Barnet Council - Getting it wrong on Parking

What on earth is up with Barnet Council? Why can't they just admit they got it completely wrong and sort it out? I am referring to the issues surrounding the enormous stealth taxes which the parking revenues have become. Earlier this month, Brian Coleman lost his seat at the GLA as a direct response of his hugely unpopular policies. Recognising that these policies and Colemans unpopularity could cost them the council, Barnet Tories moved swiftly to sack him from the cabinet and replace him with Dean Cohen who reportedly comes from the sensible wing of the Barnet Tory party.

Cohen has moved quickly to announce a review, scrapping parking charges in some of the Boroughs car parks and promising a look at how the effects of other charges can be mitigated. Sadly none of the measures Dean Cohen has proposed address the three issues which have got Barnet traders and residents hot under the collar. The first of these is the abolition of pay and display machines on the High Streets. The second is the huge hike in parking charges and the third is the huge hike in charges for CPZ permits.

Sadly for everyone failing to address these issues shows that at a basic level, they just don't get it. Abolishing charges at a few council car parks does not address the issue that shops get no passing trade, because motorists who haven't registered, don't have time or the inclination to go through the process if they just want to buy a paper or a packet of cigarettes. It doesn't address the fact that a motorist, even if they have registered, will not pay £2 to park for an hour, whilst they have a cup of tea costing £1.30 at a High Street Cafe. Worst of all, it doesn't address the huge cost of visitors vouchers for people living in CPZ areas. These have gone up from 35p to £4 in ten years. If they had followed the rate of inflation for the same period they would be less than 50p. We have had ten years of Conservative rule in Barnet. They promised us that they would "make the council more effiecient". If this is the case, why does it now cost us more than ten times what it did before, when we visit friends who live in CPZ areas? Surely if they had, as they claimed, made the council more efficient, then costs would have actually decreased.

Sadly though, the idea of efficiency is a myth. We are paying through the nose for fat cat bosses at Barnet.  When the Tories took over, the CEO was Leo Boland on a salary of £114,000 a year. Not a bad package you may think. When he left, he was replaced by his understudy, Nick Walkley. The council used the excuse that they needed to pay top dollar to recruit the best staff. How they can justify a salary of £200,000 a year to attract Walkley who already worked for them, I just don't know.

It is interesting that the difference between Bolands package and Walkleys package is £86,000. Rather oddly, this is more or less exactly the difference in costs claimed by Robert Rams between the running costs of the newly opened Arts Depot mini library and the recently closed Friern Barnet library. It seems that the library has had to be shut to pay for Walkleys pay hike.

The real reason that all of these charges have been raised and the librarys have been shut is because the council wants to freeze council tax and pay hefty wages to top executives. They have also hiked many of the allowances for councillors.

The Barnet Bloggers suggested that senior executives on over £100,000 per year (apparently there were 47 of them last year) and Barnet Councillors take a pay cut. Strangely enough this council, which claims a commitment to driving down costs, hasn't even replied to these suggestions. Why could that be?

Barnet Council Future Shape - A conflict of interest?

BT invited Barnet Council Leader Mike Freer and CEO Leo Boland to participate in the Vital Vision program. This program involves seminars and conferences to "nurture" interest in concepts such as outsourcing within the public sector. Participants are invited to conferences in places such as Boston and attend swanky restaurants such as Lucca restaurant in Boston (click HERE for a preview). I've detailed the full program elsewhere on the blog, but on the eve of the Future Shape discussion, I feel obliged to ask a few questions regarding the proposal and the way the report has been put together.

I am directing these questions primarily at the Cabinet of Barnet Council and am asking them to give these points due consideration in advance of the debate tomorrow (3rd December).

1. Do you think that Council Leader Mike Freer's enrollment in the BT Vital Vision program may be interpreted as a conflict of interest given that BT are a primary supplier of Outsourcing services. Could this be construed as giving BT unfair access to a senior decision maker within Barnet Council?

