The lights are going on all over England: but not in Broken Barnet

Barnet Council responds to Eric Pickles call for greater transparency

Update 6.30pm and 3oth September, see below:

Oh dear, naughty, naughty London Borough of Broken Barnet, yet again ... in trouble with Uncle Eric - what are you like?

On Monday, the Barnet bloggers wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the obstructive, anti-democratic practices here in Barnet which the local authority is imposing in flagrant defiance of Eric's drive for greater transparency and accountability: obviously Uncle Eric is a big fan of the Barnet bloggers, and listens to our advice, and now look at the press notice he issued this morning ...

Read it carefully, Mr Cornelius, Councillor Coleman, and Mr Walkley, and then each of your write Mrs Angry a 5,000 word essay on "why I must try harder to make Broken Barnet one of Mr Pickles' best local authorities', and stop being such a fucking embarrassment to the government".

Thank you.

Pickles hails next wave of council transparency

Published	29 September 2011

The next wave of council openness was hailed today by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles as he published the final Code of Recommended Practice for council transparency which will help reveal the fine details of authorities' daily business, including senior salaries and contracts.

Already every council in England except Nottingham City Council publishes data on all their spending over £500 on a regular basis.

Ministers believe that data transparency should extend beyond local spending and that full disclosure should be every council's default position. Councils will now be expected to have regard to the Code in all their data publications. Subject to consultation, ministers are minded to make the Code a legally binding requirement to ensure authorities can be held fully accountable to the local people they serve.

The code of practice calls on local authorities such as councils and fire and rescue services to shine a light on every part of their business, from employees' salaries over £58,200 and details of all their contracts and tenders to details of grants to voluntary organisations, performance information and the locations of public land and building assets. It also establishes three key principles behind council transparency; timeliness, openness and mindfulness of local demand.

Releasing this information to the public could provide a wealth of local knowledge and spark more improvements in the way services are delivered. Faster publication and easier access for the public and companies could open new possibilities for real-time analysis and response and opportunities for small businesses to enter new markets.

The best local authorities have already adopted the code of practice into their normal publishing routines. Councils like Northamptonshire County Council, Hammersmith and Fulham and Windsor and Maidenhead for example have long ago thrown their books wide open for public scrutiny and publish much of the data specified in the code already.

Eric Pickles said:

"We have always maintained that the best local leaders, those with control of the public purse strings, should be open and accountable for every one of their decisions. We have abolished top down inspection making local accountability more important than ever. Central Government has a role in ensuring that local people can exercise their right to know how their money is being spent and have the information they need to question that spending.

"But spending data is just one aspect of transparency. There is a wealth of information on the inner workings of councils across the country - from senior salaries and council assets to everyday decision making processes - and we shouldn't have to be data experts to see and understand it.

"The code sets out clear expectations. It will help unlock more information and increase accessibility for everyone, taking us one step closer to our ambition to be the most transparent government in the world."

In June the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to the Cabinet outlining what the Government has achieved in terms of transparency over the past year and what it intends to do over the next (see link right).

In the spirit of transparency the Department for Communities and Local Government has already released a vast amount of its data, including spending figures, contracts, Ministerial data and organisational information. We will continue to lead the way, and are publishing all 229 responses to the consultation on the Code of Practice today.

Notes to editors

1. The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency applies to England only. Local authorities, including councils and fire and rescue services, will be expected to comply with data protection law and to take a risk management approach to payment fraud. (www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/transparencycode)

2. The Department consulted on the Draft Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency from 7th February 2011 to 14th March 2011. Consultation Summary and all responses to the consultation can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/codepracticeladataresponses

3. The Code asks local authorities to follow the three principles of transparency when publishing data - Demand-led, Open and Timely. The Code also proposes the minimum datasets that should be released for reuse.

They are:

• expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information)
• senior employee salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,200 - equivalent to the lowest Senior Civil Service pay band
• an organisational chart
• the 'pay multiple' - the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority's workforce
• councillor allowances and expenses
• copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector
• grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector should be clearly itemised and listed
• policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities' fiscal and financial position
• the location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers
• data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions.

4. The Code is published under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a code about the publication of information by local authorities about the discharge of their function. The Act also empowers the Secretary of State to introduce subsequent regulation should that be necessary to enforce greater transparency.

