Friday 11 February 2011

Time to rebrand Barnet ? Barnet Council vs Chez Gerard

I have been contemplating the differences between a rather good restaurant and a rather badly run Council. Here's why and a few random thoughts on the differences between the organisations.

Most of the week, I've been feeling rather rough. Fortunately whatever lurgy was afflicting me seemed to lift yesterday. I was treated to a rather fine lunch at Chez Gerard, just off Fleet Street by my good mate Brian (no not Councillor Coleman). Nothing like a decent steak to lift the spirits. As I play five a side football on a Thursday night, nothing stronger than a mineral water to accompany it. Rather interestingly, the restaurant asked if we'd help them with some market research and we ended up spending ten minutes answering questions about our dining experience. The nice lady asking the questions was rather perplexed by Brians answer as to why he selected the venue "Because I could pay for the meal with spare Tescos clubcard vouchers". Chez Gerard were trying to work out how to rebrand their restaurants. Brian told them "I rather like it how it is, I'd change nothing apart from the chairs which are rather uncomfortable". She asked if the menu should change "No, the restaurant is full of people and that is because they like what's on it now".

Which brings us neatly to Barnet Council. For the past three years we've had the mantra of "doing things the same is not an option". Former leader Mike Freer launched the Future Shape project. Teams of consultants were hired (according to Mr Reasonable's blog  to a tune of £300,000 per month - which makes £3.6 million a year just on one of the consultancies involved). How much has been saved in three years? erm, nothing.

Of course there is always jam tomorrow in Barnetlands mad world of consultancy, just commission another report and we'll tell you how. Since the project was launched a whole swathe of new deputy directors have been hired on salaries over £100,000 per year. Now these new directorships are clearly vital. Why? erm, dunno, but they must be. How are they funded? By sacking lollipop ladies, who ensure that Children can cross the road in safety. Now my sons school, St Vincents got a lollipop lady after a speeding car ran over a three year old on the Ridgeway in Mill Hill. A Tory councillor described lollipop ladies as "a nice to have" this week. I rather think my kids are a "nice to have" as well. In fact, I think that their safety and wellbeing is a lot more nice to have than anything else in my life.

So let's just consider the difference between a commercial concern like Chez Gerard, who make profits by keeping customers happy (no customers, no CEO) and Barnet Council.

1) Chez Gerard decide that their business might need a few changes so they ask their customers. Barnet Council decide that they might need to change the way they do things, so they bus in loads of highly paid consultants and exclude the customers (us, the taxpayer) from the process.

2) If Chez Gerard cock up and the finances go down the pan, the top bloke gets kicked out. Barnet have seen unprecedented financial mismanagement over 8 years, but the salary for the CEO has risen from £114,000 per annum to £200,000 per annum.

3) Chez Gerard want to know what items on the menu are popular and customers like and ensure these are retained. Barnet Council do consultations for services such as sheltered housing and then when 85% of the customers say they like it, they abolish it.

4) At the end of the meal, our waiter said "I really hope you enjoyed the meal, was everything OK?". When it was suggested to Councillor Richard Cornelius at the Council meeting this week that the public should have more say, he replied "That would devalue the role of a councillor" (Definition of a Councillor - Person elected to SERVE THE PUBLIC).

5) At the end of the meal, us, the customers left a big tip. Why? because the people who served us had done a great job. Our expectations had been exceeded and so we felt we should contribute more. The corporate ethos of Chez Gerard is to deliver an experience where the customer feels happy and welcome and wants to return. The people running Barnet Council have created an ethos where no one trusts a word they say. It is accepted that the council will deliver far less than the public want. Not a single Tory Councillor has ever said "We want to exceed your expectations, deliver a far better service than you expect and we hope you'll be happy to pay a bit more (a Tip!) to fund it".


So what has this penny pinching ethos delivered & how does it affect you personally?

