Time for Change

Those people that have been kind enough to follow me over the last few years will have noticed that I have been quiet for a few months. Following extensive involvement with Sheffield City Council's transition from a Leader & Cabinet system of Governance to a Modern Committee system, I took some time to recharge my batteries and to consider my next moves.

This coincided with the investigation and disciplinary process concerning Kate Josephs, as Chief Executive. The issues around her involvement in lockdown events, often known as 'Partygate' became a major problem for the City, it's leadership and, those of us that have tried to be a critical friend to the Council.

For me, the issue was never actually about her 'partying' whilst the rest of us were adhering to her Central Government masters rules. She was not the only one, as we well know, to fall foul of that issue. The problem for me arose from her choosing not to be open, transparent and honest with her employers and the people of the city she helps to lead.

Kate Joseph's only came clean on her involvement in a rule busting leaving party, thrown specifically for her, when she was threatened with exposure by the press. Local reporters had asked the question about her time at the Cabinet office and 'Partygate' on several occasions but she had denied any wrongdoing. It was only when the National press were about to publish a story concerning her own 'party' that the Chief Executive released a statement about the issues.

She had known the matter was under investigation for some time and had even asked for advice from her previous employer at the Cabinet Office. She followed their advice to keep the matter secret from her current employer, despite the potential reputational damage this might cause the city and, despite now being employed by the City Council.

---

This is where I have issue with her actions and her integrity.

---

I, personally, think she should have resigned at that point, admitting she had not lived up to her employer's or the city's expectations and by doing so give Sheffield an opportunity to start over and find a Chief executive we can trust. She, however, decided to subject herself and the Council to an extensive, slow and ultimately, wet rag disciplinary process. She has been sanctioned with a written warning and whilst this may seem a serious consequence, as the head of paid service within the Council, who will oversee her actions from here-on?

I have had the opportunity of a meeting with Kate Josephs after the fact and, although seemingly full of regret and understanding the impact she has had on the very trust in the institution she was employed to improve. For me, however, the actions she undertook during that period before the story came out in public, drove a coach and horses through the foundation of codes of conduct for public servants, in other words the Nolan Principles on Public Life. I therefore cannot place trust in the Chief Executive and will struggle to work with Council in as much depth as I have in the past.

Beyond the tribulations of the Chief executive, I have also been deeply disappointed that some Elected Councillors and so-called Sheffield business leaders were willing to overlook the Nolan Principles in favour of an expedient decision that was to their benefit. That further eroded my hope for a change in the culture of the Council that would be supported by the New Committee System and to the betterment of the residents and communities of the city.

For these reasons, following an open & honest conversation with the Council Leader Terry Fox I am now pulling back from my direct involvement with the City Council, except for the new review of the transition . I hope you will all be a part of this review to help the Council make the most of the new governance system and make the incremental improvements any new project needs.

What is the future for Sheffield City Council's Chief Executive, Kate Josephs?

When the revelations about the Chief Exec's lockdown partying emerged over this last weekend, I really hoped it was not what it seemed and, in a brief moment of levity, the lyrics of a song by The Clash sprang to mind, albeit changed for the situation.

“...should She stay or should She go now...”

Kate Josephs has been in post for a scant 12 months and, as I commented in this Now Then Article from August 2020, she was immediately faced with a city in trouble. In the grip of a pandemic, with the prospect of becoming a Council in No Overall Control (NOC) and facing Governance changes to a Committee system as a result of a people powered referendum. Finally the City's finances still at the mercy of HMG decisions and perilous underfunding.

As we now know, both the NOC Council and the Governance changes are now underway and all this sits in the lap of the Chief Executive as the City's most senior public servant. As I commented in the Now Then article;

“Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, describes Kate Josephs as “inspirational, outstanding and unique”. She will need every one of those traits to tackle the challenges that Sheffield faces over the next few years. “

However.

We must ask whether a Chief Executive revealed to be part of the Governments 'Partygate' scandal can retain any trust from the elected members or from the residents of the City?

The biggest hurdle she faced on taking up this role was the matter of trust. Many of the residents of the city had lost trust in the Council, both it's elected members and the staff, particularly over the atrocious handling of the AMEY Streets Ahead contract and the heavy handed response from both Council and Police to the protests in the city.

One of the key roles for this new Chief Exec had to be the regaining of that trust through honesty, openness and transparency. Has she failed in this, as a result of this scandal? Certainly confessing and apologising just before a newspaper story was planning to out you does not look good, but have our Councillors been able to get away with worse in their past?