5. Details of local authorities' publishing spend data can be found via the Local Directgov council expenditure over £500 search tool (see link right).

6. The Department for Communities is leading the way across Whitehall and Local Government by publishing a wealth of information including spend (see link right).

Comment later, as Mrs Angry is off to enjoy the localised sunshine that is pouring down like honey over the blighted wilderness of Broken Barnet. x


Updated: 6.30pm

Well, yes, thank you, Mrs Angry had a nice wander around Kenwood with her friend, and had the usual women's rambling, pointless, what is the meaning of life conversation, as we always do, listening to the parakeets and risking concussion from the nuts dropping like bullets from the oaks and chestnut trees. Very nice. And talking of nuts, while we stopped for tea, Mrs Angry checked her phone and found someone had emailed her the funniest ever story about Councillor and deputy Barnet Tory leader, Daniel 'John' Thomas. Obviously she rushed home, yawn, and read the following article with vast amusement.

John Thomas has been talking to something called 'Public Service.co.uk' about the letter to Eric Pickles sent by the Barnet bloggers on Monday. It seems the Barnet Tories are a little windy. Are they worried that Uncle Eric might diss them again at the Tory Conference? Oh, surely that's just a nasty rumour?

Thomas wants people to think that Barnet is a shining beacon of localism in action and a marvellous example of transparency and accountability. He says:

'... we are committed to open government as well as responding to freedom of information requests in a timely manner."

Thomas said one of the bloggers had submitted a total of 175 FoI requests between April and September of 2011. This meant a total nearing £40,000 was spent by the council responding to this one individual, based on a typical cost of £225 in dealing with each request.

Thomas went on to say that Barnet council "completely rejects complaints about lack of transparency around the One Barnet programme". He said there had been "numerous cabinet reports, a full debate in council and the agreement of the One Barnet framework last October".

Goodness me. Let's not mention the fact that without the Barnet bloggers, and their use of the FOI act, none of the staggering revelations of MetPro would have been brought into the public domain.

Let's not ask the Labour councillors and LibDem councillors, especially Lord Palmer, what they think about the amount of transparency surrounding the One Barnet programme. Or what happened to the One Barnet scrutiny committee, for example?

As for the naughty blogger Councillor Thomas is badmouthing, we must let him speak for himself, but Mrs Angry reminds Mr Thomas that even if this ludicrous accusation was true, by such obstinate behaviour, daring to demand the answer to awkward questions about the disgraceful, furtive, incompetent and self indulgently wasteful activities of Barnet Council, he is only costing residents as much as Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers, the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, (you know, who didn't spot the massive procurement, payment, monitoring, tendering and contractual balls up we unearthed), as much as he earns in - forty days. And whereas Mr Travers is paid £1,000 a day, and the first thing that Councillor Thomas and his colleagues did when elected was to vote themselves a whopping pay rise, your bloggers here in Barnet do everything they do as armchair auditors for NO pay at all. The Big Society in action, here in Broken Barnet. A ruthless drive for efficiency, and better services for less money.

No need to thank us, Councillor Thomas. You're very welcome.

Update 30th September:

Mrs Angry sends very few FOIs, as it happens - although they do have a habit of remaining unanswered, which is odd, and quite vexing - but this morning she felt moved to send the following, just in case Mr Mustard was busy:


"Good morning, Mr Lustig:

I would like to make the following request under the Freedom of Information Act:

A copy of any correspondence between Councillor Daniel Thomas and any council officer within the last four weeks regarding the number and cost of any FOI requests.

I have been specific as to the time period, as, in my relentless drive for efficiency, I am always keen to avoid unneccessary cost.

Yours as ever,

Mrs Angry"

The Usual Suspects: or how to silence dissent in Broken Barnet

Committee Room Two at Hendon Town Hall is a small, oak panelled room, with nineteen thirties decor, a long abandoned fireplace, and a nice old Persian rug on the floor. Quite cosy and comforting, in many ways. Indeed, you could not ask for a more genial setting in which to have to sit, as I did last night, and watch a group of Tory councillors calmly set about kicking the shit out of the frail old body that passes for our constitution, here in Broken Barnet.

Witnessing this atrocity with me were fellow blogger Mr Reasonable, Barnet Bugler Daniel Hope, and veteran local campaigner David Howard. These gentlemen had all applied to speak to the Special Committee which was reviewing the constitution. Best to take advantage of these opportunities while they still can. Because after last night's meeting, and its outrageous agenda of proposed 'reforms', the ability of residents - and most of the 63 elected councillors in this borough - to take part in the democratic process of our council will in future become almost non existant.