Damage to cars caused by unrepaired pot holes (costs you far more than a few extra pennies in tax).
Damage to pedestrians caused by falls on broken pavements
Streets covered in litter and mess
School age children exposed to significant danger crossing the road in Barnet
The elderly cut adrift by council cuts
People suffering brain injuries having support services withdrawn
Services for young people withdrawn, leaving them with nothing productive to do
Libraries closing
Children being taught in run down schools, overcrowded classrooms and portacabins

I hear the mantra that no one wants to pay more tax. Of course people don't, they are not stupid. The reason for this is because they see the waste in the council. What people want is to pay the right amount of tax to deliver good public services. Cut the waste at the top, not front line services. Find out what people want and make the case to fund them properly. If a consultation says 85% of sheltered housing tenants want to retain the service, retain it and explain to the voters whey they have to pay the 2p a week more council tax that it will cost. If they can chop a few "deputy director" jobs which deliver nothing to cover the £400,000 they want to save, and not charge a penny more even better.

I'll leave you with this thought . In 2002 when the Conservatives took over, Band D council Tax in Barnet was £741.50 . It is now £1423 - In that time the Councils debt has risen from £38 million to just under £250 million. For all of that extra money, they council is broke. They had to write a begging letter to the secretary of state, Eric Pickles. I'm not an accountant, but how on earth can this be anything other than gross incompetence? If Chez Gerard was run by the Barnet Tories, you'd be lucky to get a plate of out of date whelks for dinner (if they hadn't been shut down). Enjoy your weekend

Apologies to Councillor Harper, who I mistakenly misquoted as Richard Cornelius above (now corrected)

6 comments:

baarnett said...

I think you have mentioned before, Roger, how Barnet's council tax has overtaken some of the neighbouring boroughs over the last decade (don't remember which).

I wonder why Council Tax is being frozen everwhere, though - does Eric Pickles want to concentrate the minds of local authorities on the cut-backs, without any sort of "get-out"?

It could come back to haunt Mr Pickles, though. (Actually, it would need several ghosts to stretch to haunt him.)

Labour and (possibly) Lib Dem councils can blame everything on the government, without getting any flak from putting up Council Tax. Long-term Conservative councils, some of them anyway, are so efficient already (stingy, opponents would say) that cuts might actually hit people harder than where there is still a certain amount of flab.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

A slight correction to your blog. My calculation was that the cost of retaining the warden service would cost the average tax payer less than one penny a week - not 2p!

But if the council concentrated on cutting out waste, it would be able to retain the service without having to ask taxpayers for more.

As for consultants and highly p[aid chief officers, the problem is that they feel they have to justify their existence by coming up with hare brained schemes. They are not interested in the old mantra of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” because then they would be the ones out of a job instead of the front line staff on the bottom rung.

Jaybird said...

Another correction. It was not Councillor Harper who said it would devalue his role, the member who made the comment was Councillor Richard Cornelius

Moaneybat said...

Councillor Richard Cornelius at the Council meeting replied "That would devalue the role of a councillor

He would say that, the inference to draw from such a comment is that, Cornelius does not value "Democracy." He forgets, it is the platform he used to have such a lofty egotistic view of his role, and such contempt for the benevolent electorate who put him in the Town Hall. The greatest disservice to Barnet (and many local councils) over the past 35 years or so, are the likes of Cornelius whom don't quite get democracy and civics.

Anonymous said...

I think this is a very welcome position from Councillor Richard Cornelius. So, if I have him right, if he adopts localism, transparency and the big society he will be worth less, be devalued.

So lets go with this Richard, it's what we've been waiting for. Instead of Councillors voting to double their Cabinet allowances, presumably you'd be recommending halving yours and adopting Conservative Party policy.

Win, win, win!

Jaybird said...

It was the most extraordinary discussion. After Richard Cornelius made his point, which would have some validity if it were suggested that councillors have to do anything other than listen to views (in much the same way that MPs do not necessarily have to vote to bring back the death penalty or make abortion illegal - you know listen, consider, form a view), the Mayor suggested that a better idea to allowing this would be a 3 stage process:
1, councillors could canvas views from constituents informally;
2, councillors could choose to read out comments from local residents, as Brian Coleman did in the discussion on parking charges; and
3, if councillors felt it was necessary, they could choose to form a focus group of invited residents, at their own discretion, in the event stage 1 and 2 were not enough.

Just in case anyone was unclear he went back to explain that he really did see this as 3 consecutive stages, rather than just let someone with view on a particular issue ask a question or make a point, to the relevant committee.