The death of One Barnet: An awfully big Joint Venture -

Updated below Thursday:

Perhaps, like Mrs Angry, due to a series of unfortunate events, you have not been able to escape the boundaries of Broken Barnet this summer, and have been obliged to stay at home while others have escaped abroad or to the seaside, or maybe up to Edinburgh to the Festival. Even Barnet's own movie, a Tale of Two Barnets, has just been up to the fringe for a showing, and a nice break from reality. Back here in Broken Barnet, some of us have had to make our own entertainment, and for the local bloggers, our Tory councillors have laid on a series of summer events to keep us happily occupied.

This morning, Mrs Angry wrote about the recently revealed plan to change the DRS outsourcing project from a strategic partnership to a 'joint venture', a model of outsourcing that is beneficial to the successful bidder, but will expose the council to even greater risk and cost than the previous design. She described One Barnet in terms of a still born concept. It seems now, after further dramatic revelations this afternoon, the concept of the joint venture is itself perhaps a phantom pregnancy ...

News of the joint venture emerged at the end of last week, after Mr Mustard received a copy of an email sent to staff by Mrs Angry's favourite senior officer, Ms Pam Wharfe, the 'interim' Director of Environment,

"... we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.

What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest. This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services. The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner. We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement ..."

Clear enough: astonishing, but pretty straightforward. Seems to have taken everyone, including councillors, by surprise, but then that in itself is not unusual in Barnet.

As you may recall, we wrote a joint letter to Richard Cornelius this week asking questions about the joint venture proposal.

Today, back came the most extraordinary answer from him, as follows:


"No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such a case.

The decisions will be made by elected members in due course."

What?

Yes. According to the leader of the council, the joint venture, which as a very senior officer has informed staff 'we have decided to form' has NOT been agreed by the appropriate body, ie the Tory leadership and councillors.

If there was ever proof needed to demonstrate that this borough is being run not by the elected members of this council for the best interests of the borough, but by the senior management team for their own purposes, here it is, then.

What the hell are they up to?

This incredible situation has at last exposed the shocking truth about One Barnet and the whole outsourcing scam, and yes, citizens, it is a scam. We are being pushed into a £1 billion sell off of our council services to profiteering private companies, not through any system endorsed by a democratic mandate, through our elected representatives, but by a senior management team determined on this course of action, at all costs. Why that is, you must decide for yourself. It's not hard to work it out.

Mrs Angry has already written to the district auditor to demand that he instigate a public interest inquiry into the One Barnet fiasco, and the failure of the council properly to address the huge scale of risk involved in the project. Earlier this week the request was amended to take on board the recent development regarding the joint venture. Now it seems this further revelation raises even more urgent need for the immediate suspension of the whole tender process, and a full public inquiry into the entire project.

What a mess.

Update Thursday:

The plot thickens. Here is another extraordinary statement from the Tory leadership, this time from deputy leader Daniel 'John' Thomas:

My thanks to reader David Constable for tweeting this story from the Barnet Press:

http://twitpic.com/ampxfh

in which Councillor Thomas states that a Joint Venture -

"had always been an option for the officers and would give the council more control over the DRS ... It doesn't surprise me that the first vendor for this service would be a shared organisation. It gives the council more control."

He also confirms that the other £750 million package of customer services will not be a joint venture. It seems that control of £275 million of DRS services is suddenly required, despite all previous denials, but the council is happy to throw away all responsibility for a three quarters of a billion pounds worth of the rest to the lucky bidder who wins the deal. Mmm.

It is not clear yet when this statement from Thomas was made, but clearly it completely contradicts the two responses from his own leader Richard Cornelius yesterday, to the Barnet bloggers, and to resident Reema Patel, denying that any decision to change to a Joint Venture had been made.

There is something going very, very wrong, deep in the heart of the rotten borough of Broken Barnet.

The shambling Tory leadership is in disarray, their own councillors are completely in the dark, the senior management is struggling to maintain their oily grip on the outsourcing agenda, and the bidding companies are looking on in disbelief.

