwater to seep in. Left unchecked, it would have seriously damaged the fabric of the building. Luckily, our friends from the occupy movement moved in, fixed the roof, gave the library back to local residents, and thwarted the plans of our speculative Tory councillors. 

A grave disappointment for Cabinet members Daniel Thomas and Robert Rams, who had been happy, of course, to subsidise a 'volunteer' library for the billionaire, Tory voting residents of Hampstead Garden Suburb, but found no interest in doing the same for the less privileged families of the largely Labour voting Friern Barnet area - until the squatters and local campaigners forced them to agree to support a community library. 

Tory leader Richard Cornelius now tries to present this defeat as an achievement of his administration. 

What a joke.

Not quite so amusing is the story of Church Farmhouse Museum.

Tory councillors and failed museum salesmen Daniel Thomas and Robert Rams

It is now three years now since Councillors Rams and Thomas shut the museum, ransacked the local history collection that furnished the rooms, and flogged the contents at auction. 

Appeals to the the Tory leader were a complete waste of time: he declared the collection to be of no worth. Well, in fact the artefacts given to the museum by generations of local residents, on the basis that they told the history of our borough, through everyday objects, household items, ephemera - they were of interest, and value, to others. Museums in neighbouring areas gratefully took some of the objects: some were thrown in a skip. The rest of the collection was boxed up and put up for sale.

And the sale of our collective past reached a total of £17,380:  a  sum more or less equal to the new rate of allowance for the Chair of a council committee,you could say.

Church Farmhouse was once the childhood home of Dicken's friend, Mark Lemon, the first editor of Punch, the magazine that pioneered a sparkling combination of political commentary and satirical humour. 

One might wonder what the quizzical eye of Mark Lemon would have thought of the small town bunglers posturing as politicians in the council chamber, just across the field from his former home, putting it up for sale, and, with their usual incompetence, failing even to organise that with any success.

Barnet Tories, as we know,  see no worth, no value, or significance, in our local history, and heritage, and collective memory. 

A house is not a home, in Broken Barnet, a library is just a block of flats, waiting for an architect - and a Grade II* listed museum, with surrounding gardens,  is nothing more than a white elephant, a nuisance, and yet, at the same time ... a potentially lucrative property development. 

Or so they thought.

This Tory administration being so culture-averse, and so unappreciative of the historic significance of anything before Year Zero, the year that local heroine Margaret Thatcher became PM, fatally underestimated the difficulties that would lie in the way of turning this delicate historic building into a profitable speculation. 

They thought they had a deal all set up with Middlesex University, an easy sale, made more attractive by the prospect of potential for development of the surrounding grounds. Uh oh: due to unexpected financial setbacks for the University, that plan fell through. 

Since then, Barnet has desperately tried to persuade them to rent the Farmhouse, at least. A few months ago it emerged that this deal had not been agreed yet due to concerns about the state of the building, and the cost involved in making the necessary repairs needed in such a sensitive and badly neglected building. Rumour has it that the staircase alone needs £180,000 worth of conservation work. Not an attractive proposition for potential tenants, let alone purchasers, even without the constraints a listed building necessarily imposes on its use. It is clear now, of course, that the original function of the building as a museum, with restricted numbers of visitors, was perhaps the most appropriate use, after all.

Incidentally, it was again, as in the case of Victoria Park lodge, not until Mrs Angry kicked up a fuss, at the memorable 'circle of friends' meeting with senior council officers during the occupation of Friern Barnet library, raised the issue of the lack of security in place at the former Museum, that any measures were taken to protect it in any way.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/how-not-to-sell-library-mrs-angrys.html

 

Mrs Angry naughtily suggested that the Museum might also be occupied, knowing that this would force them to take steps to look after the building, or face accusations of a deliberate policy of neglect. As expected, the same afternoon, a security company, at last, was sent to the Farmhouse, as it should have been at the time of closure.

More worrying news emerged last month, that English Heritage has now listed the status of the building as 'vulnerable'.

That the building is still standing, and still protected from barbarous commercial exploitation is almost entirely due to the persistence of one man: Gerrard Roots, the former curator, who fortunately lives near to the Farmhouse, keeps a watchful eye on the building, and continues, in the face of continual obstruction from the council, to ask questions about the state of the property.

Former curator Gerrard Roots outside the Farmhouse, with Labour's AM Andrew Dismore (left) and councillor Arjun Mittra, campaigning to preserve the building from further neglect.

As he commented in the local Times here, the Farmhouse has deteriorated badly over the three years of pointless closure, through lack of proper maintenance, with damp 'festering' on the walls, and the attics full of what is politely referred to as 'guano' from an infestation of pigeons.

