In December 2008, the Committee on Standards in Public Life launched an inquiry ‘Local Leadership and Public Trust’ which has now been abandoned. However a summary report has been published of the main issues which arose in the evidence that was received.

The main themes that emerged were poor:

*   overview and scrutiny
*   accountability of partnerships
*   leadership

We know about overview and scrutiny and our cabinet’s lack of respect for this, especially in ignoring recommendations from overview and scrutiny committees. I hear rumour that overview and scrutiny committees are going to be reduced in number. The number of councillors is set to be slashed, with fewer councillors there is less scope for good scrutiny.

The report finds “there is little doubt that in practice in many local authorities the scrutiny function is not working as effectively as intended” and concludes that “it is important that the effectiveness of the scrutiny process is regarded as a priority by all local authorities”.

On the positive side the report draws attention to the usefulness of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Indeed this is a welcome advance, but it is a shame it is sometimes necessary to use this and that openness and transparency isn’t always there without it.

Partnerships are prevalent as we know; the NSRP, BSF board and Kier-Stoke, to name but a few. The whole Britannia Stadium sell off saga also comes to mind.

The report finds that partnerships often have shortcomings and states “people affected by them need to be able to find out how and by whom such decisions are being taken, how they can influence them, how they can complain if they think something is going wrong and how to seek redress if it does”.

It recommends that partnerships “need to be able to provide credible answers to the following questions:

*   What arrangements does the partnership have for ensuring  transparency?
*   What access does the citizen have to the rationale of decisions and proceedings?
*   How effective are the arrangements for scrutinising the partnership’s decisions?
*   How coherent are the arrangements for holding the partnership to account?
*   Is there a single point which can be accessed by an individual who is aggrieved by a decision or an action of the partnership?”

On leadership the report draws attention to The Local Government Act 2000. This is what I find allows a dictatorial approach and disenfranchises not only ‘ordinary’ councillors but the public at large. The report says “most local authorities are now required to adopt an executive form of decision-making in which responsibility for most of the council’s functions is vested either in a leader and cabinet or in a directly elected mayor”. It concludes that it does not matter much whether one of these models or a committee system is adopted, the calibre of those involved is of more consequence.

Whilst the quality of elected members and indeed council officers is important, I disagree that the system doesn’t matter. I think the mayor and leader models both fail because they give too much control to one or a few people. I can see that even decent people if on a cabinet and paid extra for that, may feel the pressure to do what they are told to keep the post and the money that goes with it. Imagine becoming accustomed to that money and knowing if you lose it you will not be able to provide so well for your children, it would be hard. Most of us work to earn money to provide for our families. But the difference with an elected position is that you should have an obligation to serve your electorate and be committed to your election promises, even if that means risking a cabinet position and the income with it. A committee system where all councillors contribute equally and are paid the same avoids this type of dilemma.

A most interesting statement in the report is: “The single most significant failure in governance in recent years has occurred in a local authority led by an elected mayor”. It does not name the local authority!

Monday, 30th August, 2010

BANK HOLIDAY
Tuesday, 31st August, 2010
9.30 am Abbey Green & East Valley AIT Meeting, St Johns Welcome Centre, Greasley Road, Abbey Hulton – Tony Rider ext 1560
10.00 am Licensing and Registration Panel – Angela Gardner ext 2611
Wednesday, 1st September, 2010
9.00 am CANCELLED – Kier Ride-Out
10.00 am CANCELLED – Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee –              Suzanne Hackley / John Ross ext 2622 / 2956
2.15 pm Fire Authority Meeting – Scrutiny and Performance Committee, Pire Hill –          Kay Johnson 01785 898670
Thursday, 2nd September, 2010
2.00 pm Police Authority – Regional Network Meeting – West Midlands Police Authority HQ – Alyson Holmes 01785 232241
2.00 pm Spotlight Review – Serious Violent Crime – Paul Baddeley ext 2723
Friday, 3rd September, 2010
9.00 am Human Resources Committee – Staffing Appeal – Julie Harvey / Helen Barr ext 2617/2784
10.00 am Member Learning and Development Session – Funding for Communities – Kim Deaville / Christine Bradshaw ext 2837
12.00 Noon Youth Offending Services Management Board – Nathan Dawkins ext 3450
2.00 pm Bentilee & Townsend, Berryhill & Hanley East AIT – Bentilee Neighbourhood Centre – Lesley Goldstraw ext 1548

Source: Potteye Blog

Upon returning from my annual holiday, the first headline in the local media to hit me was the ConLib Governments cuts to Area Based Grants (£3.4m) administered by the LSP, but responsible to (accountable body) Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

The Area Based Grant system gives government funding to priorities and targets set and agreed by DCLG and our LSP.