Our lives in their hands. It's a chilling thought, isn't it?

Joint Venture, judicial review? A resident asks some awkward questions

Mrs Angry overslept this morning and so has only just had a leisurely breakfast & a read through twitter, and was very pleased to note this very pertinent letter by local Barnet resident Reema Patel, posted on the website of the excellent new local campaign for a 'Better Barnet'.

http://betterbarnet.nationbuilder.com/_one_barnet_joint_venture

Reema has written a letter to Richard Cornelius, alleged Tory leader of Barnet Council, in regard to the news we revealed at the end of last week - the astonishing decision to abandon the strategic partnership model for outsourcing the £275 million DRS council services in favour of a riskier and more costly 'Joint Venture'.

Is the 'One Barnet' Joint Venture legal?

Dear Cllr Cornelius,

This is an open letter in relation to the e-mail disclosed by the Barnet blogger Theresa Musgrove (‘Mrs Angry’). The email I refer to is the one by Pam Wharfe which states that ‘we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder’. Theresa has already pointed out some of the significant policy shortfalls of the Joint Venture initiative. I have nothing more to add to this, except to say that I agree.

I would instead like to question the legality of this ‘decision’.

As I am sure you are aware –decisions of such significance are only to be taken by Cabinet Members unless expressly delegated under the scheme of delegations or provided for by statute, to a senior officer.

Both the Local Government Act 2000 and the Council constitution say that matters relating to policy, strategy and budget are the responsibility of the Council Leader and his or her Cabinet. It is therefore worrying to come across this email which suggests that it is your council officers that make the key strategic and policy decisions in Barnet Council; particularly on a matter as important as One Barnet.

This ‘decision’ has not been delegated, as far as I can see, under any scheme of delegations or a valid decision to be taken by a senior officer. Officers are permitted to make administrative and operational decisions.

However, decisions of such strategic significance must be taken by the Cabinet. Therefore your officer’s ‘decision’ is unlawful and vulnerable to judicial review. It should be subject to the same decision-making procedure as the initial set of proposals (for a strategic partnership) were; and the business case/other documentation for this new set of proposals; including a full and thorough equality impact assessment (EIA) should be made publicly available. Public bodies must also, when making a decision, meet a basic duty of procedural fairness which, it is arguable, is being flouted by the absence of any transparency around this decision making.

If the One Barnet programme commences under the new set of proposals outlined by Ms. Pam Wharfe the programme will be judicially reviewable because there has been an unlawful exercise of power. The apparent failure to consult with diverse groups on the impact of the change of decision (Equalities Act 2010) is also another consideration. There are also a number of issues relating to the procurement process – especially relating to the requirements of compliance with the OJEU procurement process in EU law.

I would urge you to reconsider this new course of action; and in particular to reconsider the entire outsourcing exercise which appears to be a structural distraction at a time when we desperately need real leadership. Your time would be better spent concentrating on revitalising the Barnet economy, and getting people into work.

Best wishes,
Reema Patel

Reema's point about the legality of this sudden swerve off course in the DRS tender is very interesting. She raises the question as to how the decision to adopt this course was made - where is the authority? There is, as usual, a total lack of transparency and in the context of everything we know about the way Barnet works, one can only suspect the worst.

Mrs Angry submitted some Freedom of Information questions on this very issue yesterday, as it happens, and awaits the outcome with great interest.

The other aspect of Reema's letter is equally important: the matter of equality impact assessment. Authorities and other public sector bodies have been successfully challenged in their attempts to impose privatisation of services through legal routes as a consequence of failing properly to consult on these grounds, and Barnet is particularly bad at observiing its duties in this respect.

Mrs Angry suspects that this time, in a state of panic over the scale of committment and vulnerability to risk, our council has made a very grave error, and one which perhaps signifies the imminent collapse of One Barnet's outsourcing programme.

And of course, the last question: we have seen a last minute, cockeyed attempt to make-over the crumbling DRS tender: are plans afoot to do the same to the £750 million customer service bundle on offer to BT or Capita? If the smaller tender has been revamped, surely the same arguments for it are even more compelling in the latter case?

One Barnet is dead, and has been for some time. It is a still born project, a disaster, and no amount of denial and hysterical activity flapping around the corpse is now going to bring it to life.

It's time to let go, and move on.

Update Wednesday evening:

As well as the answer to the Barnet bloggers' joint letter, Cornelius has now replied to Reema, as just seen on the Better Barnet site:

‘Dear Ms Patel

Contrary to reports this decision has not been taken. Jv remains an option, but no decision as yet. There will need to be a convincing argument for this route.

Richard Cornelius’

Well: two denials now - in direct contradiction of the comments made by his own interim director.

What on earth do we make of such an extraordinary sequence of events?

Mrs Angry is warmly received: correspondence with councillors

No, not poison pen letters: correspondence from councillors

Well, this has cheered Mrs Angry up, anyway. Now, see, she doesn't often write to councillors, especially Tory ones, unlike Messrs Tichborne & Mustard, because a. she can't be bothered, and b. on the few occasions she has ... they have either not responded: leader Cllr Cornelius, twice, Cllr Longstaffe, etc, or might as well not have bothered, Cllr Reuben Thompstone, or they are Cllr Brian Coleman, whose replies, of course, are legendary for a certain type of minimalist rudeness.

This morning, you will note, Mr M received a typically what's the word, Dennis? .... Robust, yes, robust reply from the old devil, in response to an email sent to all Barnet councillors about, oh I don't know, parking scratch cards or something. What did he say?

Stop emailing me you idiot

Hmm. Mr Mustard complained about this to his fellow bloggers, at some length. Mrs Angry, who was still in bed with the pillow over her head, contemplating her woes, and feeling rather unsympathetic, replied helpfully:

Stop emailing me, you idiot.

Yes, now Brian, please pay attention: if you are going to insult the electors, residents and taxpayers and/or bloggers of Broken Barnet, please have the courtesy to use the correct punctuation.

In the interests of balance, Mrs Angry must report that a certain Libdem councillor (yes, see, she is very broad minded) has been in correspondence with her this morning in a heated debate about her comment in Another Blog, and the origins of the line of verse:

'I have been faithful to thee, Cynara, in my fashion ...'

Said councillor, who is a film buff, and an expert on rivets, and the wrong sized screws, thought Mrs Angry was misquoting Cole Porter, and a song from Kiss me Kate -

Brush up your Shakespeare, councillor

... quite why he was thinking about a musical featuring a loud mouthed, disobedient and argumentative woman is a mystery, of course. He was wrong, anyway, yes - wrong, Cllr Cohen, because the line is from a decadent late Victorian poet, Ernest Dowson, who drank himself to death at an early age (good idea ... is it too late to start, I wonder?) - please pay attention:

Non sum qualis eram bonae sub regno Cynarae

All night upon mine heart I felt her warm heart beat,
Night-long within mine arms in love and sleep she lay;
Surely the kisses of her bought red mouth were sweet;
But I was desolate and sick of an old passion,
When I awoke and found the dawn was gray:

I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion.

Have you ever been desolate and sick of an old passion, citizens? Hmm. Forget it. Take up blogging instead. Much more wholesome. Or knitting.

And don't argue with Mrs Angry, please, in future, Jack. Mrs Angry is always right.

What, you may ask, has this got to do with anything? Nothing. It is my way of avoiding writing about her correspondence with - oh dear - Councillor Sachin Rajput, and the truly shameful, grasping Tory plan to force disabled residents to pay a charge in order to have what is their right, a blue badge for free parking.

A couple of weeks ago Mrs Angry wrote to Rajput, whose portfolio covers disability issues, as follows:

Dear Cllr Rajput

I wonder if I might ask you to explain how it is morally defensible for you and your Cabinet colleagues to attempt to charge disabled residents £10 for the privilege of being issued with the blue badges they are entitled to in order to address their needs when parking, when you and the rest of the Tory councillors insist on retaining the use of free parking permits?

