Sheffield City Council – Cabinet Meeting - 20th May 2020

---

For the first time in it's 100+ years history the Leaders of the Council met remotely via internet services to enable at least some semblance of democracy to continue during these unprecedented times. This is my very concise report on the proceedings.

---

The Council's normal service is highly affected currently, both by the Pandemic and by Government changes to the way they are enabled to maintain services and make decisions during the crisis. This is impacting to some extent on the democratic process and is not what we would like to see happening but strange times can lead to unhappy circumstances and we must do what we can as organisations and individuals to maintain scrutiny of those in power and the decisions they make.

If the least we can do is to continue speaking truth to power then that is what we must do.

The meeting started a little after 2pm and, as is usual for what would normally be the first meeting after the Council's AGM it is essentially a short agenda. On this occasion, with the normal AGM having been cancelled all the faces of the Cabinet Councillors remained the same and in the same roles (this is unusual). The meeting was opened by Cllr Julie Dore, as leader, with some brief opening comments and effusive thanks to the people of the city for their forbearance through the 9 weeks of lock-down to date. She commented on the difficulties we have all faced adjusting to the restrictions and offered particular thanks to Council staff and Social Care staff for their dedication.

The agenda was still able to handle Public Questions, though it is now necessary to have the question in 2 days in advance if you want to be part of the meeting, On this occasion there were two questions;

Ibrar Hussein, for the Taxi Trades – asked about the plans for the Clean Air Zone in the current circumstances, the slow progress of putting licensing applications online and the slow response to petitions. This was answered by Cllr Bob Johnson and would be followed up with Mr Hussein direct.

Mike Hodson – Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group, asked about the engagement plans for the Director of Public Health and communities/groups in light of Public Health England guidelines and the fact of different 'r' rates (infections) within the country and region. This was answered by Julie Dore who is asking the DPH to respond to Mr Hodson.

---

The meat of the meeting was, not surprisingly, a report on the Covid 19 pandemic and the city's response and plans for the future.

This section of the meeting was introduced by the (Interim) Chief Exec, Charlie Adan and then heard from the Executive Managers responsible for the city's response. Key amongst these was Greg Fell as Director of Public Health. I won't give a blow by blow on his report, or the other Executive Managers there but highlight some of the key points that piqued my interest.

The DPH reported that, using reports to NHS111 of people using their infection algorithm, as well as normal figures of hospitalised cases, he was able to estimate that a truer figure of cases in Sheffield was 30,500. This is a useful extra level of information that continues to show how official figures are misleading. He also commented that, following Sheffield Hospitals testing programmes and a generally good response from the Sheffield public to the lock-down, Sheffield's ICU beds always maintained the capacity to deal with the cases that needed hospitalisation. Sadly 304 people to this date had died from the virus or complications associated with having the virus.

I did have some cause for concern over one or two of the comments;
How can we be certain that, as the DPH commented, those infected have developed any immunity or how long this may last? (inevitably I will be asking for evidence on this considering we test so little in this country)

I am also concerned that we continue to support following HMG guidelines when so much of what they have done to date has either been the wrong decisions or utterly confusing messages.(You can see further comment from me on these issues and more in this The Public Interest article )

---

An interesting point came up during the report on the logistical efforts the city has been making to tackle the pandemic, by John Mackilwraith (apologies if that's not correct, poor screen resolution makes the name difficult to make out) He reported that Sheffield quickly became the hub facilitating PPE deliveries for the whole of South Yorkshire, Public Services and Independent Sector. The city had supplied 85% of the Regions needs with the rest being drops from the HMG stock. As a result of some very hard work the Sheffield service had managed to maintain some 5 days supply at facilities across the South Yorkshire area and is also holding approximately 4 weeks stock for contingency.

A well organised public sector response in sharp contrast to the Central Government debacle on behalf of the NHS.

---

Lastly I want to highlight some of the financial impact that the Council have had to absorb to tackle this crisis. Eugene Walker, Executive Director for Finance, reported that the response to Covid 19 is currently estimated to cost the Council £77M and that £50M of that will be this year. Government is expected to provide grant support of £34M, leaving the city £16M short. This means that without further Government support and with the impact of current spending cuts to take into account the city will have to draw on it's reserves to fill this gap. Even then the city's reserves will be exhausted in 2022.

---

After the reports from Officers it was time for the Cabinet Councillors to make comments on the report. I comment briefly on these and first of all note that each of the Cabinet Councillors mentioned staff and workers and colleagues to thank everybody for their efforts during the crisis.

Abtisam Mohamed- Cabinet Member for Education and Skills Praised the efforts on ensuring that children on free school meals were provided with 4,000 food hampers over the Easter break and highlighting the lack of Government funding to allow for similar provision during Half Term and the Summer holidays. Also thanked the medium & small Voluntary Sector organisations for their exceptional efforts.

George Lindars-Hammond- Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care Highlighted the excellent response on PPE within S. Yorkshire, being facilitated by SCC and succeeding where HMG failed.