The Leader of the Council has expressed his disappointment but should he not also be angry. This party happened just a few months after the death of much respected Cllr Pat Midgley from Coronavirus and when many of us were dealing with friends and family suffering from the illness or the effects of grieving loved ones. The vast majority of us obeyed the rules, Kate Josephs did not.

(Link to Tweet)

There are questions to be answered and decisions to be made regarding her future and whether she can continue to deliver the leadership needed by the Officers of the Council through a turbulent Transition process. I feel for their undoubted disappointment and anger as well, but we must also ask whether the disruption of removing a Chief Exec at such a time will be more damaging to the city?

Cllr Terry Fox & Kate Josephs are the only ones with the power to make those decisions!

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.

Cabinet Meeting 18th July 2018 - Public Q&A's

Sheffield City Council's Cabinet Meeting of the 18th July was somewhat more informative than many recent meetings and, as a result, I felt the responses to my questions are worth noting.

So here are the questions I asked and a condensed version of the answers I received.

---

Questions to Cabinet 18th July 2018

Q1 I've heard from a number of sources within Council that a procurement process has begun for the Webcasting of Council meetings and that a tender invitation will be sent out shortly. Is this the case?
If so, what are the details of the specification in the tender for a webcasting service?
Which meetings? Guarantees of independence from political interference? Indexing of agenda items and identification of participants? Archiving arrangements? Etc.

A1 Response from Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) Commented that recent tests for recording meetings had shown the audio system was at the end of it's useful life. It has previously been agreed that any such service should be affordable within current budgets. Tenders were sent out asking for options to do this. Tenders have been received and are going through assessment process.

My Comment
This is generally good news, probably. I have been pressing for webcasting of Council meetings for six years or more and, despite a commitment from the Leader of Council, Julie Dore over two years ago it has been painfully slow progress. It is a shame the outline specs for the tender documents were not discussed more transparently, perhaps with those of us pressing for the service, hopefully the options that arise will be shared before decisions are made.

---

Q2 The changes to the public realm on Charter Row, at the back of the Debenhams store and the side of the new HSBC building, offered an opportunity to much improve that relatively sterile part of the city centre. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, the seating on the Debenhams side of the street faces the back wall of Debenhams rather than across the open space towards the new green spaces being created at the side of the HSBC building.
Why is this? Was this always the plan or a mistake?
Passing recently it is clear that most of the new planting in that area is dying due to lack of watering. Who is responsible for this space and the maintenance of the planting?

A2 Response from Cllr Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Business and Investment) He agreed the design might appear a bit odd at this stage but that further development in that area would make the layout make more sense. (I am promised an overview of the future look of the area at my next meeting with Cllr Iqbal). On concerns over the planting, the contractors have responded and will now be watering the planting once a week during this arid spell of weather.

---

Q3 In the last year or so I have heard the phrase Due Diligence on several occasions. It has been used in regard to many decisions made by Council, from the potential selling of the Central Library, the disposal of Mount Pleasant (where it was used a great deal) to the recently collapsed 'ofo' deal.
What has never been made clear is what Due Diligence actually means.
Can Council explain what the phrase means?
What steps are included in assessing due diligence?
What information is accessed and assessed?
Where is the information sourced?
Who/which department assesses the information?
What technical or other qualifications are expected of people in this decision making position?

Response by Cllr Julie Dore (Leader of the Council) Commenting that I was probably well aware what the term meant, she however explained that it is a generic term and about ensuring checks and balances are maintained for contracts etc. Such checks will always include financial and legal checks but can also include broader issues about ability to deliver on the contract or service. Normally the checks were carried out by qualified Council staff but they will use outside experts as necessary. Cllr Dore then asked if I had any particular decisions in mind?

I responded no but generally I felt it would be useful (& improve transparency) if reports to Cabinet etc. included information about the types of checks carried out not just the words 'due diligence'

She agreed to take that on board (I may need to follow that up with the Council's Chief Exec, John Mothersole)

---

Q4 Over the last couple of years the proposed fate of the Central Library has changed more than once. Sale to an outside investor, new building in the Heart of the City and now a revamp of the current location. What is the current situation with respect to the Central library and building?

A4 Response from Cllr Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure) Commenting that the Council were committed to the Central library building and to the Graves Art Gallery, she said there were to be a series of public events in the near future to look at what a new central library service might look like and where it might be situated. This might include the current location or a new building still within the city centre.

