The Barnet Future Shape Pledge Card

Barnet Council Outsourcing - The death of goodwill?

Barnet council have just paid a kings ransom to a team of highly paid beancounters to come in and tell them how to run the Council. It seems that the contributors listed on the report which the council will debate on the 3rd of December include the following :-

Richard Grice (on a secondment from a quango - IDeA)
Max Wide (on secondment from BT)
Clive Medlam, Director of Resources (The man responsible for losing £27.4 Million in Iceland)
Jeff Lustig, Director of Corporate Governance ( The man responsible for overseeing the sale of Underhill which resulted in enquiries costing £1 Million)

Does this team fill you with confidence?

The report suggests that the Council outsource everything they possibly can (apart from their own jobs rather surprisingly).

One key phrase of the report says :-

Development of proposals with potential private, public and voluntary sector partners for the re-configuration of services in the borough, including a detailed assessment of costs and potential savings, and when they would accrue

Now maybe I've misread this, but the way it seems they want the model to work is that the Public sector (e The council) provides the cash, the Private sector makes a handsome profit and the voluntary sector plugs the gaps. Now from a beancounting perspective, this is a great plan. Sack qualified council staff and get people to do the work for free (the voluntary sector).

Lets take the example of Mrs Beans aged 85(not a real person), who lives in Outsourcing Avenue. She was fit and sprightly for her age but was run over by a car hurtling down Partingdale Lane whilst walking her dog. She is now totally reliant on council services as she is severely disabled. Now at the moment Barnet council employ a care team to look after her. She's used to all of the people who she has to deal with and is happy and secure in her Council provided flat. Mr Beans is a relatively fit 87 year old who can make her a cup of tea and open the door for the care team.

Now a bloke from a quango and a bloke from BT have sat in a council office on a fat salary and decided that Mrs Beans needs a "different outcome". They've decided that what Mrs Beans really needs is a "transformed experience". Instead of the regular Council care team, they'll get carers from "Carers-R-us.com". They'll give Mr Beans the number of a nice call centre in Bangalore to ring if anything goes wrong - You know "Select option 1 for a heart attack, Option 2 for a stroke and Option 3 for a broken hip)". Nor "carers-r-us.com" are a lean mean organisation. They have a fine team of very badly paid carers, who do there best, but are constantly leaving, not turning up. The Beans family suddenly find that they haven't a clue who is supposed to be coming. All of the staff who knew Mrs Beans and understood her situation have left. Now because the situation is getting too much for poor old Mr Beans, nice Mrs Counter down the road, has started popping in. When it all goes wrong she steps in, hangs on the phone to Bangalore, tells the constantly changing new carers what they should be doing and what they should know. She doesn't get paid (voluntary sector), she's put upon, but she knows without her the Beans family would not be able to cope.

There are plenty of other Mrs Beans and Mrs Counter's all over Barnet. Because of their transformed experience what happens (in our mythical ideal world) :-

Richard Grice goes back to his quango and gets a nice fat bonus
Max Wide goes back to BT (maybe to manage the Barnet Call centre Contract in Bangalore getting a fat bonus)
Clive Medlam, has saved a pot of resources so he gets a fat bonus
Jeff Lustig, has negotiated a fine contract with BT and Carers-R-us.com, so he gets a juicy fat bonus as well.

As for Mrs Beans and Mrs Counter - well who really gives a stuff about them. If the stress kills Mrs Beans, that is yet another saving to be added to the pot ! Another value for money outcome. Does council Leader Mike Freer and councillor Lynne Hillan know or care about the vulnerable in Barnet? I suspect they have other priorities - Freer is hoping he'll be off to Westminster by the time it all goes pear shaped.

At least Mrs Counter can sleep peacefully at night knowing her efforts have helped all of the above get a big bonus. Now I believe in goodwill, helping your neighbour out and being a good citizen, but in the Brave New world of care in Barnet I think that these values may well be the very first casualties as people realise they are being taken advantage of.

I guess that they'll have to change the line from the theme tune to the well loved soap.