Area Based Grants are basically former local government funding top sliced from democratic control (£35 million) and handed to a non-elected quango to spend.

The cuts in the media seemed very detailed and it was also reported that the decisions had already been made. This struck me as odd, because, although I knew that cuts had to be made, as a councillor or residents, I wasn’t aware of any consultation or imminent decision.

So I made some inquiries and was staggered to learn what had gone on.

No councillor or Elected Member, scrutiny committee, Cabinet Member, appears to have been consulted or made aware of the proposals or decisions either prior to, or following  the announced cuts.

The LSP has a Board (members listed below) but even that did not make these decisions. A body called the LSP Chairs Group decided where the £3.5m cuts would go. As of yet I have been refused a copy of the minutes nor can I obtain a list of its membership.

Absolutely no democratically Elected Members, accountable to the public were party to these decisions, even though the Chair of the LSP is none other than the Deputy Leader of the Council, Ross Irving.

The cuts will have a massive effect on those that provide them and well as those receiving the services from them, yet the impact on the City Council own budget cannot be underestimated.

Many of the services cut are provided by the City Council either on its own or jointly with partners or voluntary organisations. This will have serious implications for the City Council budgets, passing the blame onto the City Council.

Unelected Quango Bureaucrats making decisions behind closed doors – councillors once again carrying the can and getting the blame.

I hope the other councillors, like me take issue with the LSP and its cuts, and the the Government scraps this out of control, anti-democratic quango at the earliest opportunity.

List of LSP Board Members

Councillor Ross Irving (Chair) – Cabinet Member for Partnerships and Transition

Henriette Lyttle-Breukelaar – Advantage West Midlands

Mike Ramsey – Government Office West Midlands

Shane Bryans – Government Office West Midlands

Alan Turley – Local Strategic Partnership

Councillor Roy Naylor - Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

Martin Chadwick – Voluntary Sector

Carol Beardsall – Community Sector

Asif Mehmood – BME Forum

Lloyd Cooke – Faiths Forum

Bryan Carnes – North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce

Helen Pegg – Further Education

Dr Teeranlall Ramgopal – Staffordshire University

Kevin Mattinson – Keele University

Sarah Robinson – Stoke-on-Trent College

Peter Dartford – Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service

Julie Carruthers – Jobcentre Plus

Councillor Randolph Conteh - Staffordshire Police Authority

Bernie O’Reilly – Staffordshire Constabulary

Jane Sawyers – Staffordshire Constabulary

Graham Urwin – Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust

Chris Dawes – NHS Stoke-on-Trent

Hardial Bhogal – North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership

Barbara Jones – Staffordshire Probation Service

John van de Laarschot – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Tony Oakman – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Sharon Menghini – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Paul Simpson – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Jeanette McGarry – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Tom Macartney – Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Monday, 12th July, 2010

10.00 am CANCELLED – Licensing Sub-Committee – Sharon Simpson ext 2106

10.00 am Children and Young People’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Suzanne Hackley ext 2622

10.00 am Standards Referral Sub-Committee (06/10) – Angela Gardner ext 2611

10.00 am Police Authority – Capital Resources Strategy Panel, Police HQ, Stafford – Alyson Holmes 01785 232241

10.30 am Fire Authority Meeting – Staff Consultation and Negotiating Forum, Pirehill – Kay Johnson 01785 898670

1.30 pm Police Authority – Custody Visitors and Volunteers Committee – Alyson Holmes 01785 232241

2.00 pm Economic Development and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Julie Brough ext 3028

2.00 pm CANCELLED – Leaders Council Briefing – Helen Barr/Julie Harvey ext 2617

Tuesday, 13th July, 2010

9.30 am Meir AIT, Meir CEC, Pickford Place – Stephanie Murray ext 7864

10.00 am POSTPONED – Housing PFI Programme Board, Civic Centre, Floor 1 C101 – Kirsty Barnett/Tom Davies ext 3623