Jackie Drayton- Cabinet Member for Children & Families Emphasised the great work done in Social Care with shielded people in sheltered accommodation and those adults with learning difficulties, who required a different approach

Paul Wood- Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety Highlighted the staff's fantastic job at responding to emergency situations in the midst of the crisis and often within a matter of hours.

Mazher Iqbal- Cabinet Member for Business and Investment Commented on those in the public & voluntary sector who were often working very long days and 7 days a week to address the crisis. Also commented on the difficulty of making the mixed and confusing messages from HMG into something that SCC could deliver. Rhetoric – v – reality.

Bob Johnson- Cabinet Member for Transport and Development Praised the willingness of staff to take on redeployed roles during the crisis. He is also keen to progress some of the active travel proposals he has been working on with City Region and pleaded with Officers to make an announcement by the weekend.

Mark Jones- Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change Accepts there have been some problems of people not doing what they should, down to confusing and misunderstanding of Government messaging. Pleased Sheffield maintained open recycling centres and also important to continue efforts on climate change and flood defences to avoid additional crisis issues this winter.

Mary Lea- Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure Expressed her upset at having to introduce such harsh measures with respect to bereavements and understands that even the announced relaxation is still difficult for people in grief. On a lighter note she was pleased that the investment in e-books had kept access to some library services available and that the city's parks had maintained an open status even if facilities were closed. They were clearly a lifeline for many.

Terry Fox- Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance Praised the speedy response of 'Mutual Aid' groups in the city and the work they were undertaking to keep communities functioning. Also commented on the flexibility of Council staff and their Unions in responding to the pandemic.

It will make an interesting backdrop to the 'Big City Conversation' around Neighbourhood Decision Making when that programme resumes.

Finally Julie Dore summed up by commenting that, at the time when she and the people of the city most needed to trust Government, we were unable to do so and how difficult this made every step. She also praised the work all Councillors of all parties for their efforts and contributions in the crisis.

---

Afterword

Inevitably the tone of the report and the Cabinet comments were of a positive nature, stressing the exceptional efforts of the workers and people of the city. There was no comment on the fights in Page Hall or the issues of Gang crime & shootings in Nether Edge.

I understand this, in a context of maintaining morale and compliance within the population, and hope that these issues are being dealt with by Cabinet members within their portfolios. It would be a serious mistake for us to take a fully 'Keep Calm & Carry On' approach when so much of what this Government has done so far has been detrimental to the Health & Wellbeing of the people of the country.

I will be engaging, I'm sure much to their delight, with members directly on some of the issues but recognise also that things may take a little longer than normal to get responses. I'm used to this however, still waiting on answers to questions for some three years.

We are by no means out of this crisis yet, we need to be prepared for further waves of infection, possibly worse than the first, and the way we work, shop, play and learn may well have changed forever. I hope and trust that key business leaders, including the relevant Cabinet members, are taking the need to review current plans for the City to heart and will include a broad range of stakeholders, including the public, in this ongoing effort

I encourage you to watch the archive of the meeting and to access the report papers both available here .

---

On a Lighter Note

The first remote Webcast of the Cabinet Meeting was also notable for the, shall we say, mixed impact of the visuals. There were a number of members who seemed to take the floating head approach to their appearance, others including officers, had some distortion to their features from proximity to their cameras and there were an interesting array of fake backgrounds on offer. All mildly amusing and not too distracting but if I had some advice it would be this;

Perhaps a harmonised background for the Officers – Be aware of your framing – Be aware of what you are doing with your hands etc. (at one point Bob Johnson looked as if he was giving a puppet show but lost his puppets).

However, all in all, a good start and at least retaining some level of scrutiny and public engagement. We shall see if other committees can match that.

Vanishing Democracy

A few weeks ago I wrote an article for publication in this month's Now Then Magazine, entitled “Vanishing Democracy” - Has Council Lost Touch with the People?

---

In what might be described as serendipity or, if you're of that mind, the Universe working in a mysterious way, I completed the article just a few days before It's Our City, the Sheffield Community Group launched their plans to create a petition about the City's democratic structure. The petition is aimed at calling on and possibly forcing Sheffield City Council to hold a referendum on changing to a Committee style structure away from the Strong Leader model we currently have.

If you read the article, via the linked title above, you will see that, between the Strong leader model of Governance and the impact of Austerity there has been a withdrawal by the Council into a more centralised decision making process. One that excludes the public (intentionally or not is immaterial) from having the voice and influence over decisions that we once enjoyed.

We all recognise how austerity and the gutting of Local Government finances has debilitated much of what Council's all over the country can do but, the way we respond to that reduced capacity is key to our ability to resist it's worst effects.

---

Greater participation from the city's people, investment in that participation and encouragement of that participation is absolutely vital. Councils need to loosen their obsessive control over so many aspects of what we are allowed to do, as community groups, as volunteers and as individuals wanting to support the needs of our city. They need to get behind local initiatives because they work, not because they fit a 'Party Political' agenda and grasp the nettle that is collaborative working within their decision making. An inability to see beyond the pound notes of a proposal or a deal or an opportunity is detrimental to good decision making. We need, in this City, at this time an appreciation of the 'Social Good' that can be done if we will only take the risk.