"
Neighbours, every body NEEDS good neighbours,
Thats when good neighbours become good unpaid dogsbodies filling the gaps in care provision left by the outsourcing of care services in Barnet".

Future shape - Role of the Council in future

For those of you following the future shape debate, here is another installment of my analysis of the report to be debated. As ever It is pasted from the Council's briefing document with my comments in BOLD ITALIC


9.3 The role of the Council in the future
9.3.1 In order maximise the value to citizens of Barnet’s public services, the Council should focus its energy on the activities where it alone can add value. It should therefore enable other organisations to do those things that they can do as well or better than the Council. Fundamentally, the Council should conduct those activities that only the Council can. This implies a number of principles on which to base the future shape of the organisation:

Only a consultant with no experience of real life could write such a load of rubbish about the functions of a Council. Let us think about the following statement "the Council should focus its energy on the activities where it alone can add value". In effect this statement says that the Council should abolish itself. There is no aspect of any Council activity which couldn't conceivably be provided by another organisation, be it Central Government, the GLA or Barnet-is-us-outsourcing.com - If we abolished elections and got recruitment consultants to pick the cabinet, who is to say they wouldn't come up with better candidates? Of course in a democracy, we don't do that, but surely that is the logical conclusion of this statement. Ridiculous as that may sound, with the future shape, in effect this is what we'll have as the people responsible for running the day to day council function will be working for private companies (SPV's as Barnet likes to call them). I have no idea what Councillors will actually do in the new order.


1. The democratic legitimacy of councillors places on the Council the responsibility for establishing a new contract with citizens that jointly defines our ambitions and shares responsibility for achieving them.

So if there is going to be a new contract, do we the citizens get to sign it? That is required in law for a legal contract. Will Future shape be opened up to a referendum. If it isn't, then "establishing a new contract with citizens " is a meaningless platitude, designed to disguise the truth of this proposal. Will we, the citizens, get proper, sound legal advice before we sign up to this new contract. If a contract is not fair and reasonable in law it is null and void. I hope Barnet have a few pounds in the budget for this legal challenge.

2. The future Council should be strategic rather than operational, focused on convening and working with its partners to prioritise and commission the public services that should be provided in the borough, rather than delivering services itself.



Yet again, this statement has the hallmark of a wet behind the ears, freshly scrubbed Consultant, sitting in his bath, planning to take over the world. We elect ward councillors and we expect them to sort out issues when the council fails to deliver. They our our local representatives. Let's imagine that a tree owned by the Council falls on my house and I can't get out of the door. What will happen in the future shape world. I will ring the Barnet Council Call Centre in Bangalore, after waiting for 30 minutes in a queue, having selected problems with trees. I will be kept waiting for an age as it has been windy and there are lots of trees down, eventually they will take my name and address. They will inform me that the problem will be logged and someone will call me back within 24 hours, which is the service Level agreement for dealing with priority 1 tree issues. I will then ring my local Councillor John Hart and tell him that I am stuck in my house and I want him to get the Council to sort it out. He will inform me that at the next Council meeting he'll discuss the priority of my problem and the cabinet will devise a strategy for getting me out. The actual situation happened to my family in 1975 and the Council sent around a team of tree surgeons. We were out of the house within 1 1/2 hours.

3. The Council must remain democratically accountable for outcomes and for all of the services it funds to achieve those outcomes.

I can't argue with this aspiration. I'm not sure how they can achieve it if a company has a contract to provide the service. If there will be a watertight clause that the council can instantly terminate any contract where the democratically elected Council decides for any reason (eg change of party in charge, Palace Coup to elect a new leader who is more sensible) to stop the contract, I really can't see a firm signing up.

4. The Council should be responsible for making policy, setting priorities, annual budget and Council Tax, and working with its partners to commission for outcomes for citizens.

So amazingly, several thousand years after the Greeks first invented the idea, a Consultant working for Barnet agree's that democratic control is a good idea for the council. I am interested that they use the term "should be". Has the democratically elected council accepted responsibility for losinjg £27.4 Million in Iceland? I am disturbed that the "partners" have equal say in the "commision for outcomes". That sounds to me like "off you go and write your own contract".