This article was also full of guano of another kind, in the form of utterances by our Tory councillor in charge of property, deputy Leader Daniel Thomas:

“Minor repairs have been identified at Church Farmhouse, including clearing a blocked gutter, carrying out minor window repairs and securing an upstairs door to keep the building clean and free from pigeons.



We are continuing to work closely to secure the building’s longer term future, including discussions with Middlesex University."

A dismissive reference to 'minor repairs' does not equate with the level of deterioration that has led to the official designation of vulnerability by English Heritage. The delicate fabric of this unique building requires skilled and specialised attention. 

So what do Councillor Thomas and his Tory colleagues intend to do about it? 

Gerrard Roots asked, via a Freedom of Information request, and eventually received a reply from an information officer - or in the name of an information officer - which, frankly, is quite staggeringly officious, and threatens to refuse further requests for information on the issue.

The reply also reveals that rather than use expert advice and professional care to deal with the problems identified by English Heritage, Barnet is using its own long term maintenance contracters, who are more used to fixing leaky pipes than addressing the requirements of crumbling Grade II* farmhouse.

Gerrard's questions in red, and Barnet's response in blue:

Thank you for your request received on 31 January 2014, for the following information:

"In mid-January 2013, English Heritage told Barnet Council that it must deal with several problems at Church Farmhouse Museum- one of them being the pigeon excrement- encrusted attics, which EH emphasized was a health and safety issue that should be remedied immediately. On 16 January 2014 Cllr Daniel Thomas, Deputy Leader of Barnet Council, told the local press that, in response to these demands, 'we have now instructed work to be carried out...'. However, as of 31 January 2014, not only had no work whatsoever been carried out at Church Farmhouse, but it would appear that no contractors had even visited the building to estimate for the work involved. 

Therefore, I wish to know: 

a. how much money has been set aside for these essential repairs; 

b. have any contractors yet been asked to tender for the work; 

c. if so, what are the names of the contractors, and are they approved by English Heritage; 

d. by what date must these putative contractors visit Church Farm so that they can make their estimates; e. and, most importantly, what date has Barnet Council set for work to begin on resolving these pressing problems identified by English Heritage, considering that English Heritage has already categorized Church Farm as a 'vulnerable' building?"

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Response

I am writing to inform you that we have searched our records and some of the information you requested is not held by London Borough of Barnet. There is a misunderstanding in the question about the way the procurement system works. 

We have answered your questions and provided some advice about how the procurement system works as this will allow an understanding of how the process has operated in this instance.

The works that will be undertaken imminently are to clear a blocked gutter and to secure the loft against entry by pigeons plus removal of all pigeon guano and cleaning of the loft space as required. English Heritage identified that the windows would benefit from some minor repair work going forward but are not necessary to be undertaken immediately and they are to be monitored and reviewed again next year.

The council has a contract with two repair and maintenance companies to undertake repairs and maintenance on an as needed basis. These contractors were chosen in accordance with the council’s Contract Procedure Rules. Therefore, when repair and maintenance works such as those detailed above are required there is no need to undertake a formal procurement process to tender for quotes. It is sufficient under the Contract Procedure Rules to ask one or both of the contracted companies to provide a quote or to undertake works in accordance with agreed rates.

a. how much money has been set aside for these essential repairs;

The council does not hold this information. The council does not set aside a budget for individual sets of works for individual buildings in this way. There is a general budget available for repairs and maintenance to all properties which are pending disposal (e.g. sale or leasing). Repairs and routine maintenance is paid for out of this budget as and when required. The works that will be carried out – as detailed above – will be paid for out of this budget.

b. have any contractors yet been asked to tender for the work;

A contractor has been asked to quote for the works and a quote has been received.

c. if so, what are the names of the contractors, and are they approved by English Heritage;

Kirkman and Jourdain. There is no requirement for them to be approved by English Heritage for the works they will be undertaking.

d. by what date must these putative contractors visit Church Farm so that they can make their estimates;

We do not hold this information; however a quote has been received and accepted.

e. and, most importantly, what date has Barnet Council set for work to begin on resolving these pressing problems identified by English Heritage, considering that English Heritage has already categorized Church Farm as a 'vulnerable' building?

The council has already engaged a contractor to remedy the problems identified with the gutter and pigeons. In respect of the windows, there is no information held in response to this under terms of the Act, however, the intention is that the incoming tenant will undertake the minor window works as part of the proposals to occupy the property, as these are not works that have to be done imminently.