2. Do you think that the inclusion of Max Wide, BT Director, Strategic Development Local Government, as a contributor to the future shape report, may be construed as giving an unfair advantage to BT in the procurement process?

3. Do you think that restricting access in the process of framing the report to an elite circle, including a supplier standing to make a lot of money from the recommendations, whilst excluding established stakeholders, is likely to be seen as an open and honest way of conducting business?

4. Do you think that suppliers of particular products are more or less likely to recommend solutions provided by their employers than those of rival organisations?

5. If you were seeking advice pertaining to your own personal financial situation, would you use an independent adviser or an adviser working for a company supplying the products you wanted to buy.

Whilst only participants of the vital vision scheme will actually know the detail of the subject matter covered and whilst it is made quite clear that the scheme is not a sales related scheme, the Council has to be seen to be open and honest in its procurement policies. Whilst it is quite clear that BT do not pay travel and subsistance for participants, being a public body, the Council must be seen to be completely honest and impartial in all its dealings. The participation of Mike Freer in BT Vital Vision and the role of Max Wide in the framing of the Future Shape report raises many questions regarding the way the scheme is being implemented.

I strongly urge all Barnet Council Cabinet members to consider these points and ensure that all decisions taken with reference to "Future Shape" are done in such a manner that it is 100% clear that there is no conflict of interest in the process.

Mike Freer, Leo Boland, Outsourcing and BT

Mike Freer and Leo Boland attended a conference in America organised by the BT VitalVision program. BT paid the course fees and the Barnet taxpayer paid their fares. What was the purpose of the BT vital vision course?

Here's what their website says :-

Vital Vision brings together a unique mix of senior Government decision-makers, BT research partners, and leading academic institutions including Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford and MIT.

The goal is to explore current business thinking and how it can best be applied to Government. The process is enhanced by the quality of the participants, and the stimulating, interactive environment they create. It is designed to be 'of the participants, by the participants' and is most definitely not a sales event.

Throughout the programme, we examine the technological, social and business changes that will affect us all, and debate how best to meet the profound challenges they raise. In sharing our respective visions of the future, we identify practical ways to address present issues as well as anticipate key developments.

Click HERE for the full detail. A brochure detailing the program is available HERE.

The course was held in Boston. I am assuming the program is the one described in the brochure (or one very similar). It sounds like a fascinating course. It started with a cruise and a buffet dinner aboard the Miz T (good name, wonder if she's a relative) on Sunday afternoon from 15.00 till 20.00. Here's the rest of the program


-------------------
Monday.
Engaging the citizen
Glen Urban

Break

Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice

Lunch

Financing E Government
Jerry Melching

Advancing the Service to the Citizen
John DeFigueiredo

Dinner at Hampshire House

Tuesday
Robust & adaptive Government organisations at what risk?
Danny Ertel

Lunch

Engaging the Citizen
Dimitris Bertsimas

Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice

Break

Free Time in Boston

Dinner at Lucca Restaurant


Wednesday

Change is a Risky Dance
George Roth

Break

The Dicital Divide
ITC

Lunch
Centre for E Business
Panel discussion
Vital Vision June
Planning London Workshops

Break

Overview of MIT media labs

Theatre Visit

The Blue Man Group


Thursday

Visit to MIT Media Labs

Break

Visit to MIT media Labs

Lunch

Sharing perspective on E-Governemy
Jerry Mechling
Closure 3pm


-------------------

According to the brochure "the purpose of the (Vital Vision) programme is to foster relationships between leading Government decision-makers, our research partners and ourselves, to DEVELOP AND TEST our visions of the future. We aim to enable the shaping of policy, inform new thinking and suggest practical solutions relevant to the unique complexities of the public sector"

"Participation is by invitation only, and restricted to very senior individuals who help to shape the agenda for change. Typically this is at the CEO or equivalent level. We ask participants to commit to the programme for a minimum of one year. Participants are responsible for their own travel and subsistence - as a result the programme does not contravene government hospitality rules."

So what exactly is being developed and tested? Well since the conference, Barnet Council have started working on the Future Shape scheme. If you have followed my blog you'll know that this is all about outsourcing as much work as possible to the private sector. The philosophy of the scheme is "The council should only do it if nobody else can". I know a little bit about BT and outsourcing. I worked for the company between 1985 and 1987 within the department that ran their "facilities management arm" (now called Outsourcing). I was technical support manager on what was their flagship project. It was extremely successful at the time for BT.

I still have contacts within the organisation and the outsourcing arm of the business has grown beyond our wildest dreams in 1987. I was talking to an ex colleague not so long ago and he told me about an exciting new concept they were developing. It seems that the hardest part of selling a project to a government or local authority body is getting through the decision making chain. Typically you convince the people in middle management, then you wait 10 years for a decision to be made. My friend at BT was working on a concept whereby you sell the "idea" to the decision makers, before you propose the product and then they champion the concept. In a throwaway comment my friend said "It's pretty easy selling them (politicians) the concept, because most of them aren't very bright". All you have to do is persuade them that there is massive kudos to be had from "transforming organisations". You can also sell them lots of consultancy. The clever thing about the programme is that it isn't a sales pitch. It just makes the participants "receptive" to the ideas you are promoting. Once they have taken the worm, who do they come to? The experts - You've got it - BT. They would target CEO's etc and give them a weeks intensive brainwashing. The message would be hammered home that people proposing objections (no matter how reasonable) were obstacles to be sidelined. It seems that you define your vision and get a team of like minded individuals to push it through. The idea was to create an "evangelical cult of agents of business change" (or words to that effect, I'd had a few beers as this was explained). Reading through the links above and knowing how future shape is being implemented, does any of this sound at all familiar?

I hadn't really joined the dots on this one until a comment on another blog pointed out that one of the authors of "Future Shape" is on secondment from BT. Now is the "transformation" of the provision of Council services by outsourcing a bad thing? As I said above, I worked on a pretty successful outsourced project for BT. They were selected as the organisation that commissioned them didn't have the ability to provide the service. After 3 years when the concept was proven they "insourced" it and is still insourced today. I've no fundamental objection to outsourcing. There are many things where outsourcing is better. For example it is far cheaper to Outsource Brian Coleman's taxi service. A nice Jag and a Chauffer would cost much more than the his last £8,000 taxi bill to the GLA for no real benefit. The council insourced the provision of Video conferencing equipment at a capital cost of £91,000 (I believe from the invoices)to save £4,500 they'd spent in the previous year on hiring equipment. It may well be that there are many services that a compelling business case can be made for outsourcing. It may be that service will improve. The thing is that future shape has no case studies, no cost justifications. It is just woolly thinking conceived (I suspect) over dinner in Boston.

I can tell Mike Freer and Leo Boland exactly how they should approach outsourcing or any other management change free of charge.

a) identify a problem within your business process.
b) define the problem in easily understandable terms.
c) define the solution in easily undertandable terms
d) show the benefits of the solution in easily understandable terms.

I've read the Future Shape report through several times and none of the above have been done. If they did this they might actually arrive at something which works and which saves money. Now for all I know, BT's Vital Vision course may have played no role at all in Freer and Bolands thinking on the subject. They've not asked me over to tea to discuss it, but as I join all the dots up, it really does look to me like a term we used at BT when a manager went of on a course, then came back enthusiastically implementing madcap schemes they'd been taught. We called it "Courseitus". It usually passed after a couple of weeks of reality. It seems that there is a more serious strain now. Rather than a department, it affects a whole council and seems to last at least a couple of years - I'll call it "Conferenceitus" - I believe it can only be cured by a palace coup, a new job or an election.

Barnet Council Bosses - Fat Cats, Monkeys or DoDo's ?