Please don't tell me that these permits are only used for council business as we know that this supposed limitation is open to abuse, and in fact there is absolutely no reason why any councillor should not be subject to the same problems in using the infamous new parking system as well as any other user in this borough.

I note that some of the millions of pounds spent on the contract with Agilisys was used to provide the study which suggested this latest shameful targeting of the most vulnerable members of our borough, and it would seem one must point out that instead of wasting money on these consultancy arrangements a better use of tax payers' money would be to continue to support the transport needs of disabled, vulnerable and disadvantaged residents.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

So off went the email, and nothing happened, and Mrs Angry was thinking dark thoughts about Cllr Rajput, and supposed he would not bother to answer, when, look: this dropped into her in box ...



Dear Mrs Angry,

Thank you for your email in relation to permits which was warmly received and the contents of which I have duly noted. At this stage, in relation to the relevant consultation undertaken, the findings of the same will need to be considered in due course. You will appreciate that whilst this consultation appears to be a purely Adult Social Care and Health consultation there has been input and consideration from various departments within the Council for example the blue badge matters you refer to which in fact fall within the remit of Cllr. Robert Rams' portfolio although incorporated with the ASC&H-led consultation. In relation to the charge for the blue badges themselves I understand other Authorities are doing or seeking to do the same and one reason for this it is suggested is to reflect a potential contribution sought towards the relative cost of administration relating to the same although I emphasise that at this stage the findings on all matters still need to be considered.

I am copying in Bill Murphy and Kate Kennally to this response so that they may, at an officer-level, note the issues you have raised accordingly.

Kind regards,

Sachin,

Well, Mrs Angry was rather taken aback. Her email, to a Tory councillor and Cabinet member - warmly received. Contents noted. Blame nicely kicked in the direction of Robert Rams. Email copied to the senior officers who who should indeed be involved in such consultation. And no threat to call the police, if she should dare to write to him ever again. Well, f*ck me: this is democracy in action - let's go ... come on Brian, take a leaf out of Sachin's book. Be nice: be polite. Where's the harm?

Mrs Angry felt slightly ashamed that she is usually rather rude about Cllr Rajput's contribution to council meetings, which are, erm rather headboyish, and, dutiful but sshh ... awfully boring - if you read his reply all in one go without stopping, in a depressed monotone, you will get the idea. Bloggers have been known to threaten to defenestrate themselves during his longer speeches. But now she feels a bit mean, and probably will not repeat the rumour that as a little boy, Sachin was SO boring that when he came home from school, his family used to hide behind the curtains and pretend they were out.

All the same, you note he has avoided the main point of her email, yes, the awkward bit referring to you know, that thing we don't do, here in Tory Broken Barnet ... morality, and a sense of conscience.

Dear Cllr Rajput,

Thank you very much for your reply, which is appreciated.

I note that you are keen to deflect the blame for this policy proposal to Cllr Robert Rams - understandably, perhaps - but I did ask you for your views on the proposal in the context of the free permits which Conservative councillors enjoy. I realise that questions of morality might be a difficult concept for some, but I would like to think that you at least would agree that to ask disabled residents to pay for a privilege freely enjoyed by able bodied councillors is indefensible.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

Let's see where this leads, shall we? See, writing to councillors. Councillors writing back, without threats of prosecution. Consultation, debate and the free expression of views.

Hold on: are we still in Broken Barnet?

Update, Wednesday:

Cllr Rajput replies:

Dear Mrs Angry,

Thank you for your further email the contents of which I have noted. It appears that the relevant transport consultation concern you raise relating to Blue Badges need not be 'defended' in the context in which you put it, as it appears they are not dependant on one another and in any event no policy has been agreed on Blue Badges nor on any other such matters post-consultation at this stage. Nevertheless, I understand the point you seek to make about some similarities rather than nexus between the two although I have no authority to make any direct policy-proposal or decision on member's permits as this is not within my portfolio.

Kind regards,

Sachin

Can someone explain this to Mrs Angry? What?

The new One Barnet Joint Venture: a joint statement and an open letter by the Barnet bloggers.

