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.

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