No one Political Party, Corporation, Voluntary Organisation or Individual has all the answers and nobody is right all the time. Looking at the way Council and Councillors respond to challenge and criticism, you would not believe that. Defensiveness and a bunker down attitude prevails and that is detrimental to making decisions that really benefit locally, and not just in the public purse, but in people's lives and their wellbeing.

---

I suspect there are few in Council who will read this and agree with me but I am very aware that there are Councillors of the current administration and many members of their political party who are uncomfortable with the way this city is managing itself. We must encourage those people to be more open in challenging the status quo and to put the people of the city before their 'Party' loyalty and the detrimental consequences that begets.

---

To support my work click on the button below.

It's Our City & We Can Change It

28th June 2018. This may be a date you want to remember. It's the date that Sheffield community group 'It's Our City' decided that enough is enough.

---

The group held a news conference on this day and launched a major challenge to the way Sheffield is governed. Anne Barr, one of the group's steering group started the event talking about how sad she felt when, attending a recent rally in the city, she saw a banner reading “Sheffield – Where Democracy Goes to Die”.

She went on to comment that, as a group they were trying to make a city where people can;
- Think, talk & work together.
- Become active & informed citizens.
- Ask for more from elected representatives.

Although originally growing out of the Streets Ahead PFI issue they are also looking at the way decisions are made locally & are impacting on broader community concerns. From the redevelopment and selling off of community assets (heritage buildings & community hubs) to missed opportunities and funding by simply failing to listen to the communities.

---

Then to the reason for the gathering. Ruth Hubbard, another of the group's steering committee, announced that they were planning to bring forward a petition demanding a change to the way the city is governed.

Sheffield is currently governed by a 'Strong Leader' model and that means that decisions about how the city works is made by just 10 people. The Leader of the Council and the Cabinet (currently 9 members). Elected Councillors beyond this inner group therefore have little or no power, irrespective of their Party colours. There is, however, power available to citizens of the city to remedy this situation. In the Localism legislation brought in under the Coalition Government there is a mechanism where a Council's electorate can force a referendum on changing the Council's structure.

In Sheffield this would mean forcing the Council to adopt a form of Committee governance, rather than the strong leader structure. It's actually a simple process too. The Group will create a petition under this localism legislation and, provided enough people on the city's electoral roll sign the petition, the Council has no choice but to hold a referendum on the change.

---

I won't go into what that will affect at this stage, that will come out over time as the petition is launched and campaigning begins. The first obstacle is to collect more than 5% of the electorates signatures. This number is not exact as yet but is expected to be around 21,000. This is the next step for the group and they hope to launch the petition in the next few weeks.

It sounds a big number but the petition to try and save the Georgian shops on Devonshire Green gained over 20,000 in a few days, so it is eminently achievable. There would still be a referendum to be won but in Councils where this has been undertaken that has also proved a winner.

---

My hope is that the Council will, as has happened with other Councils, choose to engage with this issue and simply agree to a real conversation about the issue and deliver a choice in a referendum at the next elections in May 2019.

Click here for It's Our City Website
Click here for It's Our City News Page

---

To support my work click on the button below.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting 14th February 2018

My questions to Cabinet this month were a bit unusual in a number of ways. Some are relatively straightforward but are a part of a longer term considered inquiry and one was delivered on the day instead of in advance as is my usual practice.

---

In a similarly unusual move some of the questions were either answered or written answers were offered before the meeting. In view of what came later, this was useful.

So: Question 1, on numbers of staff and budgets for Communications as against Democratic Services, I will be receiving a written answer.

Question 2, on capacity and number of students enrolled in the City's two University Technical Colleges, I will be receiving a written answer.

---

Question 3, on progress on my Conduct Complaint against a Councillor, I was updated verbally before the meeting and have since received a written answer. Apparently we are awaiting the arranging of a 'Consideration Sub-Committee' and have been since before Christmas. I wonder what will happen if this is not arranged before the AGM when everyone plays musical chairs in the committees?

---

Question 4, on the recent report by the Communities & Local Government Select Committee Inquiry into Overview & Scrutiny Functions in Local Government, was answered by Cllr Julie Dore (Leader). She commented that she would expect the Council's own Overview and Management Scrutiny Committee to consider the report as part of it's work programme. It would also look at all the recommendations of the report even though I had highlighted only certain parts.

That is fine by me, I had at this stage highlighted areas I know SCC don't do currently in the hope of stimulating a debate on the effectiveness of scrutiny in the city. To that extent I am content … for now.

---

My final question of the meeting was submitted at short notice and therefore I expected little by way of an answer but it was to serve notice that a disagreement may be at hand. In my Question 5 I asked about a decision announced (in private to the Sheffield Star only) that day about Mount Pleasant House being sold to a company to make into a Care Home.

There had been, in the previous week, reasons to believe that the decision may have been based on 'mistaken' or missing information in the reports received by Cabinet Members. I therefore asked that the decision be referred to Scrutiny to ensure “...that a complete understanding of the decision can be achieved and that it is based on a full understanding of the impact of this decision on another gem of Sheffield's heritage before it is lost to the local community forever.”