5. Senior officers in the Council should be the ‘senior officers of the whole borough’ working across current organisational boundaries, leading
programmes of work relating to key problems and challenges rather than service departments.


This seems to be saying that there will not actually be senior officers responsible for making sure departments work properly. I guess this means that if, for example, the Finance Department screw up and lose £27.4 Million pounds gambling on dodgy investments, then there will be no one responsible within that department. Mind you we'll have a senior officer allocated to deal with the key problem.

6. The Council must ensure that local public services provide value for money.

You may think that on the face of it, this statement sounds hard to argue with. Mind you, how would you assess whether a department has delivered "value for money". Lets take the case of baby P in Haringey. Did Social Services there deliver "value for money". Would we expect social services to say "Well we could intervene, but would it deliver value for money?" These type of statements are all very well, but how can you possibly assess what represents "value for money" in such a case. Had baby P been taken into care, then that would have placed an ongoing cost on the social services department. Leaving him with the Parents was far cheaper. Departments such as Social Services and Education have tough decisions to take every single day. How can these be assessed as being value for money, many services will never be "value for money", they are done because they have to be done. You give them the appropriate level of funding necessary to do the job.

Prejudice, Brian Coleman and the BNP

I've lived in Mill Hill virtually all my life. I know all sorts of people from all walks of life and I do my best to try and get on with just about everyone. I have very strong views about quite a few things. One thing I have a big problem with is prejudice of any sort. If you look at the word, it is derived from an abbreviation of Prejudging. Prejudging means that you think you can anticipate the actions of someone. If I was to set up a tent in Mill Hill Broadway and tell you that I was able to anticipate your actions, you'd probably think I was a nutcase. You would probably be right to think so. If I had that ability, I'd be living in Burmuda with my winnings on the horses. Prejudice means that you believe that someone is likely to behave in a certain manner, without any actual evidence they will. In it's mildest form it goes along the lines of "red haired people are hot headed". In a more extreme form, you get racial prejudice. This in effect means that someone is deemed to be a lesser person because of skin colouration.

If you do a DNA test of just about anyone in the UK, you'll find strains of all sorts of races. There is one you are rather unlikely to find - that of the Pict's - the earliest dwellers of these Islands. We've had the Celts, the Romans, The Vikings, the Normans, etc, etc. All of these have left their mark on the country. None of them are indigenous. One thing you can be sure of, is that there are no political parties demanding that Great Britain be returned to the Picts (or the Celts, Normans or Romans). The BNP would like us to favour "The British" in law. Presumably at some arbitary point, a stake is nailed in the ground and that is the point where you become British.

Their assertion is that other races have nothing to offer us. A quick walk around London reveals some fine buildings. I have an interest in Victiorian Architecture. Buildings built when Great Britain ruled the world are amongst the finest in the world. Engineering feats such as St Pancras Station and Tower Bridge are fine examples of our creativeness, intelligence and technical prowess as a race. My point is that these fine buildings and the wealth of the Victorian era were based on "The British Empire". It wasn't just us. It was Africa, India, America and Asia. All contributed to our financial power. In the second world war there were armies from all over the Commonwealth fighting. Millions of men under the Union flag. These armies played a major part in the final victory.

Now what parties of prejudice say is that we are not grateful for these sacrifices. They say we've taken the wealth from the Empire to build up our country, we've taken the blood sacrifice of Commonwealth soldiers and now we want to slam the door in their face. The nurses, the bus drivers, the road sweepers, the doctors, the home helps, the hospital cleaners - they are deemed to be somehow inferior, their contribution devalued, their hard work, often for low pay, unappreciated.

When you put it like that, the message of racial prejudice is not really very appealing is it? As the British are a fair minded people, we don't really want to have anything to do with such a message. The BNP have recognised this fact and tried to find other ways to package their message. They are looking for some attractive wrapping paper for their views. Some sugar to hide the nasty taste. It seems that one message they have decided might work rather well is to draw attention to how tawdry, grasping and corrupt the mainstream parties are.

