About This Blog

The public should know all we can about the business of the decision makers that affect our lives, our wallets and our democracy. This is a record of my efforts to try and improve the levels of transparency and accountability within Sheffield City Council and others. To shine a light on how decisions are made and where the money goes. If I can also help others to find their own voice and influence along the way, then that is a bonus.

Showing posts with label future plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future plans. Show all posts

Friday, 20 July 2018

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.

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Sheffield City Region Devolution - The Brexit Impact

On Monday 27th June 2016 I attended the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) to hear the answer to a series of questions I put to them about the impact of the Referendum result.


The reason I was putting questions at this early stage was to see what the impact of the decision would be on current City Region projects and on the whole 'devolution' process for the region.

These are the questions I asked.

Urgent Questions to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 27th June 2016
Q1 How much of the SCRCA and LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) funding is directly related to EU membership? (value & percentage please)
Q2 What will be the impact of the referendum result on the SCRCA's Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)?
Q3 What will happen to the EU funded business support services?
Q4 What will be the impact on 14-19 year olds on the Employment Support Fund (ESF) support programmes?
Q5 Does the SCRCA expect agreed funding to now be frozen during exit negotiations?
Q6 Does the SCRCA expect 2014-2020 funding already spent to be clawed back?
Q7 How does the referendum result affect the draft scheme papers being considered by this meeting and should these proposals be delayed until the impact is fully appreciated?
Q8 Where does this leave the whole devolution process if the SCRCA are to be underfunded and unable to meet their growth commitments?
Q9 Was any of this discussed with Government ministers before the referendum and if so what was their response?

I admit my questions were given at short notice, over the weekend, but I was hoping that some of the matters in the questions would have been considered before the referendum took place. It certainly was by some as Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) held a series of round table discussions on the subject, one of which was in Sheffield and at which City Council and City region leaders were allegedly present.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to be informed by the Chair of the SCRCA, Sir Steve Houghton, (Leader of Barnsley Council) that none of this information was immediately available and some of the impacts would only come out over several months. I understand the comments on the impacts being slow to emerge but am more than somewhat shocked that they were unable to give a figure on the amount of EU investment we receive in the region. Surely this was information they used in their campaigning during the referendum.


At that point I suggested that I thought they would be able to at least answer question 9. The Chair had to check what that question was, (had he not read them before the non-answer I was given?) and then responded that, since the result they'd had discussions with Civil Servants about the devolution process and were advised by them to assume everything would carry on.

That was that. The meeting went on to rubber stamp the rest of the agenda items, setting the stage for the new devolution and the City Region Mayor, with barely a comment from any of the political leadership in attendance.


The responses or lack of them indicate to me a level of complacency within the City Region leadership about the referendum itself, the potential for a 'Leave' result and an almost negligent approach to their forward planning. What sort of organisation fails to consider all the potential outcomes of such an historical vote?

The Region and it would seem the Authority meant to be in charge of it are now floundering in the dark and for who knows how long? To carry on putting time and money into a project with such an uncertain future would seem to me to be the height of folly.

Friday, 20 May 2016

Vibrant Sheffield – Live Lab.

Last Thursday, 12th May, I attended the event titled above. The tag line for the event was “Help turn Sheffield into the leading city in Europe for innovation and creativity”. The aim, through a series of round table exercises and group discussions, was to attempt to develop ideas and strategies, wild or practical, to move the city along that journey.


It cannot be denied that this first event was well staged by Grant Thornton, one of the UK's leading accountancy firms, and that they had managed to get over 200 movers and shakers from around the city into one room for the purpose of promoting the city as a hub for innovation and creativity. I'm still not sure why my invitation was approved, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about happy clappy positivism and the initial impact during the mixer over coffee and a DJ's loud dance beats was not encouraging. It was difficult to talk and be heard, though I guess it made sure we were all wide awake.

I'm not about to go into detail about the activities of the day, that will be well documented on Grant Thornton's own website and will develop with the events that follow around the UK. What I aim to do is give my impression of whether the event addressed the aim it proposed.


With a get to know you type exercise out of the way, each table first addressed the essential strengths of the city. From this, it became very clear that there are so many areas in which Sheffield is a leading city and yet we don't make the most of that knowledge, experience or enthusiasm in a way that raises our hearts, our profile or our own awareness. From the traditions of the 'little Mesters' that is alive and well in our new co-operatives, making their mark on the city, Our universities working with manufacturers to push the innovative ideas they create, to our already vibrant cultural city (Tramlines, Festival of Debate, Year of Making), Sheffield has a great deal going for us.