I also asked for a number of bits of information about the stage of the negotiations with the successful bidder.

The initial response was from Julie Dore, who commented that there is a protocol for contract decisions and it is not possible to comment on confidential or commercially sensitive information. There was no comment about referring the decision to Scrutiny.

Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) then confirmed the offer of a meeting for the following morning as she thought an early meeting with herself, Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member for Planning and Development) and Cllr Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Business and Investment) would be useful to look at other locations to develop some of the proposals in the Mount Pleasant bid.

I suspect this story will run and run, whilst another unique gem of Sheffield's heritage is under threat.

---

To make small regular donations to my support, please click below.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 29th January 2018

The agenda for the meeting was all business and this suggested to me a timescale within the half hour. Not unusual for this increasingly pointless bit of theatre.

---

Before the meeting however, I was seated in the waiting area chatting with Nigel Brewster, Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (the business end of the City Region) and a partner in the Brewster Pratap Recruitment Consultancy.

We were both bemoaning the pretence of the 'public' meeting and he expressed a concern that it made the Sheffield City Region political membership look like they either don't care or that all the decisions had already been made and this was nothing more than the public facing, so called, engagement. I agreed with this comment and that the meeting behind closed doors that takes place before the 'public' meeting was where any disagreements would be aired. For me this means that the Combined Authority are not serious about public engagement and indeed are trying to work around the 'problem' of people wanting to know what is going on.

I highlighted the fact that despite the turmoil around the devolution project in general and then the collapse of Carillion, neither of these items had made it to the agenda. Having to put questions to the meeting seven days in advance means that unexpected issues cannot be brought up for some seven weeks or more. Hardly a responsive or flexible public engagement strategy.

---

We were then called into the 'public' meeting. The chair was taken, for the first time officially, by Cllr Chris Read Leader of Rotherham elected last meeting to replace Barnsley's Cllr Steve Houghton. All the nine leaders appeared to be in place and the meeting began, once a missing Secretariat minute taker was back from his comfort break.

Items 1 to 6 on the agenda went past a brisk pace, they generally do being about voting rights, declarations of interest and exclusion of press & public items. Item 7 held a minor positive for active citizenry. In his brief time in the pre meeting mingling Nigel Brewster had clearly brought some of my comments to the attention of Cllr Julie Dore (Sheffield Leader) and, during this item on questions by members, she butted in before it was glossed over to ask a question, on my behalf about the impact of Carillion's collapse on the City Region. There was a bit of a stumble but, interestingly one of the Officers was able to respond that, fortunately, there were no outstanding contracts with Carillion within the City Region's remit. My thanks to both Nigel Brewster and Julie Dore for this helpful approach.

Beyond that the rest of the items on the agenda galloped by with a handful of approvals to previously prepared reports and the meeting closed after just 15 minutes.

---

Again the meeting came across as a piece of theatre and the lack of discussion or comment about the content of the reports being presented reinforces the appearance of a bureaucratic machine rather than a collaborative public authority. The unexpected response to the question at item 7 was illuminating, suggesting they can deal with questions at little or no notice if they wish to.

---

Next meeting is the 12th March 2018.

---

Sheffield's 'Devolution' Deal – The Last Lap?

Friday's special Full Council meeting voted to approve the ratification of the so called 'devolution' deal that first came out of it's closet in October last year.

---

Until October, following Manchester jumping first, the deal was in the offing but because of secretive negotiations, any details were entirely unknown. The deal hit the ground running with a public signing ceremony complete with the Chancellor and the four Metro Council leaders of South Yorkshire looking cosy, right before the Conservative Party Conference. Despite later insistence from the council leaders that this was a 'proposal', a signed document committed them to a process to agree the deal, either as it stood or subject, as it turns out to some further negotiation.

From that point on and with the relentless pressure of Government timetables snapping at their heals, the councils of the Combined Authority have acted with what some would call undue haste to ensure a deal was done. Questions and concerns from community groups and members of the public were played down, particularly around issues of a Metro mayor with veto powers and the wide range of clauses within the deal that were vague and uncertain. Funnily enough the Mayor's veto later became a 'red line' issue for Sheffield council.

---

So, by leaps and bounds, the process moved on. Discussions continued, behind closed doors, yet until late December the public was largely omitted from the process. A public consultation did happen over Christmas & New Year, (great timing) and the results were finally reported to the City Region mired in positive spin. Then councils started their ratification processes. Barnsley, Rotherham & Doncaster voted for the deal in very short order. No surprise really, the leader of Barnsley had commented at a Sheffield City Council scrutiny meeting that 'without this deal he would be unable to provide public services in Barnsley in the very near future'.

The North Midlands councils voted in favour, some agreeing to become full constituent members of the City Region, enabling them to vote for the Mayor. Only Sheffield remained. Before the meeting on Friday, Julie Dore's 'red lines' were apparently resolved to the council's satisfaction and the stage was set for a yes vote.