In a recent post, I drew attention to our very own Barnet Councillor, Brian Coleman and his rather excessive list of free lunches (often at fund raising events). His massive, taxpayer funded Taxi bill, has also been the subject of many lines of press. Well it seems that Brian Coleman isn't the only person who has benefitted from the hospitality and the free rides, he's received. I got an email asking me if I'd checked how many free dinners the GLA's only BNP member had. Any guesses? Well he's not declared a single thing. Now my first reaction was "Billy no mates" (or should that be "Dicky no mates"). I suspect few organisations or charities wish to be associated with Barnbrook or the BNP (of course the BNP draw a totally different conclusion). What the email told me is that Brian Coleman's largess is actually being used by the BNP. He is being used as an example of how "corrupt" the system is. The following is a quote from a BNP website about Coleman. This is just one of many :-

Speaking to a reporter for the London Evening Standard, BNP assembly member Richard Barnbrook, who also sits on the audit panel, said that Mr Coleman’s expense account “paints the assembly in a bad light” “We can’t have members being brought into disrepute, with papers making statements about the abuse of council tax money.”.

So there you go. Now the question has to be "Would the BNP comment on Colemans expenses unless they thought it would help them?" Of course they wouldn't. There are no stories about Andrew Dismore helping working class families on the Grahame Park Estate, they only post "useful" stories.

The mere fact that Coleman's taxi expenses are more than the rest of the GLA put together, shows that he is the exception, but he is causing major damage to the reputation of his colleagues. The problem is that there is no justification for his behaviour. His colleagues really must recognise this fact and address it, by refusing to do so they are condoning it and ultimately helping the BNP get their message across. Do his colleagues really want to hand parties of hate open goals? The sad truth is that Brian Coleman and his outrageous behaviour has become a propoganda tool for the BNP.

I run a recording studio. We have an old adage that "you can't polish a turd" - It doesn't stop certain people from trying very hard to prove the adage wrong - it seems that Coleman's expenses are applying the polish.

Coleman must go for the good of all London.

Future shape of the council - Update

The above diagram is taken from the BarnetCouncil cabinet briefing paper, due to be debated on 3rd December. This is available HERE to download the full document.

What the big oval saying "Joint Venture" means is that these services are no longer under direct control of the council and there is no democratic accountability. A contract will be signed and that is that. Barnet Homes is run along these lines and we've all seen the stories about what happened there.

To help understand what this means, I've pasted a description of how this will work, from the document with a few comments of my own (Italic Bold)

9.6 Proposals for a model of service delivery: A Special Purpose Vehicle and the reconfiguration of services

9.6.1 To build capacity to work with delivery partners and to free up the Council to focus on strategic activity, it is proposed that we explore the feasibility of developing a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to help us to do this. The SPV could be a joint venture (JV), between Barnet Council and one or more private, public or voluntary sector partners. A JV is proposed because it creates a means through which the Council could attract expertise and innovation from other sectors, as well as one in which it has a major stake.

Barnet Council say that they can't attract "expertise and innovation" from other sectors? What on earth does this mean - do they want Louis Hamilton to drive a dustcart? Surely they should be concentrating on running the basic services properly. If there is a specific problem which needs addressing, then deal with it. I am intrigued by the idea of outsourcing "citizen access". Does this mean that if you need to query why your bin hasn't been emptied, you'll ring a continent on the other side of the world? My wife once tried to book a train ticket from London to Sheffield using the Midland Mainline call centre and was asked "What is a Sheffield?".



9.6.2 This SPV would take the outcomes defined by the Council and its partners and develop them into programmes for implementation. The SPV would have the capacity and expertise to change the way public services are currently configured in the borough and to re-order them to achieve the aims of the Council and its partners. It could attract expertise from the private, public and voluntary sectors and work closely with markets to test and develop models of service delivery. It would not deliver services itself but would be responsible for managing the alliances procured. In time it would be able to sell its services to other public sector agencies and thus a JV would provide potential for future income generation for the Council.