After such a begrudging response, comes this:


Section 14 (1) Advice

In February 2013 the council refused one of your FOI requests under section 14 (1)as it was vexatious. This was upheld at internal Review. Whilst you complained to the Information Commissioner you later withdrew your complaint. The previous section 14 (1) decision therefore still stands. When you withdrew your complaint to the Information Commissioner the council confirmed to the Commissioner that it would assess all future requests on their individual merits, and would not automatically refuse future requests under section 14 (1).

The council has undertaken this, and has responded to 4 (including this) requests since that time. You have submitted 4 requests since the end of November 2013, including two requests within one week. All requests have been concerning Church Farmhouse
Museum, and have included the same subjects over which you have made repeated previous requests.

The council reserves its right to consider the application of section 14 (1) against any future requests concerning Church farmhouse museum, under the criteria that apply to this section and having regard to the guidance in Dransfield, the leading Upper Tribunal decision in this area.

You are advised to consider very carefully before submitting further requests on this subject, whether by yourself or through a third party.

No one could be better placed or more entitled to make informed requests to Barnet about the state of this building than the former Curator, who ran what was an outstandingly good local Museum and exhibition venue for more than thirty years. He is absolutely right to question what has been a totally unnecessary, costly and damaging closure of a much loved and needed community asset. 

You may recall that marvellous piece of spin in the Guardian last year by our Chief Financial officer Chris Naylor, informing the world that the 'default mode of Barnet Council' is now .... what was it ... ah yes: 'open government'. 

Perhaps Mr Naylor would like to explain the aggressive stance taken over what are perfectly valid queries about an issue of concern to many residents?

The reference to  requests that might be made  'through a third party' is a pretty outrageous suggestion, too, one might add. 

The arrogance of this response, and the threat of using the pretext of vexatiousness over what is a genuine matter of public interest is reprehensible - and exactly what one might expect from this bullying, incompetent Tory run council, which knows the price of nothing, the value of nothing, and whose philistinism, and remorseless lack of interest in our common heritage, Mrs Angry cheerfully predicts, will perfectly mark the passage of their own electoral history, this May, here in Broken Barnet.

In the meanwhile, tragically, nothing could better serve the purpose of metaphor for the decadence and moral decay of the current Tory administration than this: the sight of our formerly beautiful museum, shutters closed; silent, empty, rotting - and full of shit.

Update 4th March

Simply unbelievable news now emerging from former curator Gerrard Roots: he reports that yesterday workmen began constructing a 'shower room' in the Grade 11* listed, 17th century building, just recently listed as 'vulnerable' by English Heritage. 

This action appears to be because the current security 'guardians' are unable to live there legally, it transpires, due to the lack of washing facilities.

Gerrard has submitted questions to the council's governance officers demanding to know if English Heritage has been consulted and given permission, and who is responsible for the installation of the shower room. 

What next?

A Sleight of Hand: the now you see it, now you don't process of capital investment, in Broken Barnet

A wall of silence is like any other seemingly impenetrable barrier: there is a weakness in the structure, somewhere, if you can find it - and the rules of engagement in the Battle of Broken Barnet allow for more than way of defeating the enemy.

Skulking in the cellars of their ostensibly impregnable fortress, our foolish Tory councillors believe themselves to be bound by a vow of loyalty to each other, and a sense of duty to the rule of omerta. Well: that accounts for the freemasons, anyway, of whom there are many, in the Conservative ranks, of course.

And the wall of silence that surrounds the revelation that our councillors have given £16.1 million of taxpayers money in reserve to Capita, in a total reversal of all promises made in the One Barnet contract negotiations? 

Councillors may be maintaining an unprecedented resolve to ignore all questions on this point (do you reckon they've been whipped, Brian?) but in certain circumstances questions may not be avoided for ever. 

How many years long was the Trojan siege, and how did it end?

Public questions to committees, for example. Well, yes, it is true that these are usually safely contained by carefully written answers: but the real art of troublemaking is in the supplementary questions, which you present verbally, at the table, without warning, in order to produce a more spontaneous, unguarded and often more valuable response.

Last night saw a series of three committee meetings at the town hall: Cabinet, General Functions and Cabinet resources. Mrs Angry had no questions tabled, but she had a cunning plan, and sent into the room, and the corporate circus already full of elephants and a troupe of performing monkeys, a wooden horse, in the shape of a woman called Barbara Jacobson.

In her address to the council later, Labour leader Alison Moore gave a robust rubbishing of the points made, and commented that the actions of the Tory administration in regard to the matter of the capital investment represented a 'sleight of hand'. It is perhaps the perfect description.

The verbal answers to the supplementary questions seen in the footage do not tell you anything you really want to know about the capital investment. The expressions and body language of the Tory councillors and senior officers serve that purpose: the averted eye contact, the gripped faces, the glasses of water, the very interesting papers suddenly attracting their attention on the table ...