---

As a Full Council meeting there was a space for public questions. Only two members of the public were there to ask questions and, no surprise, I was one of them. In my question I outlined the litany of broken promises, pledges and targets typical of the last six years of 'austerity' and the essence of my question, rounded out by a number of technical points, was;

“Does the Council believe it can trust the current Government to honour it's commitments with respect to this so called 'Devolution' deal?”

The response came from Julie Dore, as Council Leader. The response was, essentially, no we cannot trust the Government. The Council will have to work ceaselessly to ensure the commitments are met and if they renege on any of the promises within the deal, we will withdraw. She also pointed out that until the order approving the deal went before Parliament there was still time to do so.

The Leader commented that this was the only deal available at the moment and that no-one could afford to miss the boat. Without this deal our city and our economy would fall even further behind the rest of the Cities in the country and that, even though the Government continue to control the purse strings, they can cut funding now or in the future with impunity anyway.

---

The chamber then went on to debate the deal amongst the political parties. At this point it all becomes quite acrimonious and playground behaviour. The gist of most of the contributions however were to the same effect. It's the only deal on offer, we know we can't trust the Government, any extra money is better than none, we make better decisions locally.

The missing links for me were around responsibility and blame. Nobody really acknowledged how the deal will enable the Government to place some of the responsibility for future austerity in local hands as well. If the deal falls apart through funding cuts, no matter what the facts of the situation, the blame will fall on the City Region and therefore the councils. That may not be true nor fair but that is how it will play out in the political spin olympics in Parliament and in the hostile media.

---

So with fingers crossed and hearts full of hope and dread in equal measure, it would seem, the Labour and Lib/Dem Councillors in Sheffield have set sail on Osborne's great experiment. The final act will be the ratification of the deal by the City Region Combined Authority , on the 31st March, followed by frantic, no doubt secret, discussions to try and get all the uncertainties resolved before an order is laid before Parliament towards the end of the year.

City Region Devolution - A Deal on the Brink.

The Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal is a bit like the weather this winter, unsettled.

---

The deal is currently available for public consultation and finally, with just a few days left, it is now linked on the front page of the Council's website . The next stage should be a formal decision, in February, by the Sheffield City Council to support or reject the deal. This decision then goes forward to a meeting of the Combined Authority in March where they will vote on the same question.

If the vote is in favour of the deal then it is intended that the implementation would start on the first of April. Exactly what that would look like though is still not clear at this stage, as Council officials involved in the negotiations with central government have admitted that all the details of the full agreement will not be completed even at that point.

---

In the Public Questions item on this last Wednesday's Full Council Meeting I asked a number of questions about the devolution consultation, including exactly when the proposal would be brought before council for a decision.

Julie Dore (Leader), commented that the two 'red line' concerns of the City Council were still not resolved. That is, the removal from the proposed agreement of the paragraph giving the elected mayor a veto on all decisions of the Combined Authority (a far more powerful role than any initially expected) and clarification on the impact of the amendment to the 'Cities & Local Government Devolution Bill' with regard to Combined Authority councils that are currently part of two tier County Council structures.

In other words, Sheffield wants the power of the Mayor to be circumscribed to specific areas of decision making and they want to know what happens if a North Derbyshire council wants to drop their County and become full 'constituent' members of the City Region.

I've been pushing concerns over the first of these 'red lines' since the proposed deal was first released to the public in October 2015 negotiators have now caught on to this veto clause too. The geography question matters because the financing of two tier council's is bound to their County and how this will play out if a council decides to switch sides is still unclear. Things like police funding, fire services, education, transport and highways are all complex matters that need to be clarified before any such move might be contemplated.

---

Most interesting about Councillor Dore's comments, however, was concerning the timing of the decision making process for the proposed deal. All along the City Region has been dancing to the beat of the government's drum. The deal was announced in time for the Conservative Party conference, and the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. The pressure to have the deal signed sealed and implemented in April is from the Government.

Julie Dore plainly stated at the council meeting that she will not bring the proposed deal before the council until these 'red line' issues are resolved. She has made it doubly clear that she will no longer follow the HMG time scale but will take as long as necessary to get the deal right even if that means missing the deadline for the February Council Meeting, or the March Combined Authority Meeting or the proposed implementation on April first.

---

The Devolution Proposal is now on the brink of failing. If HMG won't budge and Council won't budge we enter uncharted waters. Will council step away from devolution at this time? Will HMG move on to other potential deals with other authorities? Will the Northern Cities find their courage to fight for true devolution rather than this expanded 'City Deal'?

---

In the Meantime please continue to have your say by completing the Devolution Survey and I will continue to try and keep you aware of the developments.

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE
SHEFFIELD CITY REGION DEVOLUTION SURVEY

---

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SHEFFIELD CITY REGION DEVOLUTION AGREEMENT

Not My Sunday Sermon 4 – Winning & Losing, by Nigel Slack

---

This is a bit of a late night piece and a reflection on the fruits of three months of intensive campaigning. Campaigning both for change, through my work on transparency in Sheffield's public affairs, and for the support of that work through my crowdfunding project.

