Barnet Council - The land where everything is opaque

 I have just reviewed the minutes of the Barnet Council Cabinet meeting on the 17th June.

I asked the following question

In the paperwork, the following comments appears "The new Culture Strategy was launched as part of the ‘Art in Barnet’ campaign and a prestigious public art trail ‘Barnet Legends’ was commissioned with specialist public art agency Create London. The trail unveiled 20 commemorative artworks recognising historical figures who made an impact on the borough. 140 45 events were hosted across our libraries team as part of the UKSPF funded Creative Communities Programme. Activities included intergenerational events for ‘Grandparents Week’, green activities, a creative writing course, dance, crafts and an improvisation show for children." As the owner of Mill Hill Music Complex, London’s oldest independent music studios, which has hosted artists such as Amy Winehouse, Kate Nash, Flo and Raye, seeing all win prestigious Brit Awards, can I ask why local arts providers have not been contacted with regards to this initiative. Surely the musical history of Barnet should be properly celebrated and the contributions of these amazing artists, with strong Barnet links should have been recognised. I am also interested as to whether local artists were engaged to produce the art works. 

Dr Aashish Bansal also asked a public question. I received the following response from Barnet Council.

Further to the email below, you are welcome to attend the Cabinet meeting this evening. At the meeting, the Chair will provide a response in relation to your question. Following which, you may if you wish ask a supplementary question in respect of the response given. Further details about the meeting can be found here: https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1010&MId=11718&Ver=4

I hadn't realised but this was the first time I have asked a question of the Labour administration, elected in 2022 and the first question to Cabinet since Richard Cornelius, former Tory Leader abolished the Cabinet system over a decade ago, in an attempt to improve transparency at Barnet Council. The Tories, for all their faults, would always provide a written answer, and you could decide whether to ask a follow up question. You also had time to compose it. I was shocked to learn that if I wanted to know the answer, I had to turn up in person. I also had no time to compose a thought out response. 

When I approached the chair, I specifically requested that responses from the committee be properly minuted and recorded. I was under the impression that this was agreed. However, when I reviewed the link above, there was no mention of what the member (Councillor Anne Clarke) who responded said. 

I have long been critical of the Cabinet system in local government. It means that decisions are made behind closed doors, without proper scrutiny from councillors. It makes councillors who are not in the cabinet largely redundant (not that their allowances reflect this). When Labour were elected, I suspected that they would have a few faults and make a few mistakes, but I did not anticipate that the would make the previous Tory regime look like a model of transparency and accountability.

It is clear to me that the reason that we no longer get proper responses and what we do get are not properly minuted is because the Barnet Labour Party have no interest in public accountability. To me it reeks of contempt for the public. I am most disappointed that my fellow Barnet Bloggers have seemingly lost interest in holding the council to account. All I can say is that I will continue to do the job that has fallen on my shoulders. If we want good governance in Barnet, we need citizens who are engaged in the process. The reason Councillors of both Tory and Labour persuasions don't want engagement is because it is nice and comfy for them if we take no interest. Ten years ago, the Barnet bloggers were setting the pace in the UK in terms of public accountability. The requirement for this is stronger than ever, but no one seems interested (apart from me) in doing it. If I wasn't so bloody minded I'd give up, but sadly for our councillors, in Barnet, the land where everything is opaque, I will make the case for transparency until they listen or I can't anymore. Barnet residents deserve better, but they won't get it unless they get off their arses and put some work in. 

Nick Walkley and conflicting interests

This week I've heard some rather disturbing news. At this stage I cannot disclose the nature of this news, but it has caused me to question the way Barnet Council seems to be morphing into an organisation which is less interested in simply providing good services to local people and becoming something altogether more sinister.

Let me try and explain. The Chief Executive Officer of Barnet is Mr Nicholas Walkley. To do this job, he gets paid £200,000 + benefits. For this enormous sum of money, I happen to think Mr Walkley should be 100% focussed on making sure that the council runs properly and not have any other distractions. It is a big enough job on its own and surely he doesn't need any more cash?