Who runs Barnet Council. Well according to Mike Freer, elected Council leader, it's CEO Leo Boland. When asked how he'd have time to run for Parliament and run the council Freer at the same time he said that Leo Boland did all the work and he was just there to keep an eye on him (or words to that effect). Well as we ponder a £27.5 Million loss of council money in Icelandic banks, we may well wonder if Mike Freer should have kept a rather closer eye on council business (but that's another story).

That is not what I'm writing about here. There have been many comments about the 5 council officers on salaries of over £100,000 per year. All of these guys got themselves nice flat screen tellies for their offices, courtesy of the Taxpayer. Leo Boland leads the way in the Salary stakes on £170,000 per annum. Now to many of us this seems like rather a lot of money. I've seen many comments describing him as a Fat Cat, but is this fair? A good friend of mine runs a recruitment agency, which specialises in public sector appointments. I said "Is £170,000 for a London Borough CEO in Barnet excessive". His reply was to be rather surprised. "No, actually most of them in London are on over £200K per annum". He added that as Barnet was a nicer environment, they could probably get away with paying a bit less than somewhere like Tower Hamlets.

This got me thinking. Brian Coleman said in his column on the Barnet Press that "If you pay Peanuts you get Monkeys". Could it be that rather than the Fat Cat we all thought we had, we have a "Monkey" in the job. I found a report in on the Daily Telegraph website from 2003 stating that £200K salaries are not uncommon for the job. The same report states that Boland's salary rose that year by 22% (not a bad rise). Before the rise in 2003 he was on a meagre £114,000.

Now the justification for the big salary is that you need to pay top dollar to attract the best candidates. Like the advert for the Nationwide, the mythical rival states "You have a big juicy rate to hook em". Well surely we'd already hooked Mr Boland on the "Monkey" salary. Whilst I can see the "juicy worm" logic, surely if we follow Mr Coleman's logic, we hooked a "monkey" and then increased his salary to the Fat Cat level.

Now having proposed the theory that we may have a "monkey" in the job, it is only fair to test the theory. Have we got "Superceo" or do we have a duffer? The only fair way to judge Mr Boland is to see what has happened on his watch. He's the boss so what foreseeable banana skins did he fail to avoid.

First, there was the issue of the Sale of Underhill to BFCH. Now to be honest, I haven't followed this debacle and I don't know the ins & outs. What I do know is that over £1,000,000 of taxpayers money has been spent on auditors fees, court cases, indemnities etc. The question is, if Barnet council's executive had done their job properly could this have been avoided. The answer is Yes. That is without question. If you read any report on the matter, they all say "procedures have been tightened". You pay top dollar wages to avoid failures such as this, and proactively put your procedures in. Then there is the issue of the Tellies on officers desks. In these days of credit crunches and low pay rises for council staff, what message does this send out? You got it "I'm all right jack". That isn't quality leadership to me. There are many similar examples, but the mother of them all is the "Icelandic Bank" debacle. Unless central government (ie Gordon Brown) rides like a knight on a white horse to the rescue, Barnet's finances have been destroyed. The Tories put up the Council Tax by 40% to fix a £10 Million black hole they claimed existed, when they took over from Labour in 2002 (guess who was CEO then). This is nearly three times as bad. You'd better pray Gordon is feeling generous, because if he isn't you'll be looking back fondly on the good old days when council tax raises were merely 40%. Was it avoidable, well I've seen various evidence that shows at dozens of red flags on these investments. Barnet Council and it's top officers missed them all.

President Truman, former US president, used to have a sign on his desk saying "The Buck stops here". I will happily pay for one of these, made from the finest wood, if someone at Barnet Council tells me who to give it to. If you were to ask me whether I thought Boland and his team were "FAT CATS" or "MONKEYS" I'd say no, I think there career's at Barnet should soon be DoDo's. They have failed and we'll all foot the bill for decades, through local or central taxes.