---

It's not a long piece because, in the scheme of things, three months is not a lot of time to make an impact on the political stage, but when trying to live on next to no income and extending credit to the limit, three months seems like forever. I guess that's why I've titled it 'Winning & Losing' the impact I've achieved in political terms has definitely been a win, my ability to make this my full time employ however, has failed.

In this aspect I am undoubtedly disappointed, deeply so. I have received support from some amazing people and, perhaps not surprisingly, those who have contributed could be considered those least able, financially, to do so. Those people have my undying and immense gratitude. They are people who understand what I have been trying to achieve, understand why it is important to do it and believed in my ability to deliver the goods. At least, in that, I feel vindicated in attempting the difficult sell, asking people to contribute to a project that gave no profitable return and no new gadget to display as evidence of ones tech savvy or fashion forward knowledge.

I admit to having failed to translate that into a mass appeal. Quite simply not enough people saw or understood what I was trying to do. Those that I did connect with and who took the time to look at what I was doing and listened to the things I managed to do, be they public or press, were able to relate to my concerns over the way decisions in our city are made and the lack of real public engagement in that process. A great deal of support was expressed and appreciation offered but the ability to fund it was often not there. It is there that the root of my disappointment lies.

---

Then there are the winning aspects of my last three months. The top of this list may surprise some people but it is the connections I have made with people, both inside local politics and more importantly outside, that share my belief that we can do better. Whether it's been professors from Universities or a 'Doley from Richmond' as he likes to call himself, Council Officers or 'some' Councillors, there are people throughout this city that realise we need to take a long hard look at how we arrange our politics for the future. That the involvement of the public and their support is the only way to legitimise a system that can get fewer and fewer people to the actual ballot box.

Then there are the little victories that come from constant conversations with the cities decision makers. Commitments to transparency in the planning process, the regreening of the Meadowhead roundabout and to opposing TTIP whilst it allows for the privatisation of the NHS.

---

The one achievement that will probably have the biggest impact on the transparency of decision making in the city is the latest. Live on Radio Sheffield, Leader of the Council, Julie Dore agreed to support the introduction of Webcasting for council meetings, if it can be done without impacting the city's budget. Why is this such good news? I've already put such a plan to the city's Commercial Director, who sees it as entirely feasible. The political will now matches the public appetite and there should be no more obstacles. Now that is a win worth talking about.

Full Council Meeting on 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

The meeting kicked off as usual but this time the public gallery was full. There was a significant contingent of the GMB Union members currently striking against the Green Company, who run the recycling centres in the city as sub-contractors for Veolia, the outsourcing company. In addition there was a petition to be presented about the outsourcing of the Learning Disability Service and with over 5,000 signatures this triggers a debate in council.

Soon enough public petitions and questions came around and there were lots of petitions this time. Subjects were; Devonshire Street shops demolition, Tesco Express planning application in Stannington, Re-instatement of free city centre shuttle bus service, Misuse of Totley Scout Hut, and School crossing patrol at St Anne's Park School.

---

The meeting then moved on to Public Questions. Again lots of questions from a full public gallery, inevitably meaning I would be towards the end. As a regular there it seems to me that this means the 'new' people get to ask their questions first. This is fine in general terms but sometimes leads to boredom in the cheap seats and those of us at the end of the process are less likely to be able to preface or contextualise our questions, which leads to uncertainty in answers and the liklihood of additional questions being needed at a later date.

Questions were on the subjects of; Protocols of child protection, Employment and economic development, Gritting of Blindside Lane, Questions grouped by the GMB Union members on the strike at Sheffield's waste recycling centres and the management by 'Green Company' on a sub-contract from Veolia, The privatisation of the 'Supported Living Service', Arbourthorne TARA concerns, The Sheffield Federation of TARA's and council recognition, and the roadworks for the new Sainsbury's store in Hillsborough and consequent problems for local traders.

---

Finally it came around to my questions. My first was aimed at Julie Dore (Leader) and concerned the recent News that Greater Manchester Combined Authority had signed a so called devolution deal with the Treasury to give them certain extra spending responsibilities in exchange for accepting an elected City Region Mayor.

"How does the council think of Manchester jumping ship on the other Northern cities?
Do the council agree with the approach that gives business leaders a chance to vote on these devolution proposals but no vote for the public that will pay for them?
Which experts and business leaders from Sheffield will be attending?
Do the two remaining councils involved see the trap that Manchester is being led into?
Does the council agree with the potential imposition of a directly elected Mayor that we rejected in 2012?
Will the council accept administering the hateful welfare to work programme?"

To my surprise the response was from Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills & Economic Development) who outlined the benefits of serious devolution and the fact that the Manchester deal was lacking these benefits. He also commented negatively on the idea of an elected mayor. There was however no comment on the Northern Futures meeting the next day or on who from Sheffield would be attending.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My second question was on some planning matters. Trying to avoid asking for comment on specific proposals in order not to step on legal procedural toes.

"The planning system is currently mired in controversy and poor public relations and two particular proposals are causing the bulk of the problems. I will refrain from mentioning them or asking direct questions about them, for fear of being told they can't be answered without jeopardising the planning process. So, in general; When a planning application on the council's website indicates a determination deadline date, what does that mean?"