10.00 am Improving Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Ellen Washington ext 6039

10.00 am CANCELLED – Member Working Group – Lisa Powell ext 2751

10.00 am Police Authority – Standards Committee, Police HQ Stafford – Alyson Holmes 01785 232241

11.00 am CANCELLED – Meir Councillors Briefing, Meir Community Centre – Sharon Rushton ext 5533

11.30 am Meir Investment Meeting with Councillor, Meir Community Centre – Sharon Rushton ext 5533

2.00 pm Elected Members Training – Information Governance/Data Protection – Lisa Powell ext 2751

2.15 pm Fire Authority Meeting – Scrutiny and Performance Committee, Pirehill – Kay Johnson 01785 898670

5.00 pm Corporate Consultation Group – Angela Gardner ext 2611

Wednesday, 14th July, 2010

10.00 am Development Management Committee (Policy) – Sharon Simpson ext 2106

CANCELLED – Public Cabinet – Suzanne Hackley ext 2622

Thursday, 15th July, 2010

10.00 am Members Briefings – HRA Reform and the Implications for Affordable Housing – Lisa Powell ext 2751

1.30 pm CANCELLED – Administration and Appeals Committee – Angela Gardner ext 2611

2.00 pm AIT Meeting Stoke/Trent Vale/Hartshill/Penkhull/Fenton, Civic Centre Room C303 – Nataliya Turnbull ext 7801

2.00 pm AIT Meeting Burslem South and Northwood & Birches Head, Port Vale Childrens Centre – Gloria Dix ext 5106

2.00 pm AIT Meeting Tunstall/Burslem North, Burslem Fire Station – Sue Hill ext 7551

Friday, 16th July, 2010

10.00 am Mitchell Memorial Youth Centre Committee – Angela Gardner ext 2611

10.00 am Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Suzanne Hackley ext 2622

10.00 am Police Authority – Planning and Performance Review Joint Panel, Police HQ, Stafford – Alyson Holmes 01785 232241

10.30 am Fire Authority Meeting – Equality and Diversity Panel, Pirehill – Kay Johnson 01785 898670

2.00 pm Member Learning and Development Session – Climate Change – Lisa Powell ext 2751

The District Auditor’s Report on the sale of the Britannia Stadium reveals, under independent scrutiny, why Elected Mayor’s are an attack on openess, transparency and our hard fought British democracy.

Even more shocking is the contempt with which officers, paid to serve in the public interest by the public purse, show to elected members and the public.
Make no mistake in thinking that this is a one off report. Secrecy, deceit and hidden agendas are par for the course in Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

The new CEO has an enormous task in an organisation in which top heavy management is rotten to its absolute core, and colludes with equally rotten senior politicians, to cover their own arses, and pick up their salaries in shame. Many of them not even prepared to commit more tyhan a part time role but still picking up £20000-30000.

The governance commission tried to lay the chaos at the door of politics and the councillors. Yet the real source of the problems lie at a more fundamental level.

A culture driven by mistrust and now a cabinet determined to squash any debate or scrutiny, aided by an officer core scrambling to save its own skin.

Fortunately they will fail as a growing team presses them at every opportunity – the likes of PitsnPots, D4S and dedicated councillors. I urge anyone and everyone to use FOI and questions to the council meetings and help to free and restore democracy, scrutiny and honesty.

Reports in today’s media describe the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, Denver Tolley rebuking Councillors for their behaviour at the Full Council held on 24 June 2010.

This was a meeting that was supposed to be broadcast live on the web – a promise made by the Executive of the Council. As usual, empty promises.

If it had been broadcast, the public would have been angry for an entirely different reason.

The ruling coalition tried to railroad through the agenda and stop councillors asking any questions on any of the reports – aided by the Lord Mayor, by moving reports “en block” instead of going through each one.

This was only stopped by some very irate councillors who had a number of questions to put the Cabinet and Council under scrutiny.

The leader of the council refused to answer questions put to him, including a question from Cllr Barnes, asking him what he had been up to in the last six weeks.