Dear Councillor Cornelius,

At the end of last week, an email was sent by Pam Wharfe, Interim Director of Environment, Planning and Regeneration to employees of Barnet Council in which it was casually revealed that one of the two One Barnet outsourcing projects, the outsourcing of £275 million worth of council services, is now to be redesigned as a ‘joint venture’ in a new company comprising the bidder and the local authority.

This remarkable development raises several hugely important questions.

In the email, Ms Wharfe makes the rather disingenuous statement that the new organisation provides " ... an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control ..."

The loss of democratic accountability to the community in the provision of services that would result from the outsourcing of the One Barnet programme is an issue we and other critics have raised repeatedly, yet is an accusation the council has continually rejected.

Whilst we are pleased to see that the authority has now accepted that our concerns are valid, we fail to understand how the creation of a new commercial venture will improve the ability of the council to retain proper controls and transparency in regard to the services outsourced in this way.

The new arrangement also raises the real risk of conflicts of interest regarding the management of the new venture and those who will be involved in the decision making processes of the organisation. Bearing in mind the failure of the council to mitigate the potential risks posed by any senior officers with links to private companies involved in the bidding process, what safeguards will be in place in relation to the membership of the new board?

Most significantly, perhaps, the new venture would appear to move the burden of significant risk from the private sector partner to the taxpayers who will be expected to fund the new company, whilst any profits that may ensue will not return to residents, but will be shared with the commercial partner. If the venture fails, residents will bear the cost of failure, and the need to re establish all in house services – if possible.

In short, the joint venture might fairly be described as nothing less than the outsourcing of profit, and a desperate, last minute agreement to carry the full risk of catastrophic failure in order to sustain, in the face of mounting disquiet from all quarters, the One Barnet outsourcing programme.

We ask why the Conservative administration has decided on this sudden course of action, at such a late stage in the dialogue process, and remind you, Mr Cornelius, that when the original case for outsourcing was made, your own consultants’ report stated:

“The costs and risks associated with a JV model are judged at this stage to be higher than for a Strategic Partnership.”

As we have so often pointed out, the undoubtedly high risks of entering into a Strategic Partnership have never been subjected to any independent assessment, or indeed any form of real scrutiny, yet here you are now, committing the financial security of our borough to what has been clearly identified as an even riskier and more costly strategy.

We might also speculate to what extent this radical departure, at this advanced stage in the dialogue, has exposed the council to risk from legal challenge by companies who have been excluded from the dialogue at an earlier point in the proceedings.

In respect of the need for democratic accountability, we would also question on what basis, and on whose authority the council has taken this decision: was the change in policy debated within the Tory group, or the Cabinet, or is this another development driven by the senior management team?

The mass privatisation of One Barnet will have a devastating impact on the daily lives of Barnet residents, as the need to make profit inevitably comes into conflict with the provision of public services, that is to say the support on which depend so many of the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of our community. All studies have demonstrated that the savings you imagine will transpire as a result of privatisation simply will not materialise, and indeed the whole enterprise is more likely to cause more cost to the local taxpayer, as well as a sharp decline in the standard of service.

By the time the full extent of the damage to the well being of this borough becomes evident, it will be too late to wrest back control of services without enormous difficulty and an intolerable burden of further cost. The senior officers who have driven the outsourcing agenda will no doubt be far away from Barnet and it is equally likely that you and your Tory colleagues will be voted out of office at the very first opportunity.

As residents of this borough we ask you to come to your senses and call an immediate halt to the One Barnet programme. Stop listening to the self serving advice of the private sector companies and the senior officers who are promoting this agenda, and take a look at the answer right in front of you – the in-house solution. With the support of the staff you employ you can work together to achieve the efficiencies you need and avoid the dangerous gamble of One Barnet: now is the time to act, before it is too late.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

One Barnet: new rules, and a new look for the House of Fun

An exciting week for the One Barnet House of Fun.

Just as the gentlemen callers were beginning to line up outside the door, awaiting admittance to the parlour, Madame has announced a change of plan, and a new list of attractions for her expectant customers.