The councillors were not expecting to be caught out with questions about the £16.1 million payment. What could they say, under the spotlight? Mrs Angry sat back and regarded the scene with a probably unreasonable degree of perverse pleasure as the Tory members squirmed in their seats.

  

The written question had been about the hundreds of members of staff who, because of the privatisation, have lost their jobs with the authority, and many of whom face redundancy. In reply to a recitation of facts we already knew about the job losses, came the following supplementary question:

The original argument for outsourcing council services to the private sector was that an in-house option, which would have retained hundreds of the jobs now being tuped over to Capita, could not be considered, as we depended on investment from a commercial partner to make the savings we require.

We have now learnt that contrary to the statement continually promoted by our Conservative members, the capital investment has been made not by Capita, but by us, the taxpayers and residents of Barnet. We could have used the same investment to keep services in-house, and protect local jobs. 

Can the Chair explain what would appear to be a deliberate attempt to mislead residents as to the reason for entering the contract with Capita, and explain to staff why the councillors preferred to support this contract at the expense of their livelihoods, and our services?

The response came not from the Chair, Leader Richard Cornelius, but from Robert Rams, who has been responsible with deputy leader Daniel Thomas for heading the outsourcing deal. Rams, more used to playing the part of the lovely Debbie McGee to financial magician Thomas, you will note avoids eye contact, avoids the question, and talks a load of nonsense, as usual. What does he say? 

The payment of the £16 million is agreed payment as set out in the specific payment to Capita ...

When? asks Mrs Angry, off screen, but sadly Cllr Rams appears not to hear her. 

Cllr Rams appears also to have forgotten to tell us that this 'agreed' payment has replaced a previous agreement, as approved of in the business model that went to Cabinet for approval in December, and promoted by him and his colleagues as the basis of the whole deal, that Capita would be paying these costs upfront.

Let's say it again, and oh look, it is still on the council website in the helpful explanation of the NSCSO contract published AFTER the contract signing:
 
CAPITA will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.

Back to little Robert Rams in the footage. He continues:

... erm the er ... argument you put forward in terms of (it would be better implemented?) in-house is actually a false argument, because ... we are removing all the revenue costs by ... outsourcing it and erm it means we can buy in the expertise of Capita to enable us to be able to improve erm the ITT to the council erm ... do both, er behind er behind  (sounds like modern instructions and things that bite - don't ask me) ... and for ... officers and councillors alike ...

Got that? One Barnet, the case for outsourcing, by Robert Rams. Absolute drivel. 

Another question from Barbara was on the issue of the 'savings' the Capita contracts are supposed to bring us. It would be useful to tell you what the amount of savings should be, but this figure is ever changing, never the same, and is fated, we suspect, to remain an aspiration, always moving out of sight. Some of these savings are, we are told 'guaranteed', but this definition of 'guaranteed' most likely means, ultimately, to be fought for in the courts should the aspirational sums fail to appear. The supplementary question, then:

The savings from the contract with Capita are capped, for example in the case of procurement, and any excess lands in the lap of the lucky shareholders of Capita plc, yet if we had chosen an in-house alternative to outsourcing, we would have been able to retain unlimited savings, particularly in the area of procurement, where our tradition of incompetence has made a ripe opportunity for gain from efficiencies. Does the Chair not agree that in hindsight, an in-house option should have been considered and indeed was always possible as the investment of £16.1 million needed was just waiting in our reserves, and was never going to come from Capita, or indeed any private sector partner?

Oh dear. No proper response, again. The Chair did not believe a better advantage would have come from not capping the savings. 

Really?

Later on came another opportunity for vicarious satisfaction from the Labour leader Alison Moore, who demanded an explanation of the same scandalous issue: 


This again offers a marvellous opportunity to witness the discomfiture of our elected members, the chin gripping senior officers of the London Borough of Broken Barnet as they watch their colleague present such a load of guff to the committee table, and then of course there is the delightful distraction of the typically hard faced, hard lined Tory right winger Cllr Davey apparently as keen to hear the explanation as any member of the public ...

The leader of the council appeared unwilling to tackle the curious question of the £16 million handover, and deferred to the Chief Finance Officer and deputy Chief Executive, Chris Naylor, for a 'technical' answer, political answers being too sensitive, apparently: and here is the technical explanation, accompanied by some interesting open handed gestures, in homage to the default mode of open government, which Mr Naylor has written about in the Guardian recently. Oh: in fact, the open hand turns inwards, but perhaps one should not read too much into that.

