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 Neville Collins on
-
My main criticism of the old area assemblies is that they were what most people say they were just 'talking shops', where they didn't have a lot of influence. Also, they had very little in terms of resources to spend in their community, and had very few decision-making powers. Over the years, many boroughs in London and the rest of the country were able to deliver real change to their environments and communities. Haringey Council must seize this opportunity to change it's negative culture and to improve public confidence.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
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").
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Great opening para, Clive. I made similar jokes about some former councillors. But never as elegant as your: "Bursting with desire to lavish praise . . . etc."
You are right to question whether Area Assemblies could've run at a lower cost. The same applies to most public meetings. But there are real and significant costs associated with 'doing democracy'. Even if it's the 'opportunity cost' - what paid staff could be doing if they weren't at a meeting.
But can I suggest you come down off your Ally Pally hobby horse. And put aside your own general 'perceptions' about the Council. Instead please consider and engage with the critique offered by the Shared Intelligence Report.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
