Barnet Council - An organisation that is not interested in engagement with the public

 On Friday, we published our analysis of a very disturbing report by the Chief Financial Officer of Barnet Council. This should be of interest to anyone who lives in the Borough, pays business rates or Council tax or has any interaction with Barnet Council. One such resident emailed me in despair today. They had read my report and had a serious question for the committee about the report. Their question was

The financial report of the Chief Financial Officer of Barnet Council was released after the deadline for questions. 

 

I have only just been made aware of it's release. 

 

Please can you ask the following question in relation to this item at Financial Performance and contracts committee:

 

It appears that Barratts PLC aka Barratt Metropolitan have substantial outstanding debts to Barnet Council. 

 

Please can you explain the nature of these debts ie what are they in relation to and why Barratts have not paid them?

 

Finally, where can we find copies of the relevant invoices on the Barnet planning portal?

 

If this is one too many question, please disregard the latter re invoices.

 

Could you also confirm your receipt of this e.mail.

 

With thanks and best wishes,

 This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable question that any reasonable public authority, with a committment to transparancy would be only too happy to answer. You may be surprised at the response

Thank you for your email. Late questions can be allowed however this agenda item has already received two public questions and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution Article 3:

 

A maximum of two questions from residents may be asked per agenda item. These will be accepted in order of receipt. Any additional questions received will be not be accepted.

 

Therefore unfortunately this cannot be accepted. 

You may find the reference to the Constitution interesting. Barnet Council used to set a time limit of 30 minutes for public questions, with no limits on questions. One of the first Acts of Councillor Daniel Thomas, when he became Leader was to change the constitution to remove this scrutiny. This report, as I highlighted, is extremely important, but in a Borough of over 300,000 residents they only allow two questions. Back in 2019 when this change was made, I highlighted the risks. I take no pleasure in being right. 

My objections at the time of the changes were as follows

Let me spell out the issues (My comments in Red Italics)

1. Questions and comments should be amalgamated; it is perfectly possible to raise a comment as part of a question.  The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100.

If there is a complex technical issue to raise as a question, an arbitrary 100 word limit will prevent a properly constructed question, this is especially true for issues on budget. It will result in simple, inane, sloganistic questions, rather than sensible, well thought out, detailed questions.

2. Questions/comments should be raised under the current rules for questions.  This means that the council and lead officer would have notice of the question/comment before the meeting and would therefore be in a position to amend the committee report (if necessary) to include a relevant matter raised in the question/comment, if not currently within the committee report.

This is a sensible amendment

3. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item.  The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee.  No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service.

If a resident notices multiple problems within a report, it will now be impossible for more than one to be addressed. This will mean that there is no opportunity to correct obvious errors. This will also favour organised pressure groups, trades unions and political campaigns, who can muster a gang of questioners, over ordinary, concerned residents. 

4. Residents may raise one question/comment per committee meeting in order to allow as many residents as possible to raise questions/comments and ask a supplementary question at Committee.

This is highly dishonest. Under the present system, residents questions are round robin'd so that you ask a question, then the next resident on the list does. When all residents have had a turn, the process starts again. No resident misses an opportunity under the existing system. 

5. The deadline for submitting a question/comment be extended to 10am two clear working days before the meeting.  Questions/comments will be responded to verbally at the meeting only.  Residents will be able to ask one supplementary question for each question/comment made.  If there is insufficient time to deal with all questions in the 30 minutes of allocated time, a written response will be provided within a reasonable period.  The Chairman should also have the discretion to request that a question answered at the meeting also be responded to in writing.

Whilst I welcome the extension of the deadline, the lack of a written answer is a clear attempt to a) limit the time available for questions. By answering the question, rather than supplying an answer, the half hour will soon be eaten up. Furthermore, it gives little opportunity for residents to ask supplementary questions. In short this is a ruse to stifle debate.

It is clear that the leader of the Barnet Tories, Councillor Dan Thomas, is not keen on the public, transparency or engagement. This was his first action as leader and it is quite frankly despicable.  Everyone in Barnet should be concerned. If for no other reason than the fact that the Borough would be £2 million worse off if these rules had been in place in 2012, when local residents and bloggers identified the Metpro Scandal. What sort of regime excludes the public and stifles public debate?

What has fascinated me is that I've seen a huge response to the recent articles, I've had eight times more blog views than usual and a huge amount of debate, comments, shares and retweets etc. A couple of Conservative councillors have privately contacted me to share their concerns about the corporate debt and other aspects of the report. There is a frustration that excuses get cut and pasted from one report to the next with no real effort to actually do anything. It strikes me that excluding the public from the scrutiny process has made the whole issue of scrutiny even more opaaque. I am not saying there is Corporate fraud in Barnet Council, but without proper scrutiny the environment where it can happen becomes a serious concern. What sickens me is that there is no real method for residents to raise this formally. 

Lord Pickles delivers the Barnet Tories a lesson in accountability

Lord Pickles - Barnet Blogger Superfan!

Apologies to all my loyal readers who were eagerly awaiting a joke this morning. Fortunately I found something even funnier than the joke I had prepared. As most of my Barnet readers will know, my fellow blogger Mrs Angry's political beliefs are firmly placed on the left of the left, no Blairite, she. Oddly one of her biggest admirers (well he likes all of us Barnet bloggers, but especially her) is the former Conservative local government secretary, Lord Pickles. Recently the two have become pen pals. Being a bluff Yorkshireman, Lord Pickles has long been an admirer of Mrs Angry's feistyness and straight talking. He also, as a proper Conservative, he likes the idea of local residents holding their local authority to account. Mrs Angry wrote to Lord Pickles, asking him of his opinion of the attempts by Barnets Conservatives to restrict the rights of the public to ask questions at Council meetings.

Lord Pickles response leaves no one in  any doubt.



Dear Theresa (or Mrs Angry, if I may)

I am pleased to see that you and your fellow citizen journalists and armchair auditors are continuing to highlight how councils can further save taxpayers’ money. I hope that the legal rights to report and film council meetings under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 have proved useful. You might find of interest that MHCLG has announced a post-implementation review into the 2014 Act yesterday, which will include looking at whether the financial information provided in local authority accounts facilitates scrutiny by local taxpayers and the local press.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-10/HCWS1706/

 In relation to your concerns about questions from the public at council meetings, public participation is an important part of council scrutiny and helps keep councillors (of all political colours) on their toes. I will table some Parliamentary Questions on the issue of questions to Ministers on this matter. With best wishes, 
 Rt Hon The Lord Pickles

All of the political parties have their strengths and weaknesses. Whatever you may think of the Conservatives, they have historically prided themselves on both their commitment to openness and to their commitment to be prudent with taxpayers pennies. Lord Pickles is wise enough to know that difficult questions from committed citizens are the best way to ensure good local government. Lord Pickles knows all too well that transparency allows people like myself and Mrs Angry to keep an eye on the council. A sensible council would embrace this and use it to drive down costs and inefficiency. Lord Pickles knows all to well that the reason Barnet Council don't like this is because they are going through a very difficult period, but unlike the Tory Leadership, Lord Pickles is wise enough to know that with a big majority and three years to the next council election, they should be listening to bloggers and residents, where savings and efficiencies are identified, even if these are difficult.

The sad truth is that the mess the council have found themselves in, is wholly because they didn't listen to their own residents before embarking on the One Barnet program. It is a matter of public record that Barnet failed to properly consult. The only reason that the deal wasn't thrown out was the Judge ruled that the case brought by residents was out of time, and the council escaped on a technicality. Mrs Angry, who rather enjoys corresponding with elderly gentlemen from political parties she dislikes, also emailed Lord Palmer, who was a Lib Dem and chair of Barnet Council's audit committee between 2010 and 2014. Lord Palmer said this

'I suspect that they are not breaking the law but what they are doing is against guidance'

Lord Palmer also described the changes as disturbing. At a recent meeting Mrs Angry asked the chair proposing the changes and the monitoring officer if they'd read the guidance Lord Palmer referred to. They both, rather shamefacedly admitted they hadn't. Sadly this didn't prevent them from changing the rules.

If you agree with the esteemed Lord Pickles and Palmer that Barnet Council should be well run, open and transparent, please Click here and sign the petition started by John Dix to oppose these changes. People such as myself, John Dix and Theresa Musgrove dedicate a huge amount of our time to writing blogs and keeping an eye on the council. All we ever ask in return is that if you agree with us, you occasionally sign a petition or attend a rally. John is around 50 signatures short of 1,000 which is a huge number for a petition concerning technical arrangements at the council. Please ensure that we hit this milestone today.

Barnet Council finally (almost) admit that they are monitoring the Barnet bloggers

Yesterday I received a  file of documents from Barnet Council which contained the following internal Barnet Council email

---

From: Laws, Sarah
Sent: 12 September 2012 15:33
To: Hill, Jon 

 Subject: FW: further blog stuff

Sarah Laws

Information Governance Officer

Standards and Information Rights Team

Corporate Governance Directorate 

London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

Tel: 020 8359 2587

Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk

 please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

---

From: Blyth, Victoria
Sent: 12 September 2012 15:32
To: Laws, Sarah
Subject: further blog stuff

Sarah

This was from Mrs Angry’s blog. Can we keep this with the other stuff.

Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Brian Coleman: Sad, bad and mad, and a couple of hags - - how he sees the electorate

What? (Is he confusing me with that well known stalker and part time council officer hassler, Mr Mustard? Mrs Angry is far too lazy, Brian, to bother with such activity.

Victoria Blyth
Openness & Transparency Manager
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 2015
please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

---
It quite clearly states that they have a directory of information on the Barnet blogs.

You may be intrigued to know however that this was included in a file of documents mentioned in the response. Do you think that they are being honest, given this response.

--
Response
Please find attached the information the council holds.
Some information has been redacted under section 40(2) as this is personal information. Please see the refusal notice below.
Please note that the council does not hold 'files' as such on any of the blogs.
Information is held if for example it was held in connection with a Freedom of Information case or appeal, or in relation to other casework. Screen shots of blogs were held as they were required in respect of handling an ICO case in 2012.
--

It seems that Ms Blyth, the openness and transparancy officer, Sarah Laws, The information and Governance officer and Jon Hill have a few theings they might like to share.