Part Two: In your face: a Residents Forum, continued

Consultation with residents, One Barnet style


So - Finchley & Golders Green Residents Forum: where were we?

Last night's meeting took place in a new venue, a church hall, just opposite Mrs Angry's old school, in fact, which she took as an omen of some sort. The evening certainly turned into the sort of performance you might expect from a hopeless, desperate teacher who cannot control the class and totally loses the plot. Mrs Angry thought nostalgically of the time the school's German teacher, Fraulein B, whom all the girls suspected of being a man, due to an excessively large moustache, lost it big time one afternoon, locked a load of pupils in the library, asked them intimate questions about their fathers, and then had to be taken away in an ambulance, as we all watched, in ghoulish fascination.
Happy days.

Anyway: there we all were, crammed into a tiny room, residents faced by a panel of glowering Tory chair Reuben Thompstone, his sheepish, largely silent colleague Graham Old, a governance officer Ms A, and the manager of Highways, Mr Neil Richardson.

Also present were several Labour councillors, including Kath Mc Guirk, Ross Houston, Jim Tierney, Anne Hutton, Jeff Cooke, and Alan Schneiderman, and Libdem Jack Cohen. Former chair Tory Dean Cohen came in late, missing most of the fun. Where were any other Tory councillors? Mrs Angry has never seen Eva Greenspan at a Forum, which is pretty shabby, and deputy boy leader Daniel Thomas told Mrs Angry himself that he does not need to attend, ever - which is what you might expect. And where was the Garden Suburb housewife's choice, Councillor Andrew Harper? Had something come up at the last moment?

And John Marshall: how could you stay away?

Mrs Angry bumped into Councillor Marshall, the other day, in Waitrose - he was, rather fittingly, standing by the organic nut display, looking bemused, and trying to pretend he wasn't following her. Feeling sorry for the old boy: he can't help it, after all, who could - she made polite conversation. For some reason he told her about the magazines he likes to read (no, not that sort), like Private Eye. Ah, said Mrs Angry: yes, an excellent publication. Very interesting story a few weeks ago about Barnet, wasn't there? Was there? What about? MetPro! Remarkably well written, she thought. John gulped, and said the first thing that popped into his head: of course we have an election coming up next year, don't we? Hmm, said Mrs A: poor old Brian, he must be getting rather worried ... Oh, he said, panicking, well:I am not Councillor Coleman's spokesman ... Ha, no: said Mrs Angry, moving off, who would want that job? A few minutes later, Cllr Marshall came over to Mrs Angry and her daughter by the fish counter. He said to Miss Angry: Can't you control your mother? She gave him a steely look: NO, she replied firmly, I cannot. And then went and spoilt it by adding: I only wish I could. Mrs Angry was obliged to lecture her about her disloyal attitude all the way round Waitrose, and most of the way home.

But back to the Forum.

Mrs Angry grabbed the question sheet to see what written responses her three questions had received. If you recall, out of the several she had submitted, only three were allowed, under the new rules, which are aimed at preventing any useful or awkward questions being put to the panel or debated. Or that is the theory: things don't quite work out like that at our Forum.

Two of the questions had been given limited and evasive answers: the third, asking about councillors' free parking permits, was listed: but with no response other than:

'This is a policy issue and therefore not within the remit of the Forum.'

In which case, thought Mrs Angry: why was the question put on the sheet, unlike the other questions which were rejected for the same reason?

The Forum began with a stern lecture from the pompous, dictatorial Councillor Thompstone on the subject of how the meeting would proceed, and the many new regulations which we, the residents of the Residents Forum, must observe. This performance took five minutes, by which time Mrs Angry was wound up like a coiled spring, ready to leap up, grab hold of Councillor Thompstone's tie, and shout in his self satisfied face 'LISTEN, SON: YOU ARE THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THESE PEOPLE, NOT THEIR F*CKING SLAVEMASTER, AND YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO THEM IN THIS WAY!' But of course Mrs Angry is far too polite, and anyway she didn't need to jump up and shout in his face, because another resident did it for her, a little later in the proceedings. Oh yes.

You have to imagine the rest of the meeting taking place, as it did against a backdrop of vociferous discontent, yelling, arguing, barracking, laughter, applause, jeers, and an increasingly red faced Thompstone barking commands at the mutinous residents. It was terrific entertainment.

