I did say that I would keep you all informed as to who issued the instruction to Barnet Councillors about not replying to the open email I sent - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/06/barnet-council-metpro-scandal-open.html- asking them not to reply to me. I have been informed that the instruction was only issued to Tory Councillors and was issued by the new leader, Councillor Richard Cornelius. I have been told that the reason for this was because actions related to the Metpro report were being worked on and that the Leader was keen that nothing be said that would prejudice this work or disrupt it. He was keen that the people working on this focus on the job at hand and those that aren't working on it, don't speak from an uninformed viewpoint. I have been assurred that the matter is being taken seriously.
I received simple acknowledgments from two Lib Dems, without comment and no Labour Councillors. Is this satisfactory? Under normal circumstances, I'd completely understand that, but this isn't normal circumstances. The issue for me is that the people at the top of the executive, who allowed the scandal to occur are the same people investigating it. There is no independence whatsoever. However I look at it, I come back to the same place. Barnet need an independent investigation with power to recommend disciplinary action. That way all of the tongues which are rather tied and the paperwork which can't be found might appear.
Does Barnet Council have a structure to allow whistleblowers and protect them from disciplinary action? If they don't they damn well should. I'm not saying that Barnet Council should share everything with me. I do however feel that they should appoint an independent arbiter to sort the mess out, WITH POWER TO SACK ANYONE FROM THE CEO DOWN, if needs be. I think that as the bloggers of Barnet found the mess, it should be someone who we all agree is independent and acceptable. Maybe then, some faith will be restored in the process. I don't want to tell them how to do their job, just hear from them why they are the best person to do it. I'm not an expert, but I do sense that people would collectively have faith in someone who the local resident/citizens reports gave a thumbs up to. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures
I received simple acknowledgments from two Lib Dems, without comment and no Labour Councillors. Is this satisfactory? Under normal circumstances, I'd completely understand that, but this isn't normal circumstances. The issue for me is that the people at the top of the executive, who allowed the scandal to occur are the same people investigating it. There is no independence whatsoever. However I look at it, I come back to the same place. Barnet need an independent investigation with power to recommend disciplinary action. That way all of the tongues which are rather tied and the paperwork which can't be found might appear.
Does Barnet Council have a structure to allow whistleblowers and protect them from disciplinary action? If they don't they damn well should. I'm not saying that Barnet Council should share everything with me. I do however feel that they should appoint an independent arbiter to sort the mess out, WITH POWER TO SACK ANYONE FROM THE CEO DOWN, if needs be. I think that as the bloggers of Barnet found the mess, it should be someone who we all agree is independent and acceptable. Maybe then, some faith will be restored in the process. I don't want to tell them how to do their job, just hear from them why they are the best person to do it. I'm not an expert, but I do sense that people would collectively have faith in someone who the local resident/citizens reports gave a thumbs up to. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures
Faith cannot be restored in Barnet Council, its contracts, commissioning procedures and enforcement without an enquiry of this sort. As has been said, One Barnet is preparing on a far greater scale for outsourcing and the PFI showed how much more experienced the private sector was than the public at negotiating contracts. We need reassurance that the Metpro fiasco is taken seriously and that such contracts will be properly drawn, costed and scrutinised in future and this can only happen via a full enquiry as to what went wrong here.
ReplyDelete