"test and develop models of service delivery"? I saw what happened when they tested and developed an outsourced meals on wheels service for my mum. Late or no delivery at all, Cold food, poor nutritional value. They are talking about providing vital services for vulnerable people, not launching a new brand of lipstick. In effect it is saying the council hires the SPV and then the SPV hires someone else to do the work. How on earth can it be efficient to have an extra layer of bureaucracy and an extra layer of contracts? I should imagine that the lawyers will be rubbing their hands.



9.6.3 Services might be combined and provided differently in order to achieve priority outcomes. For example, in many cases, public services might be better configured around critical challenges or processes rather than within traditional service boundaries. So instead of the Council, the PCT, and Jobcentre Plus all having customer access functions, there could be a single public service access organisation. Equally, in order to encourage citizen self-reliance and drive service improvement from citizens’ perspectives, the JV could procure a self-help and citizen advocacy service for the borough. Elements of adults and children’s social services and housing could be combined to create an organisation whose role is to build the resilience and support the independence of vulnerable people.


This is truly bizarre. Combining the PCT (ie healthcare) with the Jobcentre? So you go to the Doctor if you are unemployed? As to supporting the independence of vulnerable people. We have seen many cases of seriously mentally ill people falling off the radar due to care in the community. How on earth do you support the independence of a six year old child in care. Send them up the Chimney?

9.6.4 These are examples of a possible future shape of public service in Barnet (see figure 2 below for a more comprehensive picture). In order to further develop the model and its potential costs and benefits, it is proposed that the feasibility of reconfiguring services along these lines should also be investigated as part of the next phase of the programme, alongside exploring the feasibility of a SPV.

This really makes me sick. In effect this is PwC (or whoever drew this bit of the report up) recommending that they do more work for the council, drawing up more of these reports, written in meaningless jargon. How much per day do these consultants cost? All I see is very woolly examples of completely mad concepts being described. Is there no one in the Cabinet of Barnet Council with the guts to say "This is rubbish"? I've worked with consultants in the past and the one thing you can guarantee is that they always recommend is more reports and more expense. What we need is less layers of management, less layers of contracts and more people on the ground doing the work. Any scheme which introduces yet another layer of highly paid people in the middle of the decision chain is wasteful and expensive. I've been a director of various companies for many years now. I'm a member of the Federation of Small Businesses. I know how to achieve cost savings and efficiency and introducing the need for more middle managers, more lawyers and more accountants is not the way. Surely there are some competant businessmen in the Barnet Conservative Party who can have a quiet word in Mike Freer's ear?

Told off by a Tip Top Tory

It seems that my blog is reaching parts other blogs cannot reach. I got an email from an extremely senior and nationally well known member of the Conservative Party asking me to ring for a chat. He'd read my "open letter to Mike Freer" blog and been rather interested by it. He felt that I'd made my point well and that "it is a shame that there appears to be a lack of transparency" in the whole future shape discussion. He suggested that I remind the leadership of the council about what the Conservative Party should stand for.

* Open, Honest and Transparent Governance
* Pragmatic decision making
* Making Town Halls more accountable to Local people
* Restoring public trust in politics

The Conservative Party website (click HERE) says what the party stands for. If you compare and contrast this with the Tories plans for regeneration and Future shape, it is clear that they are not following Party Policy.

On the subject of Democracy, the Tories say "We need radical change to restore public trust in politics and increase public engagement in the decision-making process." (Click HERE to see their full views on Democracy).

I'd suggest that "Future Shape" discussions would be a good place to start this radical change. I wondered why a senior Tory would bother to contact me. Rather interestingly, he'd been sent the link by a local Tory supporter who was worried about the discussions. It seems that the last thing the Tories want is a high profile council carrying on in this fashion in the run up to an election.

I'm rather hoping that pressure will be brought to bear in other quarters. I'm not a fool and I realise that a Tory Council will try and implement Tory policies. What both I and (it seems) some rather senior Tories agree about, is that the "Future Shape" discussions should be carried out in a more open and honest fashion.