And;

"Where a planning guideline indicates a ratio of different usage types within an area, ie between A1 and A3 uses, will the recommendation by officers and the decision of the planning committee on this aspect of the proposal be based on, the current guidelines, guidelines proposed but rejected by the council on some previous occasion or a developers feeling as to the likely future guidelines yet to be tabled or put to a council decision making process?"

Cllr Bramall's response was exactly what I hoped to elicit with this question. To the first part he responded that transparency and open procedure was all important in planning matters. This gives me the confirmation I need to press for greater information in the early stages of applications and a more balanced availability of Officers to 'objectors' as well as 'developers'. Something to pursue at my personal meeting with Cllr Bramall.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My final question was about the appalling turnout of voters at the PCC by-election and an unedifying, almost snide argument witnessed on Twitter between a cabinet councillor and a councillor of the Green Party, about the ethics of voting or not voting as an elected representative.

"The PCC election was neither a particularly legitimate expression of democracy with less than 15% turnout and a winner with less than 8% of the electorate voting for them, nor a value for money exercise costing approximately £11.50 per vote cast. In addition Doncaster reported that of their electorate only 3.5% voted at the ballot box, the remaining 11.5% being postal votes. What was the ratio of postal to ballot box votes in Sheffield?"

And;

"With 86% of the electorate not voting, no party was in a position to take the moral high ground about who did or did not publicly support voting. The supporters of all parties stayed away from the ballot box and it seems unlikely they listened to any of the politicians pro or anti voting in this particular election. Can the council please urge all politicians to act more responsibly over such issues?"

Cllr Julie Dore responded to this question and apologised for not having the election figures to hand that I asked for but she would get them from the Returning Officer. On the second part of the question she was unable to offer direct comment as lack of context meant it was unclear but she did illustrate her own opinion on the responsibilities of elected officials to engage with the ballot box.

For me the question remains whether the act of not voting is still a means of engaging with the process?

---

Full Audio below.

---

At this point I had to leave and poor Martin Brighton was still asking his question the meeting already having been running for two hours and with an important debate on road safety about to start which was triggered by a large petition. This again illustrates the need to look seriously and urgently at webcasting council meetings. Then those unable to attend at all, or those who found it necessary to leave before the end can still see and comment on the democracy, or lack of it, in action in our council meetings.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 15th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Cabinet meeting had a few interesting nuggets this time round, so this is quite a long report. First I'll deal with my 'part' in the meeting. After the usual preamble and agreeing the minutes of the last meeting we headed in to public questions. This is generally more relaxed than in the Full Council meetings and I took the opportunity to advertise the Sheffield for Democracy PCC Hustings event on Tuesday 21st October at the United Reform Church in the city centre.

Here's the audio of my comments.

This was followed by my first question. The question was inspired by the article in the Guardian on Tuesday about the MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier) conference that is normally held in Cannes, South of France, but has an inaugural UK version in London this week. The Guardian article suggests the conference is THE place to be if you are a council wanting to sell off the family silver, or housing estates, that type of thing.

To quote from the article.

"For the past 25 years, this conference – Mipim for short – has been held in Cannes. It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia’s Lend Lease paid for Southwark’s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knock-down price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for “social rent”."

I therefore asked whether this was the same conference that Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business ,skills and development) had attended last year and whether Sheffield attendees had any restrictions placed on them about selling off the city's family silver? Leigh Bramall and Julie Dore (Leader) both responded, Cllr Bramall indicating that it was the same conference, explaining that he and the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, roughed it in cheap bedsits whilst there and that they only attend these events to attract investment in the city for projects like the retail quarter. Cllr Dore added emphasis to the question of restriction making it very clear that any decisions on anything that came out of such conferences would be made in Sheffield by the council.

Question 1 audio below.

My second question was based on the report on Grounds Maintenance being approved at this meeting. The report itself recommends keeping ground maintenance in house but changing some of the structural management elements. The part of the report that got me interested was comment on the weighting of the decision making process. The key outcome weightings determine what are considered the most important aspects of the decision. In this case it fell out as follows.

Customer First 30%
Value for Money 30%
Council considerations 20%
Employee consideration 20%

I asked whether the same weightings were applied to all council contract decisions whether currently outsourced or not and how this would affect the consideration of contracts for which the council no longer had the 'capacity' to bring in-house.

Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) responded that weightings were used in all decisions of this nature but that they were different depending on the service under review. Services that were mainly internal processes would not have the same level of 'customer first' weighting. Service quality, however, was always factored in and they did not always choose the cheapest option. He passed no comment on the second part of my question. I guess the follow up will be to get some breakdown of the types of contracts and the corresponding weightings, to see if they are reasonable in the eyes of the public.

Question 2 audio below.

After further questions from members of the public the meeting moved on to consider a number of reports brought for approval. Item 9. was the first on the subject of the Grounds Maintenance arrangements for the council. In brief the report recommended the retention in-house of this service with some structural changes to how it was managed. The outcome was straightforward with the recommendations approved. The interesting bit was in comments on the report where Cllr Julie Dore asked whether the 'Sheffield Standard' which they were applying to the quality of the maintenance carried out could be extended to those private landlords (like housing associations) who were supposed to maintain their own grounds. Although the response was not a complete yes, it suggested that discussions on this were already under-way with those landlords.