Then I came across this document - http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/partnerships/lcrb/110825.pdf  - this is an organisation called the London Crime Reduction Board. In the minutes, I found this paragraph 

Nick Walkley provided an outline  of the work of the Recovery Coordination Group (RCG),  a body set-up by representatives of the boroughs affected, London Councils, the GLA, the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade.   It is  a short-life group with terms of reference to help London get back on  its feet in the wake of the disturbances.  NW chairs the Group.

As I read further, I came across this paragraph

The RCG is leading work on an impact assessment, to assess how the disorder has affected victims, businesses and communities and what is being done in each local area.  NW said that at present the majority of businesses, many of whom are sole traders, are facing financial difficulties.

The date of the meeting was the 25th August. Now there is a very interesting thing to consider. Mr Walkley talks here about local businesses suffering from "financial difficulties". Do you know what he was planning to do at the same time as he was chairing this meeting? He was planning with Brian Coleman to abolish Pay and Display in Barnet's High Streets and replace it with Pay By Phone. He was also planning huge hikes in High Street charges. I wonder if the RCG discussed this when they met and discussed how to get London back on it's feet? I wonder if the conversation went like this

Mayor of London - Boris Johnson - "Well Nick, you are the leader of the RCG, what ideas have you got to help business and get London back on it's feet financially"

Nick Walkley -  "Well Bozzer, in Barnet we are planning to abolish pay and display parking, hike up parking charges and drive all the customers away from local businesses and into large shopping centres like Brent Cross, which we want to see double in size, they have to get their customers from somewhere you know"

Now this may seem outlandish, but back in 2010 I asked an FOI question about the "One Barnet Project Board" - a board set up by Barnet Council to integrate the One Barnet project and ensure smooth liaison between various major stakeholders in Barnet. Here is the details of the FoI response.

Non-Executive Directors of Barnet Council 

a) How many Non-Executive Directors does Barnet Council have?  

None in the usual sense of the term, but the executive heads of the five principal partner bodies advise the Council's Chief Executive and senior colleagues on an informal unpaid basis.  They are referred to as Non-Executive Directors (NEDs), although they have none of the usual responsibilities associated with this function.

 b) Who are they?  
•    Tom Nathan, Commercial Director, Brent Cross Shopping Centre
•    Cameron Ward, Chief Executive, NHS Barnet
•    Stephen Knight, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Middlesex University
•    Neil Basu, Borough Police Commander
•    Marilyn Hawkins, Principal, Barnet College
c) What organisations do they represent?

See above

d) What criteria does Barnet Council use to engage these Non-Executive Directors?

They are not "engaged" but have accepted invitations to meet with the CE and senior colleagues on an informal advisory basis, the only criterion being their posts as heads of the five principle partner bodies listed above.

e) How often do they meet?

Monthly

f)  What is the name of the Council Committee(s) in which they assemble? 

The CE of NHS Barnet attends Cabinet meetings in an advisory capacity.

g) How much are they paid to fulfil this Non-Executive Director role? 

Nothing 

 
h) What influence do they have on Council Policy? 

The Council has a role of civic leadership amongst the above partner organisations.  The NEDs informally advise the CE and his senior colleagues in fulfilling this role. 

i) How long has Barnet Council had Non-Executive Directors? 

Since 2006 

j) Do these non -executive Directors represent Barnet Council in any capacity on Committees outside the Borough? 

No 

k) Which Council Officer appoints them in their role as Non-Executive Directors? 

No appointment is made - they are invited to take part in this advisory process by the Chief Executive. 

l) What is their period of Office as a Non-Executive Director and how do they cease to
become a Non-Executive Director? 

The arrangement is purely informal.  No period of office is stipulated.  Their  position as NEDs is consequent on their appointment as heads of their respective organisations.

As you can see, the board contains the chief of police and the managing director of Brent Cross. They meet informally and so no minutes are taken. Who was the only private sector representative. Not someone from small business or a representative of small traders. No, it was the MD of Brent Cross. Now I've attended a presentation by Tom Nathan and he is a superb speaker. One has to say that in his role on the board, is he likely to favour measures which benefit his business or local traders?