Oh and by the way, what did he tell me off about? Well he said that he thought the future shape blogs were very interesting and informative. He said that I really should lay off the gratuitous Brian Coleman bashing if I wanted the blogs to be taken as seriously as they should be. I think "Future shape" is important enough to listen to this advice for the time being.

A bit of discreet and friendly advice never goes amiss. Unlike our beloved Council Leader, I'm prepared to listen to advice from people on the other side of the Political Spectrum when it is sensible.

The Complete list of Brian Coleman's achievements as a Councillor

Just to show that I am unbiased and fairminded, I thought I'd make a comprehensive list of all the great things Councillor Brian Coleman has achieved since he got into power in 2002 and became a "PLAYER".

1. Nothing

If anyone thinks this is unfair, please post something which justifies his huge expenses. This is an open forum so if anyone can show a tangible achievement for the good of Barnet Council Tax Payers, here's your chance to show what a fool I am.

Barnet Council - Future shape update

Over the next few days I will be focussing on the Future Shape discussions (unless the Cabinet minister for free dinners puts his foot in his mouth again).

Today we have a quick look at section 9.2.1 of this report. My comments are in bold italics.

9.2 The case for change
9.2.1 The Council has built its success on clear prioritisation (high performance, low cost) and strong performance management. This has worked well in delivering specific services reflected in our four star CPA status. But stubborn challenges remain and new ones are emerging in terms of the ability of services to achieve actual outcomes for our community:

So they have Four stars and the current system is doing well according to the report? I thought there was an old adage, if it ain't broke don't fix it. It strikes me that there is significant scope for the Outsourcing to damage services and incur costs. I am intrigued by the phrase "actual outcomes". What is the opposite of an "actual outcome"? This is management consultant gobbldygook designed to hide a lack of sensible, implementable schemes.


• A significant health gap remains in the borough – e.g. the number of deaths from coronary heart disease per 100,000 population in the borough’s most deprived wards is 50 per cent higher than in its most affluent wards

No surprise here? Poor people with rotten diets die earlier. I would have thought that promoting healthy eating in schools would have been one way to address this, but as Jamie Oliver showed, the budget for school dinners does not support good nutrition. There was a marked drop in quality when the Meals on Wheels contract was outsourced to Sodexho. I know, my poor old mum had to suffer the consequences of that debacle and it nearly killed her


• The Council spends £16 million each year on 300 children in the care system. Yet their life chances are still substantially different from those of other children living in the borough – e.g. 24 per cent achieve five GCSEs compared to the Barnet average of over 60 per cent

According to this figure, each child in care costs the taxpayer £53,333 - on the face of it a significant sum. Given that they are in care because something has gone seriously wrong in their life, it would be amazing if they didn't score significantly worse than the average. It is not as if they randomly pluck children out and hot house them at Eton. It strikes me that this is one of those statistics that whilst on the face of it shows poor performance, is actually a statement of the obvious - ie The 300 Children with the most difficult upbringing in Barnet will significantly underperform the average. Mind you, the children probably could be sent to a boarding school for £55,000 - so I suppose that is an "outsourced approach which may boost their GCSE performance


• Landfill tax is increasing by £8 per tonne. This means a £1 million increase in cost to the Council, the equivalent of a 0.65 per cent Council Tax rise. This is before taking into account the significant population growth predicted for Barnet and increasing waste production by existing residents


How on earth will outsourcing council services make people produce less rubbish? I have a novel suggestion for outsourcing. Make customers give the unused packaging back to the supermarket they bought the item from. Let the supermarket deal with the rubbish they generate. Charge residents £5 a collection for any supermarket waste in their rubbish. Draconian, yes, but it would deliver us a tax cut and boost recycling. It would only be a stealth tax if you were too lazy to take your waste back.

• Although our customer satisfaction rate is high compared to similar boroughs, it has shown no significant improvement for several years despite measurable improvements in service quality and value for money


No improvement for several years? Is this since the Mike Freer took over? Is this since the Tories took over? When did it all go wrong? We should be told

• Despite the relatively low cost of services the Council still faces a significant, year on year financial challenge.