The report at item 11. on Independent Living Solutions, was essentially about the various aspects of the city's independent living strategy for older and vulnerable people in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group. There was one element of concern for me in this, or more correctly in the language of the presentation to cabinet, where the council officer referred to the Health and Care economy. The problem is this suggests an approach where the considerations are about money first and people second. This may not be the case but that is certainly the perception. In such a context words are important and should be chosen with care to reflect the truth of a statement.

The final part of the meeting went on to look at budget reports and in the first report we, the public, got our first glimpse of the chilling future for the city's budget in 2015/16. The indications are that the Government grant to Sheffield for next year will drop by £45 Million or 29% and the projected shortfall in the city's budget would consequently be some £38M. Another serving of austerity that will be very difficult to swallow.

The audio of the comment is here.

---

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com
To 'like' on Facebook click here
To follow on Twitter click here
To support Nigel's self-funding Indiegogo campaign click here

Sheffield City Council meeting agenda with links to reports.

---

1st October 2014 - Full Council Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

First off, an apology, due to a recording malfunction the quality of the audio I recorded at this meeting is not suitable for inclusion in the blog, so it's back to the written word only for this report. I will however try to keep it succinct and as soon as they are available I will include the official minutes at the end. So after the usual welcomes and housekeeping information, minutes of last meeting were accepted and the meeting moved on to public questions and petitions.

There were two petitions of particular interest. The first was a repeat of a petition on the Council's contracts with G4S and concerns over their human rights record. Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) admitted a mistake had been made the last time this came up and that the Council have 2 contracts with G4S, one for cash collection services and one for keyholder services, though they are both of low value. He informed the petitioners that the contracts were to be retendered by the early part of 2015 and the motion he has put forward later in the meeting should address their concerns about human rights.

The second was with respect to Scooter parking in the city, a mode of transport becoming ever more popular again. The petitioner, Jonathan Marsden, asked for improved levels of scooter parking areas and an exemption for scooters to be allowed to park on pavements. In response Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) commented that parking was the most problematic of issues with as many against as for any parking policy they as council might agree. He offered to continue to review the problems for scooters but that parking on pavement was unlikely to be a solution because of the problems this causes to the visually impaired.

Then came public questions. There were questions about the city pension fund and it's investment in fossil fuel funds and a number of questions about winter gritting in the Bradfield area of the city.

My questions were next and my first was concerning the fate of Smithy Wood ancient woodland to the North of the city. This woodland is subject to two decision processes within the council, a planning application is under consideration which would destroy the majority of the woodland in favour of a motorway service facility and an application to the licensing panel to have the woodland declared a village green thereby protecting it has been referred for a full inquiry to the council. On this second application, the chair of that committee commented that it was in the 'interests of natural justice' to hold an inquiry and in 'everyone's interest it be orgabised as quickly as possible'. I therefore asked if the council would ensure that the village green inquiry was held before the planning decision was made.

Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business,skills and development) responded to the effect that, planning decisions had to be taken in adherence to certain timescales to prevent applicants claiming 'non-determination'. However, even if the application is passed the 'village green' application still has to be processed before the planning permission becomes active.

My remaining questions, essentially two but probably really two and a half were about the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). I asked about the potential for this agreement to seriously curtail the ability of governemnt both national and local to pass legislation or by laws that 'might' affect a corporations profits. I commented on the involvement of the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) in the roadshow event for TTIP that took place that morning and asked whether, as a balance, the council would host an event that looked at the potential threats of the TTIP rather than the emphasis being placed on the positive aspects for business? I then attempted to comment on that mornings roadshow event and to ask whether any local public money had been used to support the event?

I say tried as I was interrupted by the Lord Mayor, Cllr Peter Rippon, telling me I was making a statement and to get to my question. This would seem to be an annual ritual, I was challenged in the same way last year by Cllr Vicky Priestley during her tenure as Lord Mayor. I soldiered on to ask my question though without some important contextual information. I also asked a supplementary question regarding a comment made by David Henig (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) a civil servant "it's not Governments job to protect the people from corporations". I asked whether council had any comment on this?

Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) responded to all my questions in one go, fair enough, Answerring the last first she commented that "it is certainly the job of government to protect people from corporations" particularly she thought where they impact on peoples quality of life. She also supports some of the initiatives put forward by Ed Miliband around corporations that exploit there customers or the people they are supposed to be delivering services to, like the energy companies. Cllr Dore then commented on the global aspect of the economy and how private companie seemed to be taking over everything as seen lately with the NHS, however she also acknowledged that this put the 'left' in a delicate situation since despite their inclination to keep public services public, she has to accept that where we are is where we are. We have to accept that we need businesses to continue to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

She continued to comment on the role of the LEP and how city involvement enabled them to steer the LEP's investment in local business initiatives. On the issue of TTIP, she agrees with the national party's attempts to get an exemption for the NHS and other public services. On the roadshow, she commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence,as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

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