Now this is bad enough, but lets consider another role of Mr Walkley. He is the returning officer at local elections in Barnet. It is his role to oversee elections and make sure they are conducted legally. His job is to resolve any breaches of election law and make sure they are dealt with appropriately. Let me give you a recent example. At the Brunswick Park by-election, the Conservatives put out a leaflet which made claims about car parking charges which technically breached election law. It is Mr Walkley's duty to investigate these and ensure that the Police do their job in prosecuting anybody seriously breaching the law. It is not unknown for private individuals, with an axe to grind to breach these laws on a local level. If someone has a beef with a local councillor or GLA rep, they may do something which breaches such laws, by putting up posters which contain minor breaches. Mr Walkley has to decide whether these should be acted upon. In most cases, a simple call explaining the law and a request to stop suffices. After all we live in a democracy and we don't want to persecute citizens, do we?

So consider this. Take the Brunswick Park leaflet. This was out by a professional political party, who should know the law. The election agent should have training in what should and shouldn't be put up. Mr Walkley, who is CEO on £200,000 is also returning officer and gets paid a few grand for this job as well. He does however report to the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius, who is leader of the Conservative Party group. If Mr Walkley chooses to prosecute the election agent of the Conservatives for the leaflet, how will this go down with his Conservative boss? Is this a conflict of interest?

Then lets consider the other side of the coin. We have the One Barnet project board, that meets with members of the Council, Police and Brent Cross. There are no minutes so we don't know what is discussed. At present Barnet is awash with protests about car parking charges. There isn't a single representative who has the local traders interests on the board, quite the opposite.

We theoretically could have a situation where Mr Walkley has found himself embarrassed by the parking protests, which reflect badly on him and his organisation. We have Brent Cross, which stand to financially benefit from the movement of trade from High Streets to the large shopping complex. All very cosy. We also have the Chief of Police sitting in on these convesations. Now I know Neil Basu and Neil Seabridge, who are the last two chiefs of police. I have no doubt that these two gentlemen are completely above board and would not be party to any underhand dealings. I do however have concerns about a structure that allows for the potential of conversations which may be prejudicial to certain groups and individuals withing Barnet.

Just suppose, for instance that a group opposing the parking changes found themselves on the wrong side of the law? How could anyone have any confidence whatsoever that the process hadn't been compromised by all of these conflicts of interest. We rely totally on the honest and integrity of the particular individuals to ensure that everything is above board. There are absolutely no checks and balances and no democratic accountability for this process. All of the people listed above are listed by the Council as "One Barnet Stakeholders". Someone such as me, who opposes One Barnet finds themselves not only in opposition to the policies of the Conservative administration, but up against the Police, the NHS, Middlesex University and Brent Cross shopping Centre.

Do you find this all a bit disturbing? I most certainly do. Barnet Council and Nick Walkley seem to have no concept of what a conflict of interest is. They have no concept of democratic accountability and transparency. That is why there are are no minutes for this meeting and we have no idea what they get up to.

The more power that gets concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few, the more potential there is for abuse. How much of this is a real threat and how much of this is just potentially a threat? Sadly you only find that out that the process has actually been compromised when people who oppose projects like One Barnet start finding themselves on the end of police investigations for the most trivial of matters. Whilst we all hope that no such thing could happen in Barnet, shouldn't we insist that the structures and separation of responsibilities are in place to ensure that such things are impossible.

Mike Freer MP - Poster boy for Tories against Transparency

Only one thing to say. Does Mike Freer MP (Finchley and Golders Green) realise that he sounds like a complete dickhead? Is he aware of Conservative policies on transparency -  From Hansard.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/248/

--- Here is the interesting bit ---

Clive Efford:

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Freer:

I have already given way twice.

There are clearly good reasons why the details of such threats should not be open to public scrutiny. Some might argue that their publication too is in the public or national interest, but we are not hearing that argument today; we are hearing only about this register, and not about the others. The Opposition’s stance is strong on opportunism and weak on intellectual coherence. Let us look at their record in government. In 2009, when the shadow Health Secretary was Health Secretary, he refused a freedom of information request for publication of the Department’s strategic risk register. According to the Department, “'a public authority is exempt from releasing information, which is or would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchanges of views for the purpose of deliberation'”. There was also reference to the neutering of the free exchange of opinions between Ministers and advisers. That held then, and it holds now.

There is another issue, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the Department of Health is forced to issue all risk registers, what about other Departments? Will the Treasury have to release all risk registers involving the economy? Would that not cause financial havoc in the international markets? That explains why past Administrations have also refused to publish such documents. From a governance perspective, the Government’s stance is entirely right.

One of the problems of risk registers is that they are meant to be frank about what could go wrong. Any Member who has served on a project board will know how valuable such registers can be and how invaluable completely blank ones can be, and will also know that if the authors of risk registers are afraid to be open because of what might be misinterpreted, routine publication will cause them to become bland and anodyne and will render them useless.

The motion is simply posturing at its worst, and I will be voting “No” this evening.

Eric Pickles Special : Thank you for listening to the Barnet Eye about transparent local Goverment

I wrote an open letter to Eric Pickles MP, the local Government Minister on Tuesday the 8th May. You can read it here  :-


http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-secretary-of-state-eric.html

The final paragraph stated :-

The problems in Barnet could have been avoided by proper financial management and sound husbandry of taxpayers money, Transparency as implemented by Windsor and Maidenhead would go a long way to preventing Councils such as Barnet playing fast and loose with Taxpayers money. Whilst I agree with the concept of localism, it cannot possibly work if councils shroud themselves in secrecy. As such I urge you to use your powers to agree to meet Barnet Councils defecit, on condition that they appoint a new cabinet made up of people who actually know what they are doing. I would also insist on a fully open and transparent policy of management to be enacted to ensure that "difficult problems" cannot by hidden in the books in future.

It seems like Eric Pickles has got the message. There is a BBC report today which Pickles states the following

He said: "Fifty years ago, Margaret Thatcher changed the law to make councils open their meetings to the press and public. This principle of openness needs to be updated for the 21st Century. More and more local news comes from bloggers or citizen journalists telling us what is happening at their local council."Many councils are internet-savvy and stream meetings online, but some don't seem to have caught up with the times and are refusing to let bloggers or hyper-local news sites in." He added: "Opening the door  to new media costs nothing and will help improve public scrutiny." 

 It is nice when people actually listen to sensible advice. Pickles is right. People like me write blogs because we see that things could be improved. Most of us have things we'd rather do with our time, but are not prepared to see the Council, waste our cash, trash our services and treat us with disdain. Since the inception of the blog, I've bumped into many readers. After chatting for a while, I often hear the same thing "Until I started reading your blog I hadn't got a clue what the Council were up to". Here's a confession, neither had I. The sad thing is that in many ways, I still haven't.

Let me give you one small example of how bad things are. Have a look at this document on the Barnet Council website. It is a report for the One Barnet Overview an Scrutiny panel. There are many things which are amiss with the project, but have been "airbrushed" to look good. It's only when you get to page 24 and look at this table, you see how badly wrong it its going. Here is the income and expenditure table :-

Look at expenditure commitments - Forecast £983,000 - revised forecast £2,087.850 - in other words over 100% and over £1 million pounds over budget. Program management office. Forecast £148,280 - revised forecast £367,147 - nearly 150% over budget and well over £200,000 over budget. And how is it being financed?  From the contingency. The "LAA reward grant" (whatever that was) has disappeared, so it is yet more debt.

Future Shape has been running for three years and delivered no savings so far and cost millions. It is well over budget, as demonstrated here. What is the next milestone? (Bottom of page 23) - "Project plan with system build milestones to be finalised" - Yup, all this cash squandered, with no plan and no milestones. This is why it is so over budget.

This is why the Barnet Eye wrote to Eric Pickles. This is why Eric Pickles is right to urge openness and public scrutiny. This is your money they are wasting. The cash wasted on this could have kept several childrens centres open. It could have reduced your taxes. It could have saved the libraries of Barnet. Sadly your cash has just been squandered on waste of money consultants reports, with costs spiralling ever out of control.

That is why Barnet is having to make cuts. That is why we need to stop this blatent waste of our cash