---

Generally a series of positive responses with actual outcomes on the horizon. Webcasting to become a reality? Improved openness about plans for the redevelopment around Charter Square. potential for more information in decision documents about what 'Due Diligence' means & public consultation (before the fact) on the future of the Central library sevrice.

It's good to get confirmation that what I do as an Active Citizen works.

---

To support my work click on the button below.

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 Council Cabinet Meeting 17th January 2018

Cabinet Meetings are an opportunity to see the real power brokers in the city, the Council Cabinet making decisions. It is also an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of those same decision makers.

---

This particular meeting was a bit of a sparse affair, with three Cabinet Members and the City's Chief Executive missing. Cllr Julie Dore (Leader), Cllr Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families), Cllr Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene). There was no explanation for their absences, there rarely is.

That did mean that my questions 4 & 5 would not get an answer as they would normally be referred to Cllr Lodge. I did have a vague hope that Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) who was chairing the meeting in her role as Deputy Leader may have some comment on the financial enquiries in question 5 but it was not to be.

Below are the questions I asked at this meeting and the responses I received, with some editorial comment from me along the way.

---

Question 1

Why did the city miss the opportunity to bid for money to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the women's suffrage movement?

We were one of 16 candidates invited to apply for a share of a £1.2M pot but chose not to apply, was any consideration given to this opportunity or any discussion had with heritage groups in the city to assist in a possible bid?

I supported this question with copies of correspondence between Louise Haigh MP (Sheffield Heeley) and the Government Equalities Office.

The question was answered by Cllr Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure). She commented that the Council had been unable to find any evidence of a letter inviting them to bid for the grant pot but they would continue to look. She agreed it was unfortunate that the opportunity was missed. Pointed out that there was a plaques to the Suffragette movement on Marlborough Road and a new one was to be placed this year on Chapel Walk. She also commented on all the things the city did to celebrate Sheffield women, including the recent 'Women of Steel' statue. There was also comment on the exhibition about protest in the Millennium Gallery organised by the Museums Trust. (anyone might think she had seen my Q7)

Finally she mentioned the smaller grants now available to community groups and encouraged any groups interested to bid for funds to celebrate the centenary

---

Question 2

Living just off London Road I have completed the survey into the possibility of selective licensing for the area. Has Council given any thought to a city wide licensing scheme for private landlords?

It would seem this would have the benefit of ensuring all landlords are working to the same minimum standards and would not impinge on the businesses of decent landlords. It would also have the benefit that costs of licenses could be reduced, making more landlords able to afford any needed improvements whilst not unfairly impacting on those who already meet eh minimum standards?

This was answered by Cllr Jayne Dunn (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety) who responded that the limits on selective licensing were set by central government at 20% of geography or of the city's private rental stock. Council therefore concentrated on identifying the most at risk areas of the city to tackle with these powers. (this might be a matter for the local renters campaign Acorn to take up at a national level as well as locally, though I may follow up to see whether any work arounds are available)

---

Question 3

When I first planned this question it was to ask whether the Council had made any contingencies for the potential collapse of Carrilion. Circumstances have overtaken that and now my question is what exposure does the city have in respect of this major outsourcing company collapsing?

What impact will this have on the Tram / Train project? The Lower Don Valley flood defence project? And the 250 jobs at the Carillion Call Centre in the City?

In addition is the Council aware of how many local companies may be impacted as part of the 30,000 small businesses owed money by the company?

This was answered first by Cllr Olivia Blake. She was able to clarify that all Carrilion contracts with the city were complete, including the flood defence work. She had no knowledge how the Call Centre might be affected but that they were keeping an eye out for any local businesses that may be impacted by the collapse.

Cllr Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability) answered the part about the Tram/Train project. He stated that the Council's part of this project was complete and the remaining Carillion contract was with Network Rail. Work appeared to be continuing and Network Rail and the Department for Transport were in negotiations over the impact of the collapse.

---

Questions 4 & 5

As I stated before these would have been referred to Cllr Bryan Lodge who was absent. I will therefore update on these if I ever get the promised written response.

---

Before moving on to the final two questions I would like to proffer an observation. It was at this point in the meeting that the Councillors present moved into professional politician mode. They appeared to shrug off their humanity in favour of party unity. No doubt they justify this as supporting the greater good but to me it appears cynical and dehumanising to the Councillors involved. The fact is they supported a rapacious multinational conglomerate over the people of the city who, particularly as Cabinet Members, they are charged with representing.