The second stage was a 'dream' stage to consider what we would like to see Sheffield look like if we awakened from a deep slumber in the year 2026. This was actually a bit inspiring in that, particularly from the younger element, many people commented on addressing the wealth gap in the city and hoping that we would have healed the East-West gap in health, opportunity and wealth. Then again, many were also wanting a city of full employment and high economic ambition or so digitally high tech we could all exist in our own bubbles without ever leaving home.

Finally we had a stage of looking for the ideas we had that would really make a difference to the event's aim and then pitching those to the rest of the room. Interestingly a good number of these related to fostering the conditions for innovation and creativity, rather than concentrating on business and economic drivers. From pedestrianising the city centre and a community owned city, developing and investing in sustainable industries for energy and housing, to the more traditional economic ideas like an international conference centre and a funding circle retaining investment in the city region.


However

There were, for me, some glaring omissions in the event itself and the way ideas were filtered out of the mix.

Other bloggers, have already commented on the alarmingly white, middle class, male, make up of the room. Very few BME participants, few from a challenged background (“200+ powerful people”) and certainly far less than 50% female participation. Not entirely the organiser's responsibility, people self select for these types of events but it needs addressing to prevent this becoming a dream for a minority audience.

There was also something incongruous about an event of this nature being hosted by a company that, on it's own website, offers “Our support for managing your tax risk spans many issues. These include helping you avoid creating a taxable presence in a country; ...” particularly when this country's tax regime is responsible for the austerity measures currently hamstringing our public services, investment in our infrastructure, and driving personal debt to unprecedented levels.

Finally I would like to comment on the extremely large elephant that was in the room. This whole event is based on the assumption that we can continue to maintain a growing economy. Also, to some extent it was based on the idea of competing in a global economy as the way to achieve this. Many of the contributions from the room edged around this issue, talking about sustainability and the power of small businesses in Sheffield, but that main thread was not really challenged. Within that is also the forecasts from some quarters that by 2050, 85% of traditional jobs will be automated or unnecessary.


We need to look over that cliff and look for the innovative and creative solutions that will ensure the best of the ideas the event delivered will happen.

Friday, 24 October 2014

'The Public Interest' – Future Campaigns, by Nigel Slack.


This is just a quick post to ask for some feedback. The issue that got me started on this stony path two years or so ago was transparency. I was shocked by the level of money that the Council spent with private companies to deliver public services and disturbed that more information about these contracts was not known. To me it simply would not do that with over £700M (as it was then) being paid to private companies there was next to no information about what they did for that money, whether they were any good at whatever it was they did and most importantly, how much of that huge sum was profit for these companies?


That was the root of the campaigns and issues I now work on. That transparency drive will also remain the main focus of what I do. Don't get me wrong however, Sheffield City Council is considered very good at transparency, compared to other local authorities. They welcome the public, mostly, into decision making meetings, to ask questions or deliver petitions, many councils do not. They publish far more on their website than many others I have seen, possibly why it is so difficult to navigate.

I still maintain they could be better and in one area in particular we are way behind the majority of councils in England. Sheffield City Council do not webcast meetings, either live streaming or as archive material. This, for me, is important for two reasons, (amongst many positive aspects of webcasting) it allows people to see how their councillors contribute to the decision making in the city and enables them to work out whether they are doing a good job, It also vastly increases the amount of information available about the meetings that take place. The formal minutes of a meeting are essentially just a record of decisions made. Democratic Services in Sheffield try their best to add more information, particularly around questions asked and comments made by Councillors. However a large part of the goings on in council meetings is simply lost.


So those are the two main planks of my efforts in Sheffield. I am working with others, mainly Sheffield for Democracy, on other issues such as the council's Community Engagement policy, local devolution and the voting system, TTIP and such. What I'm looking for from my readers, however, is a set of ideas that may form a future agenda. I have ideas of my own and some of those are mentioned on my current 'Campaign and Issues' page. As one man I clearly cannot do everything and I need to be aware that there will be some things that I cannot tackle directly (austerity is an issue for everyone, national policies can only be influenced, until ballot time) but I will always do my best to address peoples concerns, if not by my own actions, at least with advice.


So to summarise;

The Root Issues.
Transparency – of 'Outsourcing Arrangements.'
Webcasting – of Decision Making meetings and Public Engagement events.

So let me know your ideas, on my blog comments, through my 'Public Interest' facebook page or through my 'Twitter' feed using @SheffCityNigel.