THE MONKEY AND THE ORGAN GRINDER

This is going to be a long post, but its worth sticking with it as it’s quite interesting. Many of you will recall that some time ago “Curly” aka http://curly15.wordpress.com rocked the South Tyneside Borough Council boat somewhat when he highlighted the fact that council officials had a jolly good freebie at Temple Park where everybody slapped each others backs for a job well done (his post 20.04.07). If that wasn’t bad enough David Slater, Executive Director Regeneration and Resources, posted a comment on said site which has resounding implications re who actually runs this Borough; elected councillors or paid officials. Going by Slater’s text, they did. Curly quickly emailed Council leader Paul Waggott for clarification, who suspiciously has yet to reply (perhaps he’s waiting for Mr Slater to tell him what to say). Moving on and with a desire to get involved in a potentially entertaining political ruck, I sent a Freedom of Information enquiry to Chief Executive Irene Lucas. Here’s the text;

COUNCIL FUNCTION, TEMPLE PARK LEISURE CENTRE 20TH APRIL 2007

I write with regards to the above Council function.

Perhaps you would supply me with the following information:

1. The nature and rational behind the event

2. Who was invited?

3. The full cost, including the use of the Centre, travel expenses and time off for attendees, to the Council.

4. Whether any sponsors were involved.

5. The names of any sponsors and the nature of their sponsorship.

These requests are made under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act. Further, it is not considered that this request involves any degree of disproportionate effort or commercial sensitivity.

I am further perturbed by a comment which has been placed by a Mr David Slater on the South Tyneside cultural blog “Curlys Corner Shop” http://curly15.wordpress.com on the 20^th April at 9.16 p.m. Mr Slater states that;

“Last Friday was great at Temple Park. yes, we do it every year, because every year we set direction for the council, and reflect what has gone well (and not so well).”

I assume that as Mr Slater refers to “we”, then it is Mr David Slater, Executive Director
Regeneration & Resources. You will therefore no doubt understand my concern when Mr Slater comments “every year we set direction for the council”. I have always been under the impression that councillors set direction for the authority, and as employees you implement that direction, not the other way round. Perhaps you could clarify this position and comment on Mr Slater’s post.

This morning I received an interesting reply from Ms Lucas. I’ve chopped of the usual formalities that start and end the letter, and quoted direct the responses to the points I raised;

1. The nature and rationale behind the event.

A. Performing Together is the Councils Corporate Plan. It is agreed by the full Council. A copy is available on our website (www.southtynesideinfo). The event is staged annually to communicate the priorities for staff, partners and stakeholders.

The event is also used to acknowledge staff efforts as part of our performance management culture.

2. Who was invited?

A. A cross section of colleagues from the Council, partners, external guests, suppliers and trade union colleagues.

3. The full cost, including the use of the Centre, travel expenses and time off for attendees, to the Council.

A. The cost of the use of the Centre, refreshments and Temple Park staff set up costs was £2111.

The event is a fundamental part of communicating the priorities for the next 12-36 months. Colleagues responsible for delivering these priorities attend as part of their normal work. There is therefore no “time off”.

4. Whether any sponsors were involved.

A. Yes – 17 attendees from 11 companies that work in partnership with the Council.

5. The names of any sponsors and the nature of their sponsorship.

A. The following provided financial sponsorship;

The R and B Group

Terberg

KPMG

Eversheds

Glendale Countryside

ISS Waterers

Deloitte

Dell

3Com

SSI Schaeffer

Walker Profiles

You also asked whether the comment meant that officers set direction for the Council. They do not, they make recommendations to Members, who decide direction agreed by our Cabinet and/or Council. However, in South Tyneside, Members and officers work closely together with our partners as one team. That is the reference to the word “we”.

Yours sincerely

Irene Lucas

Well, well, well, no wonder Labour want to dilute the FoI Act! Let’s look at points 1 to 5 before we get to the real issue.

POINT 1

What a load of management twaddle, with the justification that the council agreed to it.

POINT 2

No mention of any councillors being invited. Surely it’s rather bad mannered not ask them, especially when they had the goodness to actually rubber stamp the freebie. I am sure the public will feel slightly offended as well. After all, are we not also “stakeholders”? When it comes to council staff, were there any bin men in attendance, or the workers who keep the streets clean or drive the lorries collecting the rubbish which people dump on side streets and green areas? I suspect not. And why trade union representatives? With all the problems over equal pay claims, surely union officials would have the decency and respect for their members to stay away from management and its back slapping. “Noses in troughs” comes to mind!

POINT 3

By normal council standards, £2111 is not a lot. But what about lost revenue to Temple Park due to restrictions on the public using certain areas? Travel expenses for staff? When it comes to communicating, what’s wrong with memos, presentations, departmental meetings etc? All these established ways of communicating are a lot cheaper than £2111.

POINT 4

With 17 attendees from 11 companies, somebody felt this freebie was so good they sent along more than one representative. Surely the sarnies weren’t that good!

POINT FIVE

This is very bad judgement on the Council’s behalf. Some people less restrained than myself might substitute the words “financial sponsorship” with either “bung” or “bribe”, based on the scenario that “we’ll pay for your little back slapping junket as long as you keep putting contracts and business our way”. What really is in it for these companies to pay for this restricted group to have a jolly good time? Council officials should not accept corporate gratuities from companies who work for them. This is a conflict of interest and as such the practise is open to abuse and manipulation.

THE COMMENT ON DAVID SLATER’S POST

Well, well, well, it’s finally official; at last confirmation from the Chief Executive that Councillors and full time officials enjoy a very cosy relationship, something which many of us have been saying for a very long time! “Members and officers work closely together with our partners as one team. That is the reference to the word “we”. What a lame excuse for the loose cannon postings of a senior local government executive! Slater should have been carpeted for only showing bad judgement re his wording, but for also assuming the position of council spokesman when clearly he is not. I suspect however, the only “carpet” he will see is a new one for his office!

And so to Council leader Paul Waggott. No wonder he has not replied to Curly’s email, he’s finally been rumbled and he knows it.

I will be returning to this matter in the next few days, but please just take the time to think about the issues which have been raised by this affair.