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.

Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee Meeting of 26th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

This committee is responsible for keeping a watchful eye on the work programmes of the Council's scrutiny committees. It also has overview of city wide matters that cut across other committee boundaries.

---

After the usual housekeeping announcements and approval of minutes, the meeting moved straight to Public Questions. I had put a question about the review of the Locality Management arrangements and their scrutiny but was asked by the Chair, Cllr Chris Weldon (Labour) if it could be passed to the next days Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny meeting, which was more appropriate as they were to receive a report on same. I agreed.

The only other question was from Alan Kewley. He first expressed concern over the time taken to respond, in writing to questions when that was promised. His response to the questions asked at the previous months meeting had arrived in his e-mail that very morning and he had no time to digest the response nor disseminate it before today's meeting. He then went on to discuss how it might be possible to increase public involvement in these meetings and with more and more Council's now webcasting their meetings what the potential was for this in Sheffield?

The Chair's response was that there had been lots of changes over the last few years that had improved peoples involvement in council matters and that webcasting had been considered in the past. He promised a written answer from officers, that would come to the board for their consideration. Cllr Ian Auckland (Lib/Dem) asked that the responses be available within ten days. The Chairs agreed this should be so.

---

The main item of interest on the rest of the agenda was a report on the Boundary Commission review of the ward boundaries for the council. This was given by James Henderson and Victoria Penman.

They recapped the position so far. The commission had considered the size (number of councillors) of the council and agreed to keep that at 84, in 28 three councillor wards. This stage of the commissions proceedings was consultation about the actual ward boundaries. This is a complex decision and the Boundary Commission report is available here. The main problem however was to cut the size of the Central Ward which had 148% of the number of electors it was supposed to have. The consequence of this is that the Commission has radically shifted many residents into neighbouring wards and the ripples move outwards to a lesser degree.

There were eight public comments in this item, six from residents in Highfield who were unhappy about the splitting of the community into two different wards and two from Bradway who were upset that the same thing had happened to Bradway last time around and had not been corrected this time.

---

There were also comments from the members of the committee about Highfield and who had made this decision. James Henderson said it was a result of the decision about Council size. The Council elects by thirds and this meant that all wards had to have three councillors. A proposal by officers to split the Central ward in two each with two councillors was therefore not feasible despite the fact it was the best solution to future proof the ward against new development that was in the offing.

Cllr Sarah Jane Smalley (Green) commented that she understood there had been consideration of a proposal to split Gleedless from Arbouthorne and that this would have balanced the numbers but it was unpopular with Councillors in that area. Cllr Pat Midgley (Labour) suggested that boundary changes settle down over time and few people now remember the defunct Castle ward.

Cllr Jillian Creasey (Green) commented that the Council still needed to make strong submissions to the commission as they are a powerful consultee and their comments would be crucial. Finally Cllr Bryan Lodge (Labour) wanted to clarify for the record that this was a commission proposal and not the City Council's.

---

The Chair then summarised that this was the second consultation by the commission and that all public comments today would be included in the Council's submission. He also asked officers to meet with the Highfield community and relevant Councillors to get further comments.

The rest of the agenda was quickly despatched and the meeting dispersed.

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Full Audio below.

---

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

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

And;

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

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

---

Full Audio below.

---

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

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

And;

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

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

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

---

Full Audio below.

---

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

South Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel - of 29th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The Police & Crime Panel is supposed to be the oversight and scrutiny body for the Police & Crime Commissioner. During what is essentially a hiatus between the resignation of Shaun Wright and the election of the new permanent PCC on 30th October there is not a lot of business to be undertaken so the meeting was short and to the point.

---

Their was a welcome from Cllr Harry Harpham (Labour, Chair) and an introduction of a new member to replace Cllr Vines (UKIP), who resigned after the last meeting. (The no-confidence deliberations on Shaun Wright.) The new member is Cllr Martyn Parker, (UKIP) representing Rotherham MBC. The chair then proposed the minutes show an expression of condolences to Mayor Ros Jones (Labour) of Doncaster MBC for the bereavement in her family that meant she was not in attendance that day.

---

The agenda then came on to Public Questions. I was the only member of the public in attendance that day but there were several other written questions to be put to the panel. Cllr Harpham commented that the questions were all on a similar theme, the problems of the last few weeks, the lack of powers of the PCP and the concerns for the future. He then proposed to the meeting that they make the next meeting a one item agenda to discuss these matters in an open forum and try to get as many members of the public involved as possible. He also suggested that as such they hold over the questions at this meeting to the future meeting for consideration then.

Cllr Harpham asked me if I was content to do that, I agreed, and the meeting assented to his proposal concerning the next meeting. Some of the other questions were from members of Neighbourhood Watch and Sheffield for Democracy who were known to me and he asked that I ask them to try to attend that meeting. He would also ask the support officers to contact all the questioners with the same request.

---

There were only two more short items on the agenda, to agree the last meeting minutes and to offer the panels recommendation on the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer for the PCC's office. The minutes were approved with some matters arising comments from Cllr Parker as a new member not in post at the last meeting. The panel accepted the appointment of the new CFO after a short discussion as to whether it should be held over until the new PCC was elected.

---

The meeting closed at this point with a brief comment from Cllr Harpham as a reminder of the next meetings purpose, the date of which will be 19th November 2014, at 1.00pm Rotherham Town Hall. He also commented at this point that the next meeting and indeed all future meetings of the PCP would be webcast live. The members then dispersed. Anyone in South Yorkshire who is interested in the working of the PCP can attend, I would encourage them to be there.

The announcement of the webcasting came a bit out off left field so I approached the support Officers to ask when that decision had been made. The response was, “just now”, it seems to have been a spur of the moment decision by the Chair, aware perhaps of the sensitivities of the subject at the next meeting. This should lead to an interesting conversation at Full Council next week, with Sheffield City Council still resisting the introduction of this tool for transparency.

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

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

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

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

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

There were three questioners, myself included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next meeting 16th October 2013.

Download Minutes of the Meeting

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

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


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

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

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