23 June 2010
Many thanks. Most helpful. I reply below in green.
----- Original Message -----
From [Lambeth]
To: Paul Danon
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Lambeth Cooperative Council
HI Paul
I'm happy to meet at your convenience if that's more helpful - I work very flexible hours. Do let me know if you'd like to find a time outside of work hours. Very kind.
In the absence of a discussion, I've try to answer your questions here. However, as with any email correspondence, there can be a tendency for misunderstanding - so if you are able to have a discussion with me - even over the phone, that would be great. Thank you.
The commission itself has been established by Cllr Reed. We have the three cabinet members that you'll be aware of as formal members, and there are a further three individuals with who we've been discussing membership with. We wanted people who would bring knowledge and experience of different ways of delivering services and expertise in relation to public sector services, individuals who bring a willingness and ability to challenge what we're proposing and who bring understanding of how local government currently works and what obstacles there may be which might prevent us developing new ways of operating. This is most helpful and revealing. I (and others) had understandably thought that this was a consultative process, into which at least one or two voters might be inserted. It's a shame that it's not. However, please may I suggest that you publish your text above on the co-op council webpage so that folks like me can know what the commission actually is? It seems to be more about management-consultancy than voter-participation.
We are negotiating with these individuals to make sure that they are able to commit to the role and are happy to take on the responsibilities that they will have in working out and recommending the most appropriate way of implementing any change. We are hopeful that we'll be in a position to announce who they are in the next week. Are these people actually being interviewed for jobs, or will their work be pro bono? It'd be great, again, if what you write above was also published. This might stop the agonised questions and allegations that this is a secret project which nevertheless claims to co-operate with voters. Can you also say who the candidates are and how they've been chosen. Will you, even at this stage, consider having one lay member to give the voters' view?
We could never satisfy everyone - we couldn't have a commission which included all residents Of course not and I've never even thought of that let alone suggested it!
and as soon as you select or pick one you have to have a rationale or process for choosing. Well, yes. It is about accountability and local government is supposed to be open and democratic. As it is, we seem to be about to be presented with a fait accompli.
We didn't think this was right But surely, the secretive way in which it's presently being done isn't right either.
so we have been working hard to ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute to the process. That's not how it's seemed; it's seemed as though the whole thing was being organised in private, without voters' involvement or knowledge. The minutes of the first commission meeting weren't published. It's one thing to benefit from the publicity you get when you say you're going to be co-operative, but you then actually need to co-operate.
We have developed a really broad consultation and engagement process including representative samples of the borough's residents (focus groups and surveys) as well as getting out to all parts of the borough through roadshows, attendance at expos and country show along side the social media we've used. Great, but please could you publish it and did you involve voters in doing it?
We're working with a range of different community groups to engage with their membership, and have invited over 500 groups or individuals to provide the commission with their views through a submission - either in writing or directly. We're monitoring and capturing the material on the facebook page and the wiki (including your interesting material on well-being). In addition, we're holding commission meetings to which any member of the public can come
But you're not. The website says nothing about these meetings.You may have them planned but the website just has holding text and the process ends in September.
, to make presentations or just hold discussion with the commission members. We'll happily book you a slot to do this if you'd like to - do let me know. But I've already asked to come to meetings several times and have had no reply. We felt that was a better way of connecting with as many parts of the community as possible and capturing a broad qualitative and quantitative set of data which we can use to answer the questions that are in the white paper document.
The cabinet members of the commission have met twice for 'business meetings' - and that was to discuss the process of managing the meetings, the timing of meetings and to discuss approach to consultation, rather than to get into the detail of the commission's deliberations. My team have drafted minutes and they will be posted on the intranet soon. But we can't see your intranet, I'm afraid.
I hope this helps, but please do let me know if you'd like any further updates or information. I'll also look again at the material on line to ensure it isn't inadvertently misleading or insufficiently detailed. It's not necesssarily misleading, but it tells us next to nothing about the project, which has been running now for over a month and which finishes in the autumn.
Many thanks
[name]
And my thanks to you. Best regards.
21 June 2010
Dear Paul,
We are going to hold public meetings of the commission, where you’ll be able to come and present your views, and participate in discussion about our ideas. We’ll publish the date of the first one of these – which is likely to be towards the end of July. If you would like to submit evidence to the commission, either in writing or through this open meeting, please submit your request to cooperativecouncil@lambeth.gov.uk . We will contact you to discuss the best way of gathering your views or booking a slot at the commission meeting. Formal membership of the commission is limited to six.
Thanks.
Thomas Man
Senior Policy Officer
Policy Equalities and Performance Division
Office of the Chief Executive
London Borough of Lambeth
Phone: 020 7926 2426
Email: tman@lambeth.gov.uk
Website: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk
113 Town Hall
Brixton Hill
London SW2 1RW
Making a difference
11 July 2010
There could be some folk who believe that part of a council's mission is to deliver employment to the community. Such people will understandably get upset if you suggest cuts or outsourcing because they will see it as an attack on the borough's social service role of providing local jobs. Some such folk may themselves be employees of local authorities or other parts of the public sector which gives them a vested interest which, in turn, disqualifies them from the debate among voters in the same way that being a Veolia board-director would. If we do see the council as being a form of work-based, outdoor relief for residents - a job-creation scheme - then we need to know what it's costing us to provide such jobs. It'd also be useful to know if any councillors are on the government payroll and/or are employees of companies providing services to local government.
Would those who, for ideological reasons, want services delivered by the state suggest that Lambeth nationalises all the phone-lines in the borough so that the council doesn't have to contract-out its telephony? Can those folks who want Lambeth-staff to provide services say that such provision will lead to better services or is the services' provision by state-employees reason enough to do it that way? What if Lambeth had business-units which could compete with Veolia and Capita for contracts?
What if all council-services could be efficiently provided by private companies (whose contracts allowed for them easily to be sacked for incompetence)? What if all council-services could be provided by staff who didn't live in the borough? Would people still object and, if so, why? Hopefully not out of chauvinism. I mean, people who live in Southwark and/or work for private companies are human too.