21st October 2013 - Sheffield City Council, Locality Management General Briefing, by Nigel Slack

This was a meeting of invited members of the voluntary sector in order to brief them on the new arrangements for 'Locality management' that will replace the now abandoned 'Community Assembly Meetings'. I presume that I was invited, as an individual, because there is to be no public meeting as such.

The meeting was opened by Councillor Geoff Smith (Labour) who gave a welcome statement and relayed the apologies of Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) who had lead the development of the new arrangements. He then introduced Sharon Squires (Director, Sheffield First Partnership). She helped the City Council in developing the model for the new arrangements, Local Area Partnerships. She explained that the success of LAP's would be about building strong and resilient communities that can cope with the huge changes that are being thrust upon them by the current austerity measures. She also emphasised that Locality Management was a part of the framework of the solution but not all of it.

The meeting was then presented with a slide show of the new arrangements by Martin Hughes (Locality Manager) who discussed how the VCF sector (Voluntary, Charity, Faith) could get involved. The new model has four key principles. Councillors as community leaders, Prioritise resources to areas of greatest need, Develop effective partnership working, and Enable communities to help themselves.

Each Ward will have a lead Councillor drawn from the three that represent each ward, Central Ward will be represented by Councillor Rob Murphy (Green). They will represent the ward to the LAP's who will have a small discretionary amount of money to spend on priorities that the four wards in each LAP agree on. These LAP's are lead by a Chair who is a Councillor, for Central it is Councillor Neale Gibson (Labour) but we are told that this partnership is not a decision making body and is not formally constituted.

At the end of the presentation there was an opportunity for questions. There were a number of questions on some of the ways in which the VCF sector can get it's voice heard in the larger arena, as many of them connect over the ward and area boundaries. I asked a particular question about the use of IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) for defining the levels of the 'Ward Pots' or discretionary funds for each ward. I referred to a recent meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board that received a presentation on Community Resilience and Wellbeing from the Young Foundation and discussed the need to reach beyond the stats of IMD in measuring the health of a community. I asked whether other measures would be used. The response was that IMD would be used for now but others would 'probably' be added as time went on.

There were then many comments and questions about the public oversight of the LAP's and the lack of formal structure for the public attendance at LAP meetings. The general response was to the effect that there is no formal structure to the meetings and they would generally not be open to to the public as it is not a formally constituted body. I therefore pushed them on the comments of the 'Fairness Commission' that fairness should not only be done but be seen to be done.

With the number of comments the organisers finally agreed that they would take back the comments and see what could be done to improve levels of trust in the structure and arrangements. We will see whether this comes to anything or whether, like so often, it was just to placate the meeting.


Cabinet Report on the replacement of Community Assemblies

30th September 2013 - Paul Blomfield MP, Public Consultation Meeting, by Nigel Slack

Paul Blomfield is the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Central Constituency and my local MP. Each year he undertakes a week of consultation meetings in the constituency to try to get an idea of the issues facing his electorate and what concerns of theirs he should reflect in his role in Parliament.

http://www.paulblomfield.co.uk/home.html

The meeting started with Paul giving a brief introduction and highlighting that the areas he was tackling currently were around 'fairness'. Issues such as 'Pay Day Lenders' and 'Local Authority Funding'.

He then opened the meeting up to the people in the room, about 20 or so at this meeting, to raise matters of concern. I guess inevitably in this local situation many of the matters raised were not so much matters for MP's but for local Councils and Councillors and so I will only report on the issues that arose with with a national emphasis.

A question was raised about local parking charges.
A question was raised about the closure and impending demolition of Don Valley Stadium.
A question was raised about Early Years funding in the City.

Since Paul is a member of the Business, Skills and Innovation Select Committee, I raised the issue of the 'Supermarket Levy' as it has been called with the following question.

"Using the Sustainable Communities Act to allow local authorities to raise an extra 8.5% business rate on businesses with a rateable value in excess of £500,000 would net Sheffield City Council an extra £6M per year to support local businesses and the local high street. It is supported by the local Federation of Small Businesses and estimated to cost less than 3p per £100 of profits for these national retailers. What is your view on this idea?"
Paul commented that it was always difficult to add to the tax burden on retail companies in the current climate and that the Labour Party were looking at how to potentially raise money for local business rate relief through the corporation tax instead.

I followed that up with the comment that any tax raised centrally would need to be distributed by Central Government and that the point of the Levy would be that, tax raised locally, would be retained locally and spent locally.

A question was raised about two derelict and demolished churches in the area.
A question was raised about educating people about Islam before they are tempted by organisations such as EDL. (English Defence League)
A question was raised about reduced funding for spaces to promote 'Community Cohesion'. This drew a comment about how the troubles in the Middle East are impacting on local Muslim children and is reflected in attitudes locally to Muslims. Paul commented that it is important for politicians and the national press to be careful about the language they use when describing terrorists, acts of violence etc.
A question was raised about the state of Sheffield's roads.

I raised the issue of the impending 'Deregulation Bill' with the following question.

The innocuously titled Deregulation Bill, quietly tabled in draft by Oliver Letwin and Ken Clarke just before the summer break, strips citizens of our right to be consulted before services are closed or privatised. It imposes a ‘growth duty’ on regulators to ensure they act in a more business-friendly manner, which could force health watchdogs like the Care Quality Commission to prioritise ‘economic growth’. And it gives a blanket power to government ministers to repeal inconvenient laws without parliamentary scrutiny. Are you aware of this and what is your view?

Paul commented that the Labour Party were aware of the bill and share the concerns expressed.

A question was raised about what Labour will do to return powers and funding to Local Authorities.
Paul commented that they had started a consultation on what 'critical' powers should be returned to Local Authorities, should Labour regain power. He admitted there was always a problem about Governments wanting to introduce reforms centrally across the country rather than letting Local Government decide.
He also admitted that fundraising powers were a problem. Funds needed to be allocated according to greatest need, but it was difficult to find a simple formula that balanced autonomy with equity.

At this point the meeting drew to a close, the hour allocated being up, but Paul agreed to talk further with the group concerned about the Early Years funding.

Sheffield City Council Library Service Review by Nigel Slack

Sheffield City Council has, as a result of further budget cuts imposed from Central Government, been undertaking a comprehensive review of the City's library services.

This has been quite an extensive process involving two rounds of public consultation, though there is some debate over the quality of these consultations, and a great deal of discussion about the way forward.

The results are now in and the data from the review, along with the Council's proposals for the future of the library service can now be viewed on their website or in paper form from the Town Hall.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/libraries/library-review/consultation-2013.html
Bottom of the page

I will make no bones about the fact that I believe that libraries are the backbone of a civilised city and a necessary support for the democratic process and a healthy community life. I believe that libraries should be a statutory service but that is just not the case at the moment and, though it is important to continue to fight for a better and extensive library service, we need also to participate in the review process to ensure that what is done in our name is as little damage as possible.

18th September 2013. Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting. by Nigel Slack.

The meeting started at 2pm and during the Housekeeping item on the agenda, the meeting was told by Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, that the proceedings could now be recorded by members of the public. This is the first Cabinet Meeting since these rules came into force but after asking the public gallery, all three of us, there were no requests to record this time around.

This emphasises for me the need for formal recording and webcasting by the Council of all relevant decision making meetings. Partly because people actually involved in the meetings do not necessarily have the time to do their own recording but also because they may not have the facility or confidence to do so.

As for this report of the meeting, it is my intention, with all these reports, to highlight areas of interest to me personally or of particular importance in the wider context of local politics. I will always supply, as soon as they are available, links to the minutes of the meeting from the City website.

After agreeing previous minutes, though there was some confusion over a couple of amendments that needed to be made, the meeting moved on to the item ‘Public Questions and Petitions’. There were no petitions at this meeting and so it was straight to questions.

There were three questioners, myself included.

The first questioner, who’s name I missed, expressed many concerns about the way the Streets Ahead project was being managed in the High Green area of the City. From accidents being caused by the works, to poor quality of work that would quickly deteriorate.
Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded by asking the questioner to give that information to Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) who would respond in writing.
Councillor Scott indicated he had received that information already and would respond but also had some comments for the meeting. Councillor Scott stated that he was aware that High Green was a problem, it was behind schedule and the disruption seemed particularly high. He also said he believed that the residents would see it as worthwhile once the work was complete.

Question two was mine. I commented that I had a number of outstanding requests for information with the Council, ranging from 10 days to 10 months and asked when do such delays become too long?
I was also able to say that the 10 day item had been answered that very day when Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) had passed me the information before the start of the meeting.

Councillor Dore asked for clarification on what items I meant and I was able to comment that the major items were already known to Councillors Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) and Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living).

Councillor Lodge then repeated his continuing excuse that budget constraints meant that my request was not a priority and that when the information was available it would be published on the Council’s website. This response is feeling trite and insulting at this point when other Cabinet members are not, apparently, having the same problem.

Councillor Lea commented that there had been some confusion about the sending out of the information she was providing but that it was ready and I would have it by the end of the day. (An e-mail was waiting for me on my return home)

There was no actual answer to the question of when such delays become too long.

The final question came from Martin Brighton, a regular at these meetings. He asked a number of questions about integrity, innocence until proven guilty and sanctions against Councillors who fail to keep promises. What peaked my particular interest was a question about whether the leader was aware of members of Council stalking him?

Councillor Dore said she was not aware of such and if she believed she was being stalked she would call the police. I do hope there is a further instalment in this story in the near future.

The meeting then moved on to other business which is recorded in the minutes of the meeting and I left.

Next meeting 16th October 2013.

Download Minutes of the Meeting

11th September 2013. Sheffield Executive Board Meeting. By Nigel Slack.

Today I went to my first ever meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board.  This impressive sounding organisation was set up “…to provide leadership within the city on issues of city-wide significance, and to advocate for Sheffield collectively to Government, the European Union and other national and international forums”.

The Board consists of “..leaders from across the private, public, voluntary, community and faith sectors in Sheffield”.  This, at least, is according to their own website.

http://www.sheffieldfirst.com/the-partnership/sheffield-executive-board.html

The aim of the body is, essentially, to act first as a think tank for new ideas, policies and strategies for the city.  To then develop these potential policies into something workable, that can be supported by all the ‘partner’ organisations and finally to promote the finished product to the city as a whole and to the wider world.

Members include representatives from the City Council, Both Universities and Sheffield College, the NHS, Fire Service, Police, the Voluntary Sector, Sheffield Cathedral and Private Enterprise bodies.  Personally, I am concerned that the so called ‘faith sector’ is represented only in it’s Christian mainstream form.  No Islamic representatives, no Jewish representatives and none from the smaller Christian faiths.

This was my first visit to this meeting because, although their meetings are open to the public, they are not well promoted unless you visit the website.  Add to that the fact that the meeting had a last minute change of venue so that Leslie and I did not arrive until twenty minutes or so into the meeting.  We were, apparently the first members of the public to ever make it to a meeting and therefore caused some uncertainty but were welcomed and seated at the back of the room.

The item we arrived in the middle of was a presentation by ‘The Young Foundation’ concerning resilience and wellbeing in communities.  The research methodology looked interesting, although I didn’t catch it all, as it avoided using the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics (IMD) in favour of drawing together evidence from a range of sources to create their picture of a community’s resilience and wellbeing. The illustrations given suggest an ability to drill down into communities and neighbourhoods better than the IMD data can.

http://www.youngfoundation.org/

The strategies for affecting a community’s resilience and wellbeing were based on the use of CBT (Conditional Behavioural Therapy) and Positive Psychology and they were delivered through community projects and volunteers.  This bothered me somewhat.  My experience of CBT is that it can work for some people some of the time for a short time.  Positive Psychology, on the other hand, whilst at the foreront of current practice, is facing a rising tide of challenges from academics and authors in the field. My concern therefore, is what happens to those for whom CBT does not work or who are not part of a community group?


Following the presentation there was some discussion in groups and then in general about the subject. Interestingly, during this, one of the NHS representatives present commented on the need for these types of strategies to have long term commitment to ensure the benefits that might accrue remained.  The result of the discussions was that the ideas were interesting and might be a way forward, helping communities become more resilient to the drastic changes being forged by the austerity measures being employed by the Government.


The second item in this ‘open’ session of the meeting was a discussion about the partnership working that would be happening with the redesign of the community assembly approach to local democracy.  This discussed the new structure somewhat and the fact emerged, from one of the newly appointed chairs of the Local Area Partnerships, as they ate currently called, that we would all have to get used to the fact that the Council is being forced to withdraw from offering many of the services they have traditionally fulfilled for citizens of the city.