We were about to launch into the staged event that now passes for question time, when an elderly gentleman stood up to protest about the format of the Forum and the repressive control of debate that has taken place. The chair tried to shut him up, in his charmless way: he failed. The elderly resident was in fact Mr Julian Silverman, the Barnet Alliance member who had his banner snatched by Tory vicar, and chum of Brian Coleman, Father Adrian Benjamin. Mr Silverman had brought along copies of his own emergency resolution for the Forum to consider, which he had handed out. It was a pefectly reasonable resolution:

"We regard the coming decision of the council to sell off all council services to one-for profit company as an impending threat, which, on top of present government and council policies can only mean further attacks on libraries, the Health Service, education, welfare, social care, small businesses and ordinary householders, housing, the loss of adequate care for the elderly, children, the sick, etc. As responsible citizens and as participants in a forum intended for residents, we therefore call upon this meeting to suspend the new restrictions on questions so as to allow an urgent discussion of how to save jobs and services in Barnet."

As you might imagine, Mr Silverman's reading of this proposal enraged Cllr Thompstone, who tried to shout him down amongst disorder from the residents who supported him. In fact there was complete pandemonium. Thompstone was furious and carried on trying to impose his authority: 'What is a Forum for?' demanded an unstoppable Mr Silverman. 'May I remind you ...'

'NO, YOU MAY NOT' yelled Thompstone.

Mrs Angry, trying to be helpful to the Chair, suggested that such scenes were only to be expected in view of the censorship enforced by the new rules, and, she added, to applause from residents, if Mr Thompstone didn't like it, he might like to go back to his fellow Tory councillors, and the constitution committee which created these repressive regulations, and get them withdrawn. Councillor Thompstone appeared not to welcome this suggestion.

A resident asked if we could shut the open doors, as there was noise in the entrance hall. Cllr Thompstone nodded his head gravely. Yes, that was something he could agree to. Oh: very good of you, said Mrs Angry. He added that he had wanted them open because he wanted people to come in. No you don't, shouted a man at the back, Mr Smith, who was getting increasingly agitated.

The first three questions were of the type approved of by the new order of Forum management- submitted by a resident asking about litter picking and path mainenance. Phew. No dangers there: street based, public works, any problems can be blamed on low level council officers. Marvellous. Ah: a certain senior officer's name is mentioned: let's call her Ms Y. The chair recommends that she is contacted. SHE NEVER ANSWERS HER EMAILS, yelled Mr Smith.

A couple more litter problems, yawn: but the resident had not turned up, so no supplementary questions. Moving on nicely. Ah: a question from Mrs Angry:

1.Why are some local events in parks charged at the full new rate, and others charged nothing at all? Who decides which event will be charged?

Mrs Angry suggested that this might be 'discussed' at the same time as a later, more specific question:

2.I understand that this year's Friern Barnet Show took place in a public park but was not charged the full new rate by Barnet Council for the event. By contrast, I believe the 100 year old Finchley Carnival which takes place in Victoria Park had to be cancelled this year because the full charges were going to be imposed.

• Can you confirm that this was the casem and if so clarify why charges are made in one case, but not the other?
• Can you confirm that the decision to charge or to waive the charge is made by the Cabinet member for Environment, or if he was present at council meetings at which the show was discussed?
  

Ah. Well: the written answer to the first question was a list of charges already in the public domain, although we note the charge for events sized in excess of 5,000 to be 'by negotiation' and the remark which states: 'A discount may be applied to the daily rate for Charitable/Community events at the discretion of the Director for Environment and Operations'.

The written answer to the second question repeated most of the first response, blamed the organisers of the Finchley Carnival for not taking up an unspecified 'offer' from the council, and again referred to the Director of E&O.

Yes, said Mrs Angry - but you have not answered the question, have you? I asked why charges were made in one case, but not the other, and I asked about the involvement or not of the Cabinet member, ie Councillor Brian Coleman, in the decision to waive charges for the Friern Show ... you have not addressed these points.

... oh yeah, yelled a resident helpfully, to much cynical laughter in the audience: Coleman is the Chair of directors of Friern Show, isn't he?

Ah. Silence from Councillor Thompstone.

Mr Richardson, the Highways manager stepped in. Bla bla bla, the Director has discretion, bla bla bla ...

ANSWER THE QUESTION yelled Mr Smith, who has been yelling angrily all the way through, objecting vociferously to the Forum's repression of debate, refusing to shut up when Thompstone interjects.

Does the Cabinet member discuss the waiving of charges? asked Mrs Angry, again. Is he present at the meetings where this is discussed? Did Friern Show have the full charge waived?