Wave goodbye to the tired old menu on offer, the offering up of £250 million of our DRS council services for the delectation of one lucky client, to enjoy as he sees fit. For some reason, perhaps due to the misgivings of the would be punters, listening to the words of caution whispered in their ears by the Barnet blogosphere, a seemingly more attractive proposal is on offer.

The House will now not only pimp the favours of our council services to the favoured client, the House will now subsidise the cost of enjoying our council services, and share the profits to be made out of pimping our council services. If the girl on the sofa turns out to be a disappointment, the House will bear the cost, and the client can just pick up his hat, and leave, no questions asked. Win, win, for the client, in other words.

In the One Barnet House of Fun, this sort of transaction is known as a 'Joint Venture'. There are other similar practices in other houses. History suggests this may not work out quite as happily as the client might require, however.

Take a look at these examples:

Capita, at Service Birmingham

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240105087/Backlash-leads-Birmingham-City-Council-to-reconsider-Capita-plan-to-offshore-IT-jobs

ooh, hello, look here, Mouchel, in Oldham & Rochdale:

http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/s/1489339_council-to-scrap-180m-impact-partnership-alliance

in Liverpool,with BT ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/jun/28/liverpool-direct-city-council-renegotiates-bt-contract

and not forgetting IBM, and South West One ...

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2012/02/southwest-one-emits-hot-air-af.html

We will stop there, I think, for now ...

Mrs Angry has friends in all sorts of places, as you know, including, yes, including the world of outsourcing.

And one of her friends in the world of oursourcing has explained to Mrs Angry that in fact, 'Joint Ventures', as well as being inherently more risky and more costly, are much more difficult to run, with the staff involved left in an unfortunate sort of twilight world, more in some sort of secondment, or half way house of degradation, rather than pimped out directly to the private sector, that the 'culture' is radically different, and the workers involved are even more disadvantaged than they would be in a more straightforward act of privatisation (where they still get f*cked, but more immediately, and more openly).

So why, you may be asking, would anyone want to promote such perverse practices, in any house of fun? Where is the profit? Where is the fun?

Let's look again at the original report which set out what passes for a business plan, a menu for the new order in the One Barnet house of fun. This report, you may recall, was written by our One Barnet implementation partners.

Now then: can you remember, citizens, ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls, who are the implementation partners of the outsourcing of council services, as directed by the One Barnet house of fun?

Yes. That would be our favoured consultants, Agilisys, working with iMPOWER.

Agilisys, the consultants who are paid around £250,000 a month for their services: dealing with the laundry, turning the mattresses, that sort of thing.

And their partners iMPOWER, as you may recall, were lucky enough last year to acquire the services of an old friend of Broken Barnet, the former BT director, Mr Max Wide, who is an expert on outsourcing, and has worked on secondment from BT at Barnet and other authorities like Suffolk, in the era of Andrea Hill, in order to help them in their various innovative enterprises.

(BT, of course, is one of the two final bidders for the other, larger £750 million customer service package on offer at the One Barnet knocking shop).

The contract with Agilisys was one of the documents that were so heavily redacted when three of the Barnet bloggers went along to the council offices to view the accounts, and the details of the arrangements with this company and partners remain shrouded behind a becoming veil of modesty, in the interests of non transparency, and the traditional reluctance of Tory Barnet to submit to the requirements of accountability.

Anyway: funnily enough, 'Joint Ventures' would appear to be the preferred working method of Agilisys.

Take a look at the following examples ...

Hammersmith & Fulham:

http://www.agilisys.co.uk/who-we-serve/local-government/major-partnerships/hammersmith-fulham-bridge-partnership/

Oldham, the Unity partnership:

http://www.agilisys.co.uk/who-we-serve/local-government/major-partnerships/oldham/

and now Tower Hamlets:

http://www.agilisys.co.uk/agilisys-selected-for-groundbreaking-partnership-with-tower-hamlets/

Nice work, if you can get it, and here is the profit, and here is the fun.

Welcome once more to the House of One Barnet.

Leave your coat on the hall table. You can keep your hat on.