Let me translate back into plain English "We're doing OK keeping costs down. We'll have to work even harder to keep them down in future" - I'd suggest that cutting down on fat fees for management consultants, who can't use one word when five will do would be a start.

And Finally .....

Section 9.2.2 contains probably the most nonsensical piece of management consultant waffle, I've ever read. Bear in mind this sentence probably cost the council about £50 (Lord alone knows how much the actual Henley Centre report cost), tell me what you think? "Research by the Henley Centre shows that people expect to see their needs defined in terms of how they live their lives rather than in terms of professional disciplines." How much would you pay for that piece of research?

Future shape of Barnet Council - An open letter to Mike Freer

Dear Councillor Freer,

I am writing you an open letter regarding the current Future Shape of the Council discussions. I am hopeful that you will read this letter and be prepared to accept some constructive input regarding the process.

Given the importance of this process for many residents of the Borough and the huge implications of any poor decisions regarding the future of the council, there can be no argument that it is in everyone's interest for the right decisions to be made. As the Conservative group on the council has a working majority, in effect this means that the opportunity is there to impose whatever they decide, regardless of the quality of the decision.

Although the various stakeholders affected by these decisions will all have different views on "the best way to do things", the dominant position of the Conservative Council allows for the process to be implemented in a manner of their choosing. As with any tough decision, there are two ways this can be done.Decisions can be taken in secret huddles, behind closed doors, using the majority block to "rubber stamp" the decisions. The alternative is to hold genuine, open, honest discussions where outcomes are not prejudged and decisions are not foregone conclusions. Input from stakeholders into the process may give valuable insights, which Councillors in darkened rooms, far removed from the nuts and bolts of the daily functioning of a department may be unaware.

It seems to me that an open and honest process with input from all sides being welcomed is far more likely to result in an efficient, well run and capable Council. If the proponents of outsourcing can make a strong case that can withstand proper public scrutiny, then this is far more likely to be a successful project than one devised and delivered in secret. I cannot see why a council should be so scared of input that it is worried about holding open discussions and public consultations. If organisations such as the trades unions, the opposition and the public in general make observations, the comments either have merit and can be shown to have merit or are fatuous and can be shown to be fatuous. Ultimately input from critics can only strengthen a process and remove obvious pitfalls. It may well be that 90% of the input is ignored, but if the 10% you adopt improves the process and saves money, surely the process of consultation has been justified.

There is a great fear in the borough, not just on the left, that decisions have been made for ideological reasons, behind closed doors and will be steamrollered through Council. If this is not the case, then prove it by opening up the debate and having proper scrutiny. If it is the case, there is a strong likelyhood that the process will fail and cost the hard pressed taxpayers of Barnet even more money and deliver a poorer quality of service to the most vulnerable people in the Borough.

I cannot believe that an open, honest and modern leader of a London Council would wish to implement a flawed process so please consider the points I have made and open this process up to proper scrutiny. Please allow all affected stakeholders a fair say in the proceedings and do not make any decisions until all of the facts have been considered and the best case options identified.

Yours Sincerely

Roger Tichborne

Future shape of the Council - Latest

This is from the council's own briefing document

9.2.5 The Future Shape of the Council programme aims to develop these green shoots of ‘next practices’ that are already emerging across Council services and within the wider public sector. However, the current shape of the Council means that it is trying to do all of the following:

• Seeking continually to improve the cost and performance of all services
• Working with partners to ensure that priorities are aligned and services combined to achieve the best value for customers and tax payers alike
• Keeping track of how the borough is changing and the experiences of old and new communities within Barnet
• Understanding how to ‘transform’ services so that they fit the busy and complex lives of Barnet residents and businesses
• Working out how to intervene early in situations to prevent the need for costly service provision at a later date
• Finding ways to encourage self-help and develop networks that build social capital in the borough
• Making the best use of resources and dealing with budget constraints
• Constantly looking to the future to anticipate and manage the risk presented by changes in demography, technology, expectations, etc

I'm not going to add a comment right now, I'll let you all draw your own conclusions, based on their past form.