This is both worrying and challenging, since many of the services from which they are withdrawing directly affect the most vulnerable in the city.  The question was left with the ‘partners’ to consider what they could offer in this new landscape to potentially fill the gap or redress the lack of services in these austerity years.


At the end of this discussion the guests that would not normally have been at the meeting left and we, as members of the public were also asked to leave.  The meeting was entering its ‘closed’ period where apparently they discuss items of ‘private business’. This, as you might imagine, does not sit well with me as someone who campaigns about transparency and openness in public business and decision-making.  I will therefore be making enquiries as to what sort of business this clearly influential organisation discusses behind closed doors.


Next meeting; Wednesday 9th October 2013, venue to be advised.

Sept 2013 - NOW THEN Magazine #66, "Webcasting. Transparent government in action?" by Nigel Slack

"Webcasting. Transparent government in action?" by Nigel Slack
In Sheffield's Now Then Magazine issue no.66 - September 2013


This article is aimed at generating a wider debate on the idea of Webcasting Council meetings. The webcasting of meetings would greatly improve the openness of Council decision making by allowing people who cannot make daytime weekday meetings to either, watch the events live on various technologies, or to view it after the event online. It looks at the pros and cons and considers why it is an important idea and how it can be done in these times of budgetary constraint for Councils.

Contact Nigel Slack - nrslack@aol.com
Contact for Now Then magazine - sam@nowthenmagazine.com

To see the article follow this link or click on the magazine cover below
http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-66/webcasting/

Dec 13th, 2012 - Sheffield Live! Radio, "Nigel Slack discusses Council outsourcing of public services to private companies."

This post is in 2 parts. The first part is Nigel Slack's interview followed in the second part by Sheffield Labour Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources response.

Nigel - "This was my first interview with Sheffield Live, continuing my efforts to bring the information I had been able to gather about ‘Public Services and Private Profits’ to a wider audience and to begin to generate a better informed debate on the facts about outsourcing, how it’s decided upon, how the contracts are managed and where the money goes. It is followed by an interview with Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member of the City Council responsible for Finance and Resources, in response to my interview."

Interview on Sheffield Live! radio.
Date of interview - December 13th, 2012.
Sheffield Live! interviewer - Laurence Peacock 
Interviewee - Nigel Slack 
Length -  20 mins 29 secs
Link - Sheffield Live! radio - http://www.sheffieldlive.org/
Link - SoundCloud file -  http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock/nigel-slack-discusses-council
Contact Nigel Slack - nrslack@aol.com
Contact Laurence Peacock - info@sheffieldlive.org

"Nigel Slack discusses Council outsourcing of public services to private companies."

---

Interview on Sheffield Live! radio.
Date of interview - January 22nd, 2013.
Sheffield Live! interviewer - Laurence Peacock
Interviewee - Sheffield Labour Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources
Link - Sheffield Live! radio - http://www.sheffieldlive.org/
Length -  
part 1 - 15 mins 50 secs
part 2 - 9 mins 54 secs 
part 3 - 8 mins 48 secs
Link - SoundCloud files x3
part 1 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/councillor-bryan-lodge
part 2 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/councillor-bryan-lodge-1
part 3 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/part3
Contact Bryan Lodge - bryan.lodge@sheffield.gov.uk
Contact Laurence Peacock - info@sheffieldlive.org

"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 1"


"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 2"


"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 3"

Nov 2012 - NOW THEN Magazine #56 , "Outsourcing. Public Services, Private Profits" by Nigel Slack

"Outsourcing. Public Services, Private Profits" by Nigel Slack
In Sheffield's Now Then Magazine issue no.56 - November 2012

Nigel - "My first article for Now Then magazine about ‘Public Services, Private Profits’, beginning my efforts to bring the information I was gathering to a wider audience to develop a more open debate on the subject. It looks at who provides our public services (bins, road repairs, care homes etc) how much we spend on these private companies and tries to address how much profit they make out of the public purse."

Contact Nigel Slack - nrslack@aol.com
Contact for Now Then magazine - sam@nowthenmagazine.com

To see the article follow this link or click on the magazine cover below
http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-56/outsourcing/