---

Question 6

It was disturbing to see a Cabinet member sharing a propaganda video from AMEY PLC entitled “The Protestors Have No Respect For Democracy”.

This from a company that denies public oversight of the contract they are being paid £2.2Bn to implement over 25 years, though apparently we'll now be paying the bill for 45 years, and who have consistently flouted industry good practice and H&S protocols in doing so. This professionally produced and extremely selective view of the trees issue, apparently made with the connivance of the Council, makes unsubstantiated allegations about the conduct of protestors, neither of which incidents resulted in arrests and appear to use SCC evidence footage. There is also a claim that masked people in headlamps are out on the streets causing concern. Are we sure these aren't AMEY subcontractors stalking the streets for unprotected trees at 4am?

Can Council confirm whether footage taken by Council under the Council's internal evidence protocol were used in this video?

If so, who authorised that use?

This was answered by Cllr Jack Scott, being the Cabinet Member that shared the video on Twitter. His response fell into three repetitions. It is not propaganda just another point of view, it is entirely truthful, it has been quite rightly been shared by lots of Councillors. (well the video, as it's original upload on YouTube shows, has been seen just over 700 times, liked once & disliked 31 times. I cannot find anyone else from Council having shared it, certainly not his Cabinet colleagues, his own tweet has been shared only 5 times and liked only twice. There are 50 comments on the tweet, mostly from STAG members taking Cllr Scott to task. Interestingly, the title of the video has now been changed to 'A Residents' View')

Cllr Olivia Blake answered the last point, stating that no SCC evidence material had been used in the video. (Interestingly Council's head of Highways, Paul Billington was in attendance for the Public Questions leaving immediately afterwards. Wonder if he was there to ensure Councillors stuck to the script?)

---

Question 7

Recent events and the fact that this week included Martin Luther King Day, reminded me of a quote from that great advocate of peaceful protest; “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” MLK I Have a Dream, 1963 The silence from this Council over the violence and unlawful behaviour of security staff employed by it's Streets Ahead contractor is shameful and for women Councillors to remain silent in the face of violence to women is unbelievably so.

I have always tried to work for positive outcomes for this city and have been grateful for the Council's support on various issues, even though we may disagree how to achieve the best results. I have included photos to show the casual abuse of which I speak and ask that you speak out. Any comment?

This was answered by Cllr Olivia Blake who delivered what was clearly a pre-prepared legal statement about reporting incidents of violence to the Police and so on and so forth. (No comment or apparent understanding of why this sort of response is both distasteful or morally dubious. This despite having photographic evidence of the casual abuse being inflicted on peaceful protestors, including women, every day the contractor is on the streets.)

---

So, a curate's egg of a Public Questions session. Good in parts with some clear answers. In other parts it was rotten to the core as Councillors ditched their humanity to present a united front. There is something broken about this approach and whilst the good needs support the bad needs challenge.

---

Public Protests & Trade Union Law?

On Wednesday 2nd November, as I was preparing for the usual monthly Full Council meeting, my little corner of Facebook lit up with a story I found hard to believe. It appeared that South Yorkshire Police were about to use Trade Union law to move on members of the public protesting about the felling of Street Trees.

---

The obvious wrongness of this, for me, was glaring. These were not 'flying pickets' or aggressive, intimidating thugs. They were mostly middle aged, middle class protesters hanging about under a tree. The Police attempted to move on the protesters by warning them they were in breach of s.241 of the Trade Union Act of 1992 and would be liable to arrest if they refused.

The wording of the Act is as follows;

s241 Trade Union Act Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 241 – Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.
(1)A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a)uses violence to or intimidates that person or his spouse or civil partner or children, or injures his property,
(b)persistently follows that person about from place to place,
(c)hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof,
(d)watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
(e)follows that person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.

---

I have seen no evidence in the various videos and photographs of the events that suggest “Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise” from any of the protesters, the Amey employed workforce in the immediate area seem to be enjoying a quiet cuppa. This law is also clearly aimed at restricting the actions of Trade Unionists and not restricting the right to peaceful protest by members of the Public.

In the end two protesters agreed to stick it out and were duly arrested by the Police. They were then held for seven hours before being charged (even though the police computer didn't appear to have a code for their offence) and summonsed to appear at the Magistrates Court in Sheffield on the 1st of December.