We understand Cllr Pervez and Cllr Reynolds are now under investigation from the Standards Board for allegedly misleading the council.

When the meeting ended the public and press were thrown out, and the CEO started to challenge the councillors on the conduct of the meeting, appearing to want the meeting to be a showcase of what the council is doing right.

Cllr Barnes and Cllr Joynson left in disgust, as it appeared that the CEO, Lord Mayor and the Cabinet wanted to quash any scrutiny or questions in future.

Mike Barnes said, “As councillor I believe it is my duty to ask questions, hold the executive to account and make sure the right decision are made. So if they think Thursday was bad – it just a taste of what’s to come.

It’s a shame they couldn’t broadcast it again so people can really see what they have elected and what they really do!”

Preamble.

1.        Our two previous submissions (13//9/09 and 10/1/10) made reference to our history as a pressure group and we would ask that these remarks be taken to also apply to this present submission.

2.        As previously pointed out, as a city-wide organisation we will not comment on specific or individual points except as examples to support general points.

3.   Our first submission made the case for a much larger number of councillors than your proposals provide for. We are adamant that our case has not been adequately addressed and will offer further evidence in support of it.

4. We will comment on other changes which have been made as a result of other reviews and ask whether these should be considered significant in relation to the proposals for Stoke-on-Trent.

5. Lastly, since events have overtaken this review in several very significant ways, we will refer to the ‘programme for government’ published last month by the Con/LibDem Coalition now in Government. This makes no less than 28 commitments in chapter four (Communities and Local Government), several of which seem to be on a collision course with the draft recommendations.

Number of Councillors.

6. There is a feeling locally that the figure of 44 councillors is the minimum number of elected representatives who can deal with issues originating from their electors. If that was the only function of councillors the number may be justified but there are many other aspects of the work to consider.

7. Comparisons with other local authorities are almost always spurious, since   they do not compare like with like. The table of responsibilities published last year by Hemming Information Service ( www.LocalGov.co.uk ) lists 16 functions and the 8 different types of local authority in the UK which perform them. For instance County Councils are responsible for 9 (Education, Strategic Planning, Transport Planning, Passenger Transport, Highways, Fire, Social Services, Libraries and Waste Disposal) and their ‘shire districts’ the other 7 (Housing, Local Plans, Leisure, Waste Collection, Environmental Health, Collection of Revenues and Electoral Administration). Unitary authorities are responsible for all 16 – even London and the ‘mets’ get away with 15 and in Northern Ireland councils only have four functions.

8. Following the 2008 referendum Stoke-on-Trent has a Leader and Cabinet and a series of scrutiny committees. This arrangement is deeply flawed and the various portfolio holders cannot hope to be on top of their briefs. This has resulted in several recent examples of its failure and many of us who pressed for an ‘enhanced committee’ system have seen in the promise of the new Govt an opportunity for further change.

9. Several previous submissions argued for considerably more than the 44 which has been recommended, Rob Flello MP being one who feels that the work is of an order which justifies about 80 and all the present councillors – without exception – feel there should be considerably more than the 44 proposed.

Single-member wards.

10. This issue has no clear majority in favour, although a considerable number like the idea of a smaller ward where a singleton councillor would be more identifiable to her/his electors. Against that there are many examples in other authorities where ‘rogue’ councillors, once elected, go to live abroad, making a trip back twice a year just to qualify for their allowances. Disgraceful as this may be it is quite legal and ‘within the rules’ – although morally reprehensible. The only safeguard would appear to be a ‘power of recall’ to enable a person to be removed from office, and this has been hinted at by all the major parties. Perhaps this could be recognised in the draft proposals and a rider added to cover this particular drawback.

11.      A further complication could arise if it was felt that central government wished to be consistent with its approach to PR and base English authorities on the same STV system as applies to those in Scotland. This would mean that single- member wards would be out, since STV needs multi-member divisions to be achievable. This is yet another issue which will not be resolved until central government makes clear its intentions, and D4S will be mounting a vigorous campaign to demand answers from the DCLG and its new masters.

