Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Area Committees for Haringey and some very frank commentary on current arrangements
I'm not sure how I've managed to fail posting about this given that I've been aware of it since last year. But, given my less than optimal memory, I've checked with Liz and neither of us can remember any discussion about it.
So what am I talking about? What's intended to be some fairly significant changes in the way Haringey is governed are on the horizon following a Governance Review last year.
The initial report was made to Council in January. That report makes very interesting reading. In particular I'd point you to the report commissioned of Shared Intelligence (SI). It's very frank. Full marks to the Council for publishing it its entirety. Section 3, The Council: Perceptions, Culture and Behaviour, opens thus:
The most significant perception in terms of the council’s relationship with its residents is that it is seen as not listening. The other perceptions are that:
- Challenge is treated as criticism which is generally rebuffed, often robustly;
- There is an endemic lack of trust, between members and officers, between the cabinet and other members, and between the two political groups;
- The decision making processes are overly complex and opaque.
I've attached the full report below.
From a neighbourhood perspective, one of the key changes will be the introduction of Area Committees to replace Area Assemblies.
The SI report recommends that Haringey should establish these committees to cover the same geographical areas as the assemblies. The committees would comprise ward councillors and each committee would elect a chair.
The recommendations for the committees' remit is set out in a table in the report. In summary it brings together four different sets of responsibilities:
- Varying the specification of environment and street scene services to reflect particular local needs and circumstances;
- Taking decisions about proposals affecting the area (for example local highway improvements and local by-laws);
- Formulating and influencing policy in relation to the area (such as local development orders);
- Formal consultative roles on planning, licensing and parking.
The report additionally covers:
- Overview and Scrutiny Council Committees
- Full Council
- The Mayoralty
- The costs of governance
A Governance Review Delivery Group was established to progress the changes to Haringey's governance and their first report was published on 4th April. A copy of this is also attached.
Here is a link to the Governance Review page on Haringey Council's website.
Tags for Forum Posts: area assembly, area committees, area forum, governance review
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
I think, Hugh, you alluded to this particular Revolution in responding to Lesley Ramm's post, 'Area Assemblies Cancelled' on March 1st. I believe most people thought it might just be another mad march hare and so failed to join in the chase.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Perish the thought that our council should ever be the breeder of mad march hares.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks, Hugh, for giving wider circulation to the Shared Intelligence Report. It's worth reading as it tentatively begins to identify some of the problems. Though unfortunately it's so gentle and diplomatic as to pull most of its punches.
To be fair, many of its main recommendations have been actioned. Although whether these will have the desired outcomes is dubious. For one thing, most of the changes made are to structures. Whereas the problems are often about organisational culture and poor processes.
Another weakness is that the Report makes a sensible outsider's assumption: that dysfunctional structures pose a problem which everyone is keen to solve. But if they'd asked 'Who Benefits?', they'd have realised that these problems were in fact, highly functional solutions for some insiders who liked it that way.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for flagging this Hugh. What you've described as very frank is for many residents, common knowledge and conventional wisdom outside the River Park bubble.
It's partly a function of a single party being in power for 40+ years and the sense of entitlement that conveys, an entitlement that stems less from merit and competence and more from the arbitrary boundary re-draw in 1965.
I know there are good people working at LBH: the trouble is, I suspect they're in the minority. In large measure its a dysfunctional institution. I've seen this at close quarters in microcosm at Alexandra Palace. LBH has grown so large that its become inward looking; more about self-service than public service. Some have forgotten who they serve.
One example might be the woman who faced censure or prosecution by the council for putting up public notices appealing for information about her lost cat. Why was Jeremy Beadle able to convince members of the public of the most ludicrous, preposterous propositions, when he used to act as a council officer with a clipboard? Why was it credible? It's not just a Haringey thing.
One sometimes suspects that council employees regard the public, who pay their wages, as a nuisance at best and at worst, the enemy. Is that person you need to speak to, really "in a meeting"? If they truly are, then there are far too many (useless, wasteful) meetings in the council. It would be nice if staff regarded the public as their boss, rather than the giant hierarchy above them.
The pay of some council grades is now a national racket. I note the new post of Director of Place and Sustainability will cost more than the headline figure of £140k. The total cost to the council including pension will be between £167,002 and £183,816. This is one of several jobs whose pay is greater than that of the Prime Minister. Once upon a time, public service was a vocation and relatively modest pay was compensated for by job security & a good pension. Now its cake and eat it. Are people now attracted to councils for the right reasons?
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
@Clive.. just one small point .. Haringey WAS tory run from about 1972 -1975/6 not sure of the exact dates.. still that's coming up for 35 years ago now..
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Stephen, - I don't belong to any political tribe - they all talk the talk and they all talk bull. But 4 years of Tory & 35, going on 40 of Labour - where's the delineation of your comparison?
Clive is so close to the malaise, when he talks about institutionalism as a symptom.
Brother, you don't live here no more, it really is for real & not virtual. Why don't ya come 'on home & live the dream?
-
-
Only wanted to put the record straight.. :o)
-
-
Personally, Stephen, I think the malaise goes back to the invasion by Claudius in 43 AD. With things going downhill even faster after the French Revolution. On the other hand, as Zhou Enlai cautiously advised: "it's too early to say".
By the way, I was astonished to discover from Clive that local Government staff actually get paid for working on behalf of the community. And with free offices, lights, phones and computers thrown-in. Political correctness gone mad, I say.
No wonder the poor bankers are so hard up.
-
-
Meanwhile . . . apart from Hugh, has anyone actually bothered to read and think about the Shared Intelligence report? Apparently not.
-
-
It is true that the new Director of "Place" and "Sustainability" would constitute local government staff, in a broad sense and that the remuneration (including pensions) comprises "pay". This isn't the strongest defence for this quantity of compensation.
Is it right that the total salary package for this new post, of between £167,002 and £183,816, should take precedence over services to old people?
Governance is about setting priorities and making choices.
-
-
The correct name for the new Department, Clive, is "Space, Time & Entropy". Even you must accept that directing this is a big job. (Especially as Stephen Hawking was not available.)
It includes responsibility for Traction & Velocity (previously Parking & Transport) as well as Highrise & Hutches (previously Planning & Regeneration).
-
-
It does seem that every time a fresh face comes to this function, the job title changes and becomes more pompous and grandiose than last time. The previous change was the addition of "Urban" to Director of Environment.
Was that change really necessary? To me, it suggests focus on presentation.
Council staff should be paid for their time, but is it ever possible to compensate too much? Is it possible to pay even a big job council "officer" too much in times of harsh cutbacks, such as to youth services and services to the elderly (the "frontline")? Or should there be no upper limit?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