(Click on the above image which will take you to the video of the arrest on the STAG Facebook group or click here -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/permalink/652496328260793/)

---

Having heard about the events of the morning, I asked a question at the Council Meeting; “Does Council agree with Trade Union Law being used by Police to prevent protest by and to arrest members of the public? Who provided the Police with the sheaf of papers and inspiration for this tactic, Amey, Council or some other?”

Julie Dore – Leader of the Council responded very adamantly to the question, saying that she did not agree with this law at all and did not agree (with it being used in this way).

Bryan Lodge – Cabinet Member for the Environment followed up by saying that, on receipt of the question from me, he had asked the question of Amey and of his Contract Management Team. Both denied having instigated this tactic and therefore the Police must have come up with this themselves.

Talking later to one of those arrested he commented that, before the Police came to talk to the protesters, they had been in conversation with Amey Supervisors for some time, this casts doubt on the answer from Bryan Lodge and warrants further questioning.

Coincidentally, today I was chatting with a friend who attended the Police & Crime Commissioner's
, Public Accountability Board meeting on Friday and brought the matter up with the new Chief Constable. In that conversation it became clear that the Chief Constable was unhappy at the use of this tactic as well, the fallout from that could be interesting.

---

The wider question of course is, who do the police work for? Is it the Public or the Corporations?

Then we should consider the potential for interference with Article 11 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to protest and to freedom of association. According to Liberty, “The right to peaceful assembly cannot be interfered with merely because there is disagreement with the views of the protesters or because it is likely to be inconvenient and cause a nuisance ...” and “There is a positive obligation on the State to take reasonable steps to facilitate the right to freedom of assembly, and to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations from disruption by others. “ This includes protection from the Police, Army or the State itself.

Article 11 seemed to take precedence when it came to protests in Rotherham by the EDL, even though that was disrupting the lawful pursuit of their business for many of the towns shopkeepers. The EDL marches also included a significant threat to public order, something not present at the Marden Road incident.

---

A current South Yorkshire Police advertisement on their website asks the question “Whose pulling your strings?” That is a very good question.

A Week of Revelations? - an Active Citizen's View

I've just had something of a week for revelations, though of a prosaic nature rather than evangelical.

---

Monday the 17th October started the week in an unexpected manner. A visit to the SheffEx Conference at the Royal Victoria Hotel, the first, if Tony Carrol's hopes are met, of a forthcoming series of such events. The invite came through late last week but the running order had two interesting items for me. An update on the proposals for the Sheffield Retail Quarter (SRQ) and one on the inward investment from China.

Before that however were some other speakers. First up was Yuri Matischen, MD and part owner of Sheffield Sharks basketball team. This provided my first revelation, sports, leisure & tourism contribute £2.2Bn to Sheffield City Region economy and employ 44,000 people. That's something not talked about enough and they hope to put together a strategy to grow that with events that we can 'own' locally and that cannot be lost to competition from other cities or regions.

Next came Professor Vanessa Toulmin, head of Sheffield University's Public Engagement team. Less revelatory to some of us but still worth a comment, Sheffield's international reputation stands on four things; the 'Made in Sheffield' brand (much counterfeited in the past), Music, Beers & Arts. These also contribute to the idea of Sheffield as a 'Magnet City'. Developing and promoting these reputations and products should therefore increase the economy and inward investment.

---

Then we had David Slater, who made his fortune off building (what an emeritus professor of Urban Policy & Planning called) student warehousing in the St Vincent's district. He is now keen to see redevelopment of the Don Valley & Attercliffe, whilst changing it's designation to Sheffield East to avoid bad associations with sex industry and decay. This idea has since surfaced again in the Sheffield Star. I'm not sure that thousands of new family homes in one of the worst polluted districts in the city is an ideal solution to our housing problem but David Slater clearly sees money in it.

Later in the event, Chris Dymond of Sheffield Digital provided another revelation. Although I knew we had a thriving games & digital economy in the city he revealed that there were more than 14,000 jobs in this sector, providing 18% of the city's jobs, with high average salaries. On the down side however he also commented that each digital job was worth 5 traditional jobs to the economy and that in the next 20 years automation would take over some 20% of current jobs. This is something many of the Political Parties are failing to address in either their economic or education policies.

---

Bracketing Sheffield Digital were two contributions from Simon Green, Executive Director of the 'Place' portfolio, responsible for seven of the Councils directorates for business strategy, growth and regeneration. He addressed two issues, the Sheffield Retail Quarter (SRQ) and secondly the newly agreed Chinese inward investment to the city.

On the SRQ the big reveal was that Council, as the owners of the land and a now active development partner has listened, not only to it's own advisors but to the mood of the public (as expressed very well by the likes of Rupert Wood and the Alternative SRQ group, Nick Roscoe of Hallamshire Historic Buildings and others) by adapting the plans originally put forward, away from a single major shopping mall type project, to what is now termed a “retail led, mixed use scheme”.

It also appears that they will be respecting traditional street patterns and despite delays still maintain a healthy relationship with the key Major retailer in the City Centre, John Lewis. Changing shopping patterns have been a big reason for this change of mind, recognising the impact of internet shopping and the revelation (to them at least) that local independent shops are a major draw for increasing the spend in a city. Sheffield looking to be the first of the new, not the last of the old retail schemes.

---

Simon then talked about the inward investment expected from China. There was less to say here as the deal is very new but is basically contextualised by the changing face of inward investment from 'traditional' sources in USA and EU to newer Asiatic economies and investors. It may also be a way of private Chinese capital ameliorating their exposure to the weaknesses and risks of the Chinese economy. The initial information is that there will be £220M to be invested in 5 physical projects within the City & Region, both public and private. The first may well be announced within a matter of months. He highlighted that issues around the complexity of the British planning processes and finding projects that can be delivered in a timely manner are outstanding.

---

Further revelations were to appear later in the week, at the Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting on Wednesday. Regular readers will know that I am not averse to asking the occasional question at these meetings. Generally these questions are aimed at improving transparency in the way decisions are made or, sometimes, as a means of improving the lot for the City and Citizen.

Although I asked five questions at the meeting, only one would qualify as generating any revelation but a second revelation came after the meeting.

---

My first question was the revelatory moment: “It appears from a SY Police budget report that the force is utilising covert technology to capture data from the public's mobile phones without their consent.

"South Yorkshire Police report. A 2015/16 budget item called “IMSI Covert Communications” was earmarked £144,000. A separate line in the same budget – again called “CCDC” (covert communications data capture) – was allocated an identical amount: £144,000. South Yorkshire police confirmed that ‘CCDC’ and ‘IMSI Covert Communications’ are the same budget item." Quotation from Bristol Cable report.

Were Council aware of this system and it's use? Were the Council's representatives on the Police & Crime Panel aware of this system and it's use?”

The question was answered by Cllr Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families) one of four Sheffield Councillors on the Police & Crime Panel. She admitted to not being aware of this matter, having recently being appointed to the PCP. She has promised to look into it and let me know. I find it quite disturbing that this technology can be implemented without, apparently, any knowledge within the City Council.

It illustrates, once again, the problems encountered by regularly changing committee members, caused mostly by the City's continued use of elections by thirds. Rather than all out elections. The latter would allow committee members to serve for four straight years gaining greater experience, rather than chopping and changing every year, leading to poor levels of quality scrutiny from our elected members.

The second revelation came after the meeting in a conversation with a Cabinet member who revealed the Council have decided to propose banning 'Fracking' on all Council owned land. This is not a total solution but, with the Council owning large tracts of land in the City (All parks, estates etc) this will go some way to hampering the companies that might wish to exploit this filthy and dangerous source of carbon based fuel.

---

A week of contrasts, good news and yet some concerning revelations. It is weeks like this that make me continue trying to make Sheffield decision making more transparent and simply better.

All or Nothing – Changing the Electoral Shape of Sheffield.

On Thursday 14th April, the above was the title for my first outing in this year's Festival of Debate. Following changes to the ward boundaries in Sheffield, we will have an ‘all out’ election in May where all councillors will be up for re-election. This is the ideal time to consider the impact of ‘all out’ and whether this is a change that should become permanent. These are my own thoughts on the evening.

---

The panel and audience for the debate heard a presentation from James Henderson, in charge of all things electoral as a Director in the City Council. He outlined for us the reasons behind the Boundary Commission becoming involved in our ward and electoral issues and the changes they made to our electoral geography. Essentially some of our ward demographics were out of balance. Too many people in some wards and too few in others, therefore the people are not equally represented by the elected Councillors.

The changes now give us a balanced ward structure but some of us, me included, will have to get used to a new ward name and a new set of Councillors. James also briefly outlined the difference between election by thirds, what we do now, with an election 3 years out of 4 and All Out elections, what we will do this year, 1 election every 4 years.

---

The rest of the panel were; Myself as Chair & Question Master. Cllr Terry Fox (Labour, Manor Castle) Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport. Vicky Seddon, Co-ordinator of Sheffield for Democracy & Edward Molloy, Nexus Officer for the Electoral Reform Society.

At the start, I have to admit to being disappointed by the audience turnout of about 20 but they were all engaged and interested in the subject so the debate did not suffer in that regard. The panellists were allowed an initial period to state their current position on the boundary changes and the option of all out elections. We then moved straight in to the audience questions.

I don't plan to try and repeat the debate word for word but to simply leave you with my impression of the evening as a whole.

---

Terry Fox was not, currently in favour of all out elections and the main reasons appeared to be that elections by thirds allowed the voters to pass comment on the performance of their councillors on an annual basis, holding them to account better. It also leads to more stable majority administrations as opposed to unstable hung or coalition councils.

Vicky Seddon was very much in favour of all out elections, the main reasons being effectiveness, with councillors able to work on the basis of a four year stable mandate to enact policy rather than constantly electioneering. Efficiency, with council being able to utilise the whole of the years in-between elections for business, rather than losing a month or more to election campaigning rather than council business. Cost savings, all out elections would save £150,000 a year, with extra savings coming from the efficiency already mentioned.

Edward Molloy, concentrated on the current crisis in democracy over voter engagement and reasoned that fewer local elections generate better turnouts and that people feel their vote counts more if an election has the potential of changing the administration, which rarely happens in elections by thirds.

So the three viewpoints seemed to come down to, the stability of the status quo, the improved effectiveness & efficiency of the Council and the fairness of the electoral process and making votes count.

---

The questions from the audience led us around these opinions and into areas about devolution, the complexity of the electoral system and why people are less engaged than ever? (voter turnout in local elections is generally less than 40% and getting worse) whether with central government making so many decisions for local government, they really had any power left?

An interesting point that came out early from both Vicky and Edward was concerning the potential for further devolution enabling councils to choose not only electoral periods but also whether to adopt PR as is now the norm in Scotland for local councils. Terry was not wholly against the idea, provided it also brought in mandatory voting to ensure fair distribution of votes. There was still concern expressed about weak or coalition governance though that hasn't proved the case in Scotland with a majority national government elected on a PR basis.

It also became apparent that even some members of this engaged audience were unclear on why the city used the elections by thirds system, what the alternatives were and were in some ways confused by the complexity of elections and options currently being used. Local elections are different to general elections, PCC elections and probably different to upcoming Regional Mayor elections.

After quite a long time discussing the various matters that arose I finally called for a straw poll of the audience, asking, do you think all out elections would be better for local democracy? 10 people or 50% voted yes. Asked whether they felt it would make local democracy worse, there were no votes supporting that opinion.

---

My own conclusion? This conversation needs to be had in greater depth within and without the council. The current system is broken with low turnouts and councillors being elected by around 1 in 5 of their voters.

Council operates on a permanent electioneering basis, impeding medium to long term planning and exacerbating the adversarial nature of council business meetings.

The strong leader & cabinet model means ordinary councillors can be seen as powerless and impotent (even amongst themselves) whilst stable 4 year election cycles would help those involved in committee work to better contribute to those roles.

Savings are, at the moment, never to be sniffed at and such savings could be used to improve other areas of democratic deficit around public engagement, such as webcasting and local public meetings.

---

Overall therefore, I believe an All Out election cycle would improve democracy locally and the better administration of council business. Further benefits may still be identified as a result of current and future devolution but the conversation must be had now to inform future discussions on the type of devolution we want.

---

My thanks to my partner organisations in this event, Opus Independents for their support in organising the Festival of Debate and to Sheffield City Council for organising and staffing what will probably be the most upmarket venue we will be using in this spring season. Thanks also to the panellists and audience for making the event so worthwhile.

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.

Sheffield Devolution – The Merry Go Round.

The resemblance between the proposed devolution deal for the Sheffield City Region and a fairground roundabout has become more evident as time goes by.

---

The public consultation on the 'deal' is finally underway and it is being presented to the public covered in bright lights, gaudy new paint and upbeat loud music. Like a merry go round, however, the deal seems to be constantly shifting, of uncertain safety and already some people are thinking about jumping off.

The devolution proposal was signed by the Chancellor and various local leaders in October. At this stage Osborne made it look like a done deal but local Council leaders have always maintained the 'proposed' deal status in their meetings. Following the signing of the proposal I read the document quite carefully and published, on this blog, my initial concerns and comments about the potential pitfalls of the devolution deal here.

---

Although this article contained many comments, my biggest concerns were over the imposition of an 'elected Mayor' for the Region and the apparent power of veto that the Mayor would wield within the Combined Authority. I raised these concerns at the next meeting of the City Region Combined Authority. Before the meeting officials suggested that the way the agreement was written might be interpreted as a Mayoral veto but that this was not the intention and would be clarified in the further negotiations.

In fact I asked three questions and the minuted answers can be found here. The second of my questions asked about the consultation process and the timescale. This was proposed to start on the 16th November and finish after five weeks. Fortunately, prior to that there was a unique opportunity for the public to get an early say on the deal and the alternatives.

---

Over two weekends, 17th &18th October and 7th &8th November the Assembly North, a pilot 'citizens assembly was being conducted by Democracy Matters , a partnership of four universities and the Electoral Reform Society. The lead researcher was Professor Matt Flinders of the Crick Centre of the University of Sheffield.

Over those two weekends the participants, chosen by an independent polling organisation and representative of the four South Yorkshire council areas, were treated to a hothouse atmosphere, listening to various experts and advocates, myself included, about different forms of devolution. They debated amongst themselves, facilitated by Democracy Matters volunteers, and finally took a series of votes on the potential devolution prospects for the region.

The Assembly's initial conclusions are detailed in the press release here and the results may have knocked a little of the shine off the merry go rounds message. Apart from asking for more extensive devolution than the deal allows, the Assembly also voted two to one against accepting the current deal. A vote also came out strongly against the Mayoral model. This despite receiving strong positive pitches from John Mothersole (Chief Exec Sheffield City Council), Sir Steve Houghton (Chair of the City Region Combined Authority & Leader of Barnsley Borough Council) and Mike Emmerich (Founding Director at Metro Dynamics Limited) who currently advises other combined authorities about their devolution deals.

---

Since then the formal public consultation has been an on again off again affair. It certainly didn't arrive on the 16th November as promised. By the 29th November there were conflicting suggestions that it might start on the 1st December. On that date the consultation made a brief appearance on websites for the City Region and on the City Council's 'consultation hub' but, by the evening, had disappeared again.

The consultation formally went live on the 2nd December, yet on the same date in answer to a question at Full Council from me and supported by a press release the same day, Sheffield's support for the deal came under doubt. It seems the concerns I had raised early on were also being felt within the leadership. The leader of the Council, Julie Dore has always maintained her opposition to the Mayoral model for the Region but was willing to accept the imposition from Government if the deal was good enough.

Now, however, the potential for a Mayoral veto on Regional decisions is sharply in focus and they are reportedly in renewed negotiations with the Government to amend this part of the deal. Cllr Dore has gone so far as to state that she cannot support the deal if the Mayoral veto stays. The report on this new stance from the BBC here.

---

The latest spin on the devolution merry go round is a single issue meeting of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on Thursday 10 December 2015 4.00 pm in the Town Hall. This committee's role includes “Lead the scrutiny of high level cross-cutting and city-wide issues.” They will therefore use this meeting to discuss and come to some conclusion about the devolution deal. The agenda for the meeting is here. I would urge anyone who is about on Thursday, that can, to attend the meeting and see the Council's scrutiny function in action.

They will look to answer two broad questions;
What are the potential benefits of the proposed devolution agreement for Sheffield and the City Region?
What additional powers are required from Government to generate the economic impact we are seeking?
These questions and the background papers attached to the agenda are unremittingly positive about the deal and none of the concerns or pitfalls, apparent to many of us, are provided for balance.

More curious for me is, how is it possible address and scrutinise this deal when the detail is so vague and with large parts of it subject to further negotiation? The committee could end up supporting or opposing a 'deal' which bears no resemblance to the final outcome. It will be interesting to see.

---

I continue to have huge reservations about any devolution deal that has been negotiated in secret, imposes any model of governance that we, the public, have not been able to have a say on via the ballot box and that is being pushed through at breakneck speed for Government and the Chancellor's own reasons.

The deal however is here and we have just this one chance to have our say as members of the public. So get involved and fill out the consultation survey here. If you want to do more than that, get in touch with your councillors, tell them directly your views and ask them to represent your opinion in the vote that comes to Full Council in February or March.