Councillor Gideon Bull Suspended

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Antoinette on February 19, 2016 at 9:38

I didn't say or imply any of that..

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 19, 2016 at 10:55

Bear with me, Antoinette, but I really don't understand what you are saying or implying. Let's keep it simple and stick to the topic of this thread.
* Should Cllr Gideon Bull have read the cabinet papers published a few days before the meeting? Especially bearing in mind that he cares deeply about the day centres.
* When he was seriously worried about what he read, should he have sought comments and advice from people with expertise and experience?
* Should he have gone to the "cabinet" meeting and asked questions?
* Should he have been punished for opening his mouth and suspended for being "uncomradely"?

Permalink Reply by Philip on February 19, 2016 at 9:21

The poor reputation is well deserved, and not a creation of legitimate concerns being aired....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 19, 2016 at 9:44

I don't dispute that Philip. What I find irritating is solely finding fault but never giving an alternative. I think the role of opposition in scrutinising is vital but they also need to have their own, viable policies. Otherwise is feels a bit like an old boss of mine who once said to me "It's my job to tell you when you've done it wrong, not to tell you how to do it right". I found that so demoralising that I got another job shortly after that.

Permalink Reply by Lydia R on February 19, 2016 at 13:16

Good Grief!  Mr. Foxe and I are in agreement! 

I await the imminent arrival of Elijah in his golden chariot--or however the Bible says he is supposed to come. 

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 19, 2016 at 14:08

To be fair to Clive Carter, he has at least suggested that one way to trim a budget is is to avoid spending on wasteful projects.

But please let's return to the discussion thread topic.  As you probably know, Michael, I've never been a fan of Cllr Gideon Bull. But on this occasion I want to focus on what he has said and done. About which we've learned more.

It seems that, at fairly short notice, Gideon read the cabinet committee reports about the cuts in adult care. (These are all in the public domain, by the way. He didn't share any confidential papers.)

It seems generally agreed in Labour Party circles that he was personally worried about some of the proposals. It's also clear that he sought some alternative view or views from people outside Haringey. This seems sensible to me. I'd expect a councillor to try to "triangulate" from people they know who can give them independent advice. (Which in this situation means people with expertise and experience, but who aren't either defending their own proposals, or who have a conflict of interest.) He then posed valid and helpful questions at the Haringey cabinet meeting.
This led to his punishment - losing the Party Whip for three months. Frankly, this seems perverse to me.

What's now happened is that he appealed to a panel of three non-Haringey Labour members from the London Regional Board. (I know their names but have never met any of them.)

That panel have now endorsed the original decision.

What a waste of time and a wasted opportunity! What they could and should have done was to lay all this nonsense to rest. And endorsed the right and indeed duty of a "backbench" councillor to raise questions - especially on a vital issue like this.
Why was it a wasted opportunity? Because there was and still is time to reexamine the plans and look into the questions  Gideon Bull has raised. The outside appeal panel could and should have recommended this.

In an important sense it's quite frightening that he's being punished for what was - in essence - ***whistle blowing ***.
I don't just mean frightening for basic democracy. It's also very worrying for the service users - our residents personally affected.

I once did a piece of research which included reading every major UK inquiry into things which had gone badly and publicly wrong in: residential establishments: some were homes for children and young people; others for elderly people; others hospitals etc.
When each inquiry was underway an early question its members usually asked was: 'Why didn't someone say?" This was just as often followed by the realisation that someone did say.  Sometimes this was a family member. Sometimes another staff member. Sometimes it was the local press.
Which led to a further question: "Why didn't the people in charge listen?"
In one case I particularly remember the whistle was blown by a young social work student who refused to use the physical restraint prescribed by the "care" establishment where she was on placement. And not only that. She had gone to see the Director of Social Services and insisted on waiting for him until he agreed to meet and listen to her.
Luckily that Director was not some arrogant know-it-all who patronised the student but dismissed and ignored her worries.  He promised  to look into it, and kept his promise. The ensuing publicity and Public Inquiry didn't do much for the public reputation of that local authority. But it ended the abuse in that residential establishment. And showed that the Director was a person of integrity.

Cllr Peter Morton is Haringey's "cabinet" councillor responsible for our adult services. It's scary that he apparently lacked the common sense to listen.  Would it have been that hard to pay close attention to what Cllr Gideon Bull had to say?  Too hard to promise to examine or re-examine Gideon Bull's genuinely felt and carefully set out questions and concerns?