Of course these reforms, we are told, are necessary in order to demonstrate a full commitment to the idea of 'localism'.

Localism? Are you off your f*cking head, Mr Pickles: in Barnet? We can't even manage to grasp the basic principles of democracy here, Eric, let alone get our heads around whatever freedoms and engagement you pretend you want to extend to local government.

About last night then. Who did we have taking part in this disgraceful act of anti-democratic constitutional 'reforms'? Let us name and shame the culprits, our Tory councillors:

Step forward Chairman and Mayor Anthony Finn, Vice Chair Joan Scannell, Deputy Leader Andrew Harper, Cabinet members Melvin Cohen and Richard Cornelius, and Tom Davey.

On the losing team: Labour Leader Alison Moore, Barry Rawlings, and Alan Schneiderman.

Standing on the outside edge, looking in, LibDem Councillor Lord Palmer.

From Corporate Governance (now happily minus the Democratic Service bit in their title, which was removed after a complaint from the Trading Standards authority) officers Jeff Lustig, Aysen Giritli and Jeremy Williams.

Ten councillors, three officers, and four residents, whom I am sure felt as I did, like political prisoners being forced to watch the execution of a fellow party member, as a lesson in why all resistence is pointless.

When the meeting started, surreally, the sound system kept being interrupted by the intervention of an invisible speaker discussing council matters, in a One Barnet corporate speech, presumably in another meeting. It added to the inescapable sense of all council meetings being stage managed and controlled by unseen forces. Mr Lustig commented, in a rather ghoulish way, and as a cold draught swept throught the committee room, that during Question Time at the council meeting on Tuesday night, the lights had kept switching off, for no apparent reason. I imagined this was the desperate act of some dead mayor clanking about the chamber in his spectral chains, trying to make a point about the Tory proposals to cut down these questions, but who knows?

Question time, last night, was a contentious area of discussion. Non Tories pointed out how there was no room for 'spontaneity' or real debate. The Tories looked puzzled: why would you want dangerous debate that you cannot control? Move on. Non Tories point out that most of the 63 councillors have no chance to contribute and that at the last meeting hardly anyone other than executive & Cabinet members spoke. Executive & Cabinet Tories looked puzzled: why would you want anyone else other than themselves allowed to speak at a council meeting? Daniel Hope tried to elaborate on this point. For some reason this upset Andrew Harper, and we had a bit of a handbags moment. (To be fair, Mr Harper looked rather uncomfortable through out the evening, and I did wonder if he is still having trouble with his motions, which might explain his tetchiness.)

'I hope,' said Andrew, icily, to Mr Hope, 'that you are not implying any incompetence by Cabinet Members.'

In case you had forgotten, Councillor Andrew Harper is Deputy Leader, a Cabinet member, has a portfolio of immense proportions, and is Very Important. Last night, though, he seemed a little shy at times, and seemed to be hiding from Mrs Angry's loving gaze, positioning himself carefully behind Alison Moore, the cheeky monkey.

Alison stated that she felt a suggestion to eliminate questions to Cabinet members was quite inappropriate, that it was important to hold them to account, that it was after all, all about public accountability. Andrew Harper stared at the ceiling. Councillor Cohen, who excelled hinself throughout the evening with his determination to force through every mean spirited Tory proposal, disagreed with Ms Moore. Surprise.

Lord Palmer tried in vain to persuade his Tory colleagues that spontaneity and the input of other councillors in council meetings was a healthy and neccessary part of the democratic process. Ha. He was wasting his time, of course. Libya has lessons to learn from us here, in Barnet, he eventually observed, shaking his head. He has been a councillor in this borough for twenty five years, and as the evening wore on, frankly, he looked more and more distressed. Who could blame him?

Alison Moore tried to stand her ground over the right to retain a choice of a single guaranteed opposition motion to go to council meetings: incredible that such a right should have to be fought for, and incredible that there was an argument over the basis for any right for the LibDems to put motions or indeed engage in debate at all, as a 'minority party'. You know - LibDems - that minority party in government?

Lord Palmer pointed out that many motions, as seen at Tuesday's meeting, actually had nothing to do with Barnet at all. Ahem. Andrew Harper, whose squatting motion, brought on by deep anxiety over Saif Gaddafi's property rights, caused so much disgust in the public gallery this week, suddenly looked slightly embarrassed, but then had the gall to agree that perhaps that might be the case.

Alison Moore and Alan Schneiderman's protests about the retrogressive and undemocratic steps the council was taking to shut down opportunities for any councillors other than Cabinet members, and the executive, to have any say in meetings fell on deaf ears, of course. They just do not care: they want to shut down such opportunities, and have no sense of shame.

Here was one of the most gobsmacking Tory comments of the evening, from Tom Davey. He observed that yes, these proposals might be seen as 'undemocratic', but at the last local election, people in Barnet had voted Conservative, so it was ok. Yes. So: whatever our Tory masters decide now, Councillor Davey thinks we must accept it, as they have a mandate for any policy they might come up with. Just think of the possibilties, and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Oh, hello: something they could agree on, not surprisingly - to retain the break in council meetings. This is when they all go off to stuff themselves from a lavish buffet spread laid on at our expense: good news then for Barry 'Take the Biscuit' Evangeli. Mr Evangeli is one of those councillors whose voice I have never heard, and now you know why: they are paid allowances to come and sit in these meetings, but are not asked to take part in any activity other than to stick their hand up and vote when told by their party whip. And enjoy the buffet.

Next came the issue of the number of council meetings. With all his usual charm and committment to the democratic process Councillor Melvin Cohen was determined to push through proposals to cut down on the number of these meetings. Really, I don't know why they bother with them at all: most council policy is decided by a cabal of Cabinet members, behind the scenes anyway. Let's shut them down, too.

Alison Moore again protested about another completely unneccessary further erosion of of debate.

Alan Schneiderman declared the whole evening's set of proposals to be an absolute farce.

What did the Mayor think? He said: 'I like council meetings. I think they're lovely.'

Yes, he thinks they are lovely. Well, your colleagues, Mr Finn, think they are a damned nuisance.

Cutting down on the number of meetings has no financial benefit, and will serve only to obstruct the speed and efficiency of administrative council business, but of course that is the whole point. Oh hang on though, I do see one possible financial benefit: your councillor allowances can be cut, now, can they, as you will be doing even less work on behalf of the local tax payers?

Councillor Cohen then moved to try to stop late amendments to motions being made. Why?

Alan Schneiderman demanded to know what problems such an option has ever caused. Well quite. But as opposition motions and amendments never succeed in Tory Barnet, Alan, maybe it isn't worth worrying about.

Delegated Powers Reports: ah good. Looking forward to this one. A DPR is that thing we saw rushed out this week, belatedly, to legitimise the temporary use of Blue 9 security instead of oh, who was it now, the name escapes me, er MetPro, that's it, you know, the unlicensed company Barnet has been using to film me and other residents, but whose appears not to have been sanctioned by contract or by, oh: DPR ...

Mr Reasonable gave a magnificent address to the meeting on this subject, pointing out the necessity for a transparent and open audit trail. He noted the huge lack of consistency as to when these authorisations are issued, which of course lays the council open to accusations of all sorts of naughtiness. Oh, he mentioned as an example the use of certain contracted senior officers and er what was it ... oh yes, MetPro .... (it was interesting to see how the Tory councillors all fall silent, and stare at their shoes, whenever this subject is mentioned).

Unbelievably, yet again there were no questions from the councillors. Why should they bother?

A discussion about committees dealing with union consultation involved yet another senior officer working for Barnet on a contract. She sought to gloss over the fact that the unions had actually asked for a deferrment of the discussion. Again: why should their objections matter?

Ah, now we moved on to the debate about Residents' Forums and Area sub committees. (NB please note Mr Williams, the plural of forum is not foras, and committee is a singular noun. Are standards slipping since some recent staff departures?) The proposed changes will amalgamate the two bodies, starting at 6pm when most people cannot attend, and strictly outlining the subjects that residents may raise, and the many they now cannot, and will also prevent the discussion of matters already raised in the previous six months. Marvellous.

Mr Reasonable spoke again. He thought the objectives of these bodies, ie influence, localism and cost effectiveness would hardly be reached by the proposed changes. He noted the adversarial system of the Forums/Fora. He explained that in these meetings, 'we ask questions and you try to avoid answering them.' Mrs Angry laughed rather too loudly at this point and Mr Lustig gave her a very disapproving look.