IT'S DISCRIMINATORY! shouted a resident - which of course is a very good point. Mr Richardson looked uncomfortable. He could not comment on the attendance at meetings by councillors.

And Councillor Coleman is not here to defend himself, added Thompstone, attempting introduce a note of pathos into the proceedings, a foolish move, and one fiercely rejected by howling residents who expressed their enthusiasm for the future attendance of Councillor Coleman in no uncertain terms, and in a manner that might suggest he would be better advised staying at home, hiding behind the wardrobe.

A member of the Finchley Carnival community organising committee was also present and she had more questions regarding, for example, the £3,500 that was allegedly going to be imposed on the event by Councillor Coleman, in contrast to Friern Show.

Mr Richardson thought that there had been some very valid points made. He did not have the answers to hand.

WHY NOT? yelled Mr Smith: You knew the questions, you should have prepared your answers. THIS FORUM IS A FARCE! A battle between him and Thompstone ensued, which resulted in the Chair ignoring Mr Smith entirely despite his putting his hand up to speak patiently for long periods. Thompstone objected to Mr Smith's tone, which was funny, because Mrs Angry objected to Councillor Thompstone's tone but was obliged to sit and listen to it all evening, and pay him an allowance to perform in this bullying manner. Other residents attempting to speak were similarly, rudely ignored, in a blatant decision to prevent any meaningful debate. This quite unsurprisingly enraged the appalled audience of residents.

Thompstone, who although as portly and pompous as some elder statesman can only be thirty something, has the most patronising approach, even when not laying down the law, for example addressing a woman at the back old enough to be his mother as 'young lady', and another resident almost as old as him as 'young man'. He was also less than sensitive to the needs of one or two speakers with disabilities in the course of the evening, which Mrs Angry would think was unintentional, but a direct result of the huge gulf between our Tory councillors and the broad range of their electors.

Continued later.

Whodunnit? Questions, so many questions - MetPro Audit Meeting: Part Two

Where was I : oh yes ... fraud. Moving on, then ...

On to Q3, by resident Ron Cohen, about the endemic problem of Directors and and reponsible officers not addressing internal audit recommendations. Lord Palmer took the opportunity in his response to highlight the low priority given by the authority to the need to support an adequately staffed audit team. The enormous size of Barnet's billion pound budget you might imagine would require a well resourced and active team: Barnet has Ms Salter and three officers. Of course a larger and better supported audit section might get in the way, and cause unnecessary obstruction to the expansion of outsourcing, so you can see the advantage of keeping things on a more modest footing.

Q4: fellow blogger Ms Vicki Morris asked what disciplinary measures shoud be taken against Directors and heads of service who appear to have failed to ensure their departments comply with the council's own Contract Procedure Rules?

Ah.

Well, and this came as a total surprise, of course, there was no news on that score. The response told us that Audit cannot request that disciplinary measures take place. MetPro has taken up a substantial amount of audit time, as it is, did we realise, and has pushed aside other important matters.

This response did not meet with the approval of Ms Morris. She pointed out that the uncovering of the MetPro scandal has shone a light for residents, or to put it another way, given the council a well deserved kick up the backside. She reminded the committee of the council's imposition of a devastating budget of cuts, and compared this to the waste of public money that the MetPro affair has involved. She deeply objected to the complacency of the council's attitude, and reminded them that residents are entitled to know who will take responsibility for the mess?

Lord Palmer stated it was up to the Chief Executive to take any disciplinary proceedings, and that he had been given legal advice that any mention of individuals might compromise any such
future proceedings. He then, significantly perhaps, took the opportunity of musing on the interesting subject of how the MetPro affair began. 'I can see how it happened', he said, recalling the far off days when say, the head of housing and the person who runs facilities at Barnet House, Barbara Langstone House decided they needed some extra security for their premises.
Yes, thought Mrs Angry, and if I was in their shoes, I too would immediately have been struck by the professional bearing and discreet charm of the MetPro company image, and hired them on the spot, no questions asked.

What did mystify Lord Palmer, though, and here he even bent forward to look at Mrs Angry, was the absence of paperwork or explantation of any kind from anyone as to who authorised this arrangement. Who did it? He didn't know.

How very extraordinary, commented Mrs Angry, as she scribbled away.

Which reminds me.