First he states the investment is principally in infrastructure, and tells us those assets will revert to the council. Yes: and how much depreciation of those assets, located where, will have taken place by then, and how much will be lost in real terms from that depreciation, and was that factored into the negotiations? He moves on:

Essentially, what is happening here is ... that the funding and financing, or principally the financing of the capital ... is through the deal with Capita ...

See, this inciseful explanation is what we give our Chief Finance Officer a six figure salary for. We are paying the for the capital investment from our reserves, but at the same time, we are not, and Capita is really paying it. He continues: (Mrs Angry's comments in red)

The overall contract sum has not changed as a result of the council's decision to fund this investment through our own resources, 

when did that decision to fund the investment take place, though?

principally, erm, we have done so because, in the final analysis, this presented the best value for money for the council,

again - when was this 'final analysis' that changed the whole nature of the agreement over investment, and why did it suddenly present a better value for money, and why has the authority kept it secret and continued to tell everyone Capita was paying for it?

but the financing of that debt, and the repayment of that debt, comes through the guaranteed savings in the contract, 

but we have already been 'guaranteed' these savings when Capita was paying for the investment ...

and I guess that still is a differentiator from, er, if the deal had been, er, if the deal had been struck on an in-house basis

you guess ... are you not sure? Or is the truth that you do not know, because this was never explored, for political reasons?

as obviously those savings would not have been guaranteed, and that would would have made a different risk profile to er to the capital investment ... 

but any and all savings would have directly benefited the taxpayers and residents of Barnet, rather than the shareholders of Capita, and in the present deal we are only allowed to retain a minimum amount of any savings made ...

So this notion that, erm, there is we, er, can suddenly quote afford some additional money is an inaccurate reading of the situation we find ourselves in. We can afford as it were to fund this investment because of the contractual guarantees in the contract 

but those contractual guarantees were there already, when we were told Capita was giving the capital investment upfront!

 and indeed through funding it in this way the council has retained  additional benefits from that contract and that additionality has not gone, er, to Capita: there is no benefit to Capita.

What additional benefits? Do tell.

And ... "additionality": what the f*ck does that mean? 

Mrs Angry is consulting her copy of the Crapita Guide to Corporate House Style for Executives of the London Borough of Broken Barnet ...

Oh - "additionality": lucrative profit agreed in secret at the expense of local taxpayers's reserve savings, thanks to the breakdown in the scrutiny process by lazy, uninformed and intellectually challenged Tory councillors. 
 
Well, well. How very interesting.

Last week, Mrs Angry wrote to all the Tory councillors to ask for their explanation of the £16.1 million pay out. Not one replied - either this is because the issue is so sensitive, or they simply did not know the answer - or both. She also wrote to deputy leader Daniel Thomas, who did not reply. He knows the answer, we must hope, and if not, why not? 

After the meeting, Thomas walked past Mrs Angry, who took the opportunity to ask him why he had not responded to her email. He regarded her in what seemed like a less than friendly manner, and gestured to the committee table behind him. You've had your answer tonight, he said, rather rudely. No, she replied, I expect a written reply. He then pretended he did not know what was in her email, as he has so many hundreds a day, and had not noticed it, which story was rather spoilt by the fact that he had just said, well, that he thought he had answered it in committee and then proceeding to let slip he knew exactly when it had been sent. He agreed to respond by the end of this week, eventually, and Mrs Angry looks forward to that.

Another person who owes Mrs Angry a response is the Tooting Twister, Barnet's spin doctor, who made the mistake of sitting behind her. Oh, he said, rather nervously, when she asked for a reply, you will get an answer ... and the answer is ... the investment by us was because it is cheaper. 

Nonsense, said Mrs Angry - try again. 

Still waiting, Mr Palmer ...

That was the line given at the Audit Committee, on the basis of interest rates on a loan - but the money is not being borrowed, it's being taken out of reserves. This means that not only are we losing the capital sum on deposit, we are losing the interest to us that would accrue. And as Mrs Angry established at the Audit Committee, the £4.1 million paid over to Capita for interim fees that never transpired, returned mysteriously on the Sunday after her question was submitted, was not accompanied by any interest payment by Capita, so what chances are there on this factor being considered since the change in the arrangements?

There is something badly wrong here: it smells wrong, it looks wrong, and it is time there was a full and open investigation of the entire matter of the capital investment. 

Mrs Angry has now written to the Section 151 officer to make a formal complaint, for all the good it will do, and indeed she believes that others have also done so. Is open government really the default mode of Barnet Council, Mr Naylor?

There would appear, on the face of it, to be £16.1 million pounds worth of reasons to suggest this is not the case. 

Stick that in the Guardian, why don't you?