Mr Reasonable suggested in his gentle way that it was perhaps necessary to try to rebuild a relationship of trust and mutual respect between the council and residents.

The Tory councillors looked on with barely veiled hostility.

Where, he continued, is your committment to listening to what people actually want to say?

The same Tory councillors still looked on, wondering why anyone would care what residents really wanted to say.

Mr R pointed out that the new Tory proposals will have the effect of closing the the Forums. Which of course is the whole point, as we know. He asked if instead they might like to use the Forums to engage with the local community, to listen. He pointed out issues which residents have recently raised and have been ignored, such as the strong resentment against the huge parking charge rises. Better explanation, some dialogue, might have led to less objection, and better understanding. We are adults, and want to have an adult conversation.

Andrew Harper did not agree with Mr Reasonable. None of the Tories can understand the concept of an adult relationship with their electors, in fact. It's a one way street with them. They have dysfunctional relationships within their own party, with an abusive relationship of power, a domination of the few over the rest, and of course they don't believe in committing to an intimate and sustaining partnership with residents. They are in charge, and we do as we are told. We voted for them. Or put it another way: we let these con artists in the front door, and now they can knock us about and steal our valuables, and no one can stop them.

David Howard spoke next. He said he was concerned for the future of democracy in our borough. He noted that the very limited research (two focus groups of sixteen people) was based on residents who had never attended a Forum. He noted that at the Forums, the chairing is awful, councillors try to say as little as possible, that all important decisions had already been made, all that we see is defensive stonewalling, to cover up the actions of councillors and council officers. He urged that the matter should be referred back and the opinons sought of people who actually have experience of the Forums.

Tory Richard Cornelius, who rarely opens his mouth without making some ineffably silly comment, asked if, as the report suggested, the real problem with the Forums is ahem, wait for it: 'The Usual Suspects' ...

I believe, citizens, he was referring to the implication in this report that some residents, officially labelled, in fact 'the usual suspects' ie such as myself, are guilty of the outrageous crime of asking awkward questions at these Forums.

Mrs Angry again laughed too loudly at this point. Andrew Harper came out from the rear of Alison Moore and stared malevolently at Mrs Angry, nodding gravely at her in a significant manner. Mr Harper sometimes attends our local Forum and has witnessed one or two of Mrs Angry's questions. (A naughty member of staff who has had to attend these Forums this week told Mrs Angry how they have often had to pinch themselves in order not to laugh or cheer when she raises these sorts of questions, rather amusingly. Not Mr Lustig, btw).

Let me just run through just a few of the issues I've raised at these meetings: the councillors' scandalous allowance increases, the failure to set up, as promised, a system of performance appraisal for councillors, the waste of our money on ludicrous expenses such as conferences in luxury hotels, voice training for senior officers, etc, oh yes, and the use of MetPro. All very challenging questions, and all perfectly valid. Asking such questions does not create a monopoly of the meeting's agenda, but it does cause political embarrassment, well deserved, for the Tory administration. I could not give a monkey's about that: these are serious issues of public concern, and this usual suspect will continue to raise such matters whenever she think it is appropriate. So there.

I didn't stay to watch the final death throes of the constitution, and left as they were still engrossed in pointless discussions about a foregone conclusion. And as I left, I suddenly found myself thinking about that film by Bunuel, the 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', where a group of spoilt, affluent people are kept at a dinner party, finding themselves unable to leave the room, through no other reason, in fact, than a belief that they are unable to leave the room.

The Tory councillors in our borough, I think, have invented exactly the same conundrum for themselves, locked into a room by their own volition. All they have to do is decide to leave, and walk through the door. They don't have to accept the limitations that their own leadership is pushing onto them: if they stood up and opposed the dictators who are running the party, they would defeat them - all it takes is some courage and a sense of duty. Unfortunately it seems that most of the Tory councillors in Barnet have neither courage nor conscience, let alone a sense of accountability to their constituents. And until they decide to walk out of the room, we are stuck right there with them.

All the same,Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: you can shut down the Forums, and you can stop the majority of councillors from raising issues you want to avoid debating, or from speaking on behalf of their own constituents in a reduced number of council meetings, but there is one thing you cannot do, and that is to stop me or anyone else from watching what you do and holding you to account.

So this is Mrs Angry, then, holding you to account. Just one of the usual suspects, of course.