A few weeks ago,not so long after the MetPro scandal had first emerged, sitting at a council meeting, Mrs Angry was struck by the peculiar behaviour of a certain Barnet officer, who spent almost the entire evening standing by the door of the public gallery, staring fixedly through the small window at her. He kept this up throughout the meeting. Mrs Angry would like to have believed that this was due to her limitless powers of attraction, but sadly it rather appeared that he was trying to make his attention noted for some other, less affectionate reason. Last night, in front of a witness at the Town Hall, he tried something similar, arms folded at the top of the stairs. Mrs Angry suggests he desists from this odd behaviour, before it gets him into trouble.

Back to the questions: uh oh, Mrs Angry's turn at the table. Mrs Angry took her place, surrounded by the dinner party from hell. Lord Palmer naughtily observed that he thought he knew her by another name, that she was - sharp intake of breath - a blogger. A vision of the Mc Carthy hearings popped into Mrs Angry's head, for one alarming moment. Are you now, Mrs Angry, or have you ever been, a member of the blogging community of Broken Barnet? I'll take the fifth, Lord Palmer. Move on.

The way in which questioning takes place is that residents must supply questions far in advance of the meeting, in order that the officers have time to come up with a load of old shite in response, cunningly disguised in One Barnet double speak. The answers are not given to you until you sit at the table, and then only verbally. You must listen and quickly formulate your supplementary question, faster than a QC in the High court thinking on his feet in front of a jury. You stumble through your question, which is then largely ignored, and then the Director of Corporate Governance looks for an opportunity to prevent further discussion, in my case apparently kicking Lord Palmer on the shin and telling him question time was over.

Before he could manage this, however, we briefly debated the three questions I had tabled about whether there would be inquiries into the safeguarding and data protection issues, and whether the council had contacted the SIA in regard to MetPro's use of unlicensed employees. Only the third question had been partially answered - contact of some sort had been made on March 14th.

Mrs Angry was informed, incredibly, that neither safeguarding nor the data protection issues were to be the subject of any other inquiry, although, of course, she was assured, in theory, the council was free to carry out further reviews.

"My questions", said Mrs Angry, winging it (and thanks to Mr Mustard for supplying an audio tape, as I was about to pass out at this point, and now I can't remember anything that came out of my big mouth) "were about the human impact of these failings ... Saying you are free to hold a review is not answering the questions raised about the possibility of real risk to children, and vulnerable adults ... there should surely be an inquiry, and independent inquiry, to establish the historical impact of your lack of care, and your negligence, in failing to scrutinise the people who had contact with these children and quite clearly they did have contact - ... as to the second point and the response to the data protection issue, this is simply to wash your hands of it, whereas the audit report clearly shows the trail of responsibility to you and the many acts of incompetence which led to a failure to manage what should have been a contract with MetPro ..."

'I agree,' said Lord Palmer.

'Oh', said Mrs Angry. Mrs Angry looked at Palmer, Palmer looked at Mrs Angry.

'Thank you', said Mrs Angry.

Palmer said he thought she was asking the Chair ' if he was critical of the contract with MetPro, of their access to children and vulnerable people, that without a contract and recognition with the SIA and all the other things you said ... and I hope all the officers would agree that it was wrong and inappropriate ...'

But there will be no inquiry in regard to the retrospective risk to children and vulnerable adults because there have been no complaints about 'inappropriate use' of MetPro. Mrs Angry pointed out that a child or vulnerable adult can hardly formulate a formal complaint - and at this point the Director of Corporate Governance stepped in and stopped any further debate.

Lord Palmer welcomed all the points that have been made, and the 'fuss' made by the public - by bloggers, and he for one was grateful for it. You're welcome, Lord Palmer. I'd like to say it's been a pleasure, but it's been bloody difficult, actually, doing the work that council officers and councillors are paid to do on behalf of the residents of this borough. And how amusing to think that all of this would never have come to light were it not for the determination of the Tory leadership to keep the bloggers of Barnet from attending and reporting a council meeting, all those weeks ago.

Mrs Angry thought about that this morning, as she was - ha - interviewed by Patrick Butler for a piece in the Guardian about the curious phenomenon of the bloggers of Broken Barnet: take a look -

http://t.co/ORU3C46 #localgov

Oh foolish Tory councillors, see where it all leads, when you try to stifle debate, and suppress the accoountability of the democratic process, in that idiotic way of yours?

More to come in Part Three ...

*just seen this article too in the Public Finance journal ( thanks to visitors from auditors Grant Thornton for leaving an audit trail in my stats to follow this link):

http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/06/barnet-not-so-fair/