Perhaps the powers-that-be didn't want to because Cllr Bull has actually exposed serious flaws in the plans now agreed. Flaws they didn't want brought into the open?  Or perhaps, more charitably, because the cuts and the new plans have now gained their own momentum - are trundling through the machinery of local government - and nobody wants even to pause the bureaucratic train to see if maybe it's safe to chug ahead?

So now we've had an external panel being completely useless. Putting the need for party "loyalty" and toeing the Party line, over both democracy and common sense. And above all, acting as if Party Loyalty is more important than the safety and lives of some of the most vulnerable Haringey residents.

Cllr Kober and Cllr Peter Morton, it isn't.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 19, 2016 at 14:04

Like trust and respect, a reputation is earned, not decreed or mandated.

It's not a confection, either of critics or—in the case of LBH's major PR tool—by Haringey People magazine. It is not the outside world that adds or subtracts to Haringey's reputation.

Too often, LBH seeks to defend its reputation either by silencing whistle-blowers or by attempting in the High Court to defend the indefensible (not my phrase: a judge's, in a case last year brought by Rev. Paul Nicolson).

As residents, tax payers and service users, we should care about actual results and conduct more than about corporate reputation, even if that is one of the more important objects within River Park House.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 18, 2016 at 19:56

Clive, I was actually thinking about what you put into your local manifesto at the last local election about how the LibDems would manage spending priorities. I haven't been able to find that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 21, 2016 at 9:42

Clearing-out some old emails, I came across this article about a draft NHS whistle-blowing policy. Of course elected councillors aren't employees of their council. But the principles are surely the same. Here are some key points.

"... to encourage a culture where raising concerns becomes normal practice in the NHS and foster an environment where concerns are taken seriously and investigated properly."

"... to improve services for patients and a key part of that is listening to its staff and learning lessons."

"... any member of the NHS workforce should now feel comfortable in speaking out without fear of reprisal if they witness something that could threaten patient safety."

"... give staff the confidence they need in knowing that concerns are acted on, encouraging them to make improvements themselves."

“A safe NHS is an open and honest NHS where we routinely learn from mistakes and use that learning to improve patient safety. If we are to truly put our patients first, we must create a culture where owning up to mistakes and speaking out about poor care is fully encouraged and embraced."

However in Koberville we now have the Dear Leader and her sycophants putting themselves, their power and their personal ambitions ahead of all other considerations. It seems the guiding principle of what passes for leadership in Haringey is to foster a culture where raising concerns is "uncomradely".  An environment where the substantive concerns are ignored; and where but raising them leads only to the whistle-blower being investigated and punished. No listening and learning takes place. Anyone considering speaking out now knows they will meet closed minds and reprisals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antoinette on February 21, 2016 at 10:48

How is anything Cllr Bull did "whistle-blowing"? The decision to close the day centres was a matter of public knowledge. Challenging the validity of that decision does not amount to whistle-blowing. He didn't expose any information that wasn't already known.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 21, 2016 at 15:39

A fair question, Antoinette. It's true that "the decision to close the day centres was a matter of public knowledge".  What was not widely known, however, was information in hundreds of pages published as part of the Cabinet reports.
In the days available to read those reports Cllr Gideon Bull read things which deeply troubled him. So he sought expert advice from outside the Council. And then posed questions at the Haringey Cabinet meeting - which is the policy-making meeting.

Not persuaded this is a legitimate point of view, Antoinette?  If you haven't read it, can I suggest a look at the Francis Report. And consider the interesting phrase "A Duty of Candour".

Or perhaps you can find a few minutes to watch a video of a Kings Fund event where Sir Robert Francis QC was interviewed.  I think you'll notice several aspects which he describes which echo the dysfunctioning of our own Council.
Despite - I need to say clearly - the best efforts of people with integrity and commitment who still work there.

Still dubious? Try this article in The Spectator. Not a left-wing voice. But a GP wanting his dissenting voice and views heard.  Needless to say, there were people who refused to listen to what he said, but instead mounted personal attacks on him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antoinette on February 21, 2016 at 18:28

So how is Cllr Bull reading and commenting on a "published report" whistle-blowing? You bandy these terms around when Cllr Bull is NOT a whistle-blower...a dissenter but not a whistle-blower

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• Next ›
• Page