12.   The mix of single- and multi-member wards had been met with much hostility and a clear preference for a uniform system throughout the City expressed. At the Appeals and Admin Committee on 9/6/10 a proposal for 44 single member wards was agreed and the Special Council meeting on 10/6/10 was also in favour – carrying the motion by 25 votes to 6. (That only 31 out of a council of 60 attended this meeting was regarded as disgraceful by several in the public gallery who only a month previously had voted in a new Council.)

13. There have been many suggested changes regarding the names proposed for the new wards which reflects local associations and these should be respected wherever possible.

‘Partnership Government’

14. As indicated above, the Con/LibDem coalition has published a ‘programme for government’ which has 31 chapters covering issues from Banking to Universities and a forword by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. In  this they claim that it is an ‘historic document’ with a central tenet of redistributing power away from Westminster and Whitehall to a much more local base. This clearly cannot be done without a major restructuring of the bodies who will be asked to exercise those powers.

15.  The 28 promises made in chapter four (Communities and Local Government) relate to many of the functions presently carried out by councils. They say that they will  create directly-elected mayors in the 12 largest cities in England, but these will be subject to ‘confirmatory referendums and the full scrutiny by elected councillors’.  They have promised to ‘stop the restructuring of councils in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon’ among other measures which will place a much heavier burden on local bodies to exercise those powers which are at the moment in the remit of unelected regional bodies. All these promises will need to be thoroughly analysed before they can be honoured, and the agreement of citizens sought before they are put in place. This, almost inevitably, means that reviews that are currently ‘in train’ may need to be either abandoned or taken ‘back to the drawing board’ if they are to be consistent with the reforms promised by the new Government.

Summary.

16. Given the profound implications of the Government’s programme it may seem well-advised to clarify just how they intend to implement this and whether it will impact on reviews such as this one currently in train.

17.    In the meantime our organisation will continue to press for more democratic outcomes to the various issues which arise. This will almost inevitably call on the exercise of greater political literacy than is currently demonstrated by the average citizen and programmes to achieve this should be pursued.

Mick Williams,

Convenor, D4S.

The newly appointed Cabinet have already decided to extend (not) public scrutiny on there decision making. by cutting the number of meetings of the Cabinet by a quarter, and will be held in the evenings at 6pm so that this part time crew don’t have to have any time off work.

No matter what you think about the previous leaders of Stoke-on-Trent Council – all of them that I can remember have given the Leadership position their fulltime attention, and sacrificed their own careers and often been financially poorer for their commitment to high public office.

So credit to Ross Irving, Mark Meredith, Mike Wolfe and Geoff Davies – you might have been crap – but you were fulltime crap.

Where does that leave this lot? Well the new Leader doesn’t appear to be setting a good example to his appointments. A City like Stoke deserves a little more respect than a part time Leader – (although, to be fair, half a Pervez is worth 10 Merediths).

On a more serious note – within days of the election there is a big push by this new coalition to crush the little amount of scrutiny left in the council by slashing the number of Scrutiny Committees to two, yes two! But just the keep the trough full for those snouts in the coalition that are chairing the current scrutiny committees – they want to carrying on paying them the same allowance as if they were chairs even though they wouldn’t be chairs any more at nearly £8000 each!!!!!!!

If this goes through as planned by the next full council meeting – the unaligned group will be reduced to having 1 member on each of the scrutiny committees.

Not only does Pervez want nodding dogs on the inside – he doesn’t want anyone to hold him to account on the outside.

The coalition programme affecting local government challenges the wisdom of major ward boundary or local government restructuring in the short term as their ambitious plans will directly conflict with those of the Transition Board and the Boundary Commissions devastating proposals.

Government Programme on Local Government Chapter 4:

4. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Government believes that it is time for a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to people. We will promote decentralisation and democratic engagement, and we will end the  era of top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals.

• We will promote the radical devolution of  power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a review of local government finance.

• We will rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils,including giving councils new powers to stop‘garden grabbing’.

• In the longer term, we will radically reform the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live, based on the principles set out in the Conservative Party publication Open Source Planning.

• We will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with an efficient and democratically accountable  system that provides a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects.

• We will publish and present to Parliamenta simple and consolidated national planningframework covering all forms of developmentand setting out national economic,environmental and social priorities.

• We will maintain the Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and other environmental protections, and create a new designation – similar to SSSIs – to protectgreen areas of particular importance to localcommunities.