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:
The report additionally covers:
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
It is certainly true that public confidence in LBH could be higher. Personally, I'm bursting with desire to lavish praise on our council when I see its done well. But those opportunites are not often.
As for Area Assemblies, one could also argue that they had too much in terms of resources – there are rumours about the high cost of putting on these shows, that sometimes had entertainment elements. They were part of the Neighbourhood Management Department which was an inefficient and expensive means of delivering services that in many cases could be delivered more cheaply and effectively by other, existing council departments. Area assemblies were never and should never be, decision making bodies, that would be wrong.
For Alan, on the pay of council managers: yes,
it is pay Alan, but not pay as we know it!
One of my "perceptions" of LBH (to use the Shared Intelligence term) is that there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. Another observation is that the largest proportion of what councils do is mandated by Statute, putting much power in the hands of "officers" and frequently leaving elected councillors for decoration (e.g. the Trust Board at Alexandra Palace normally acts as a rubber stamp for decisions that are in reality, those of "officers").
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh