Daily Mail reports Baby P social services boss set for £1million compensation payout

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on August 4, 2011 at 16:17

Yes, you're right Clive. Sharon Shoesmith wanted a formal opportunity to make representations to Ed Balls before he reached his decision. As you pointed out, I am at fault for misrepresenting what you wrote as a 'meeting' or 'conversation'. 

Would the opportunity to make such representations - written or verbal - have changed Ed Balls' decision? You are certain they would not.

In his judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said the failure to offer her the opportunity was "intrinsically unfair". (Para 67) And that she was entitled to "elementary fairness." (Para 67.)

Later he said that: "Whatever her shortcomings may have been (and, I repeat, I cannot say), she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated." (para 135.)

Councillors who sit on disciplinary panels may find paragraph 66 a very helpful part of the judgement.

"I find it a deeply unattractive proposition that the mere juxtaposition of a state of affairs and a person who is “accountable” should mean that there is nothing that that person might say which could conceivably explain, excuse or mitigate her predicament.  “Accountability” is not synonymous with “Heads must roll”.  I do not consider it likely that Parliament when creating the position of DCS [Director of Children's Services] intended those who may be attracted to such an important and difficult position to be volunteering for such unfairness in their personal position.  Accountability requires that the accountable person is obliged to explain the state of affairs to which it attaches.  The corollary is that there must be a proper opportunity to do so.  If the explanation is unacceptable, then consequences will follow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on August 4, 2011 at 16:57

Would you agree Alan, that in general, it is immensely difficult to get rid of poorly performing employees at the council? And that this goes some way to explain the perception of sometimes chronically poor services?

I seem to remember (before she was sacked) that someone at Haringey said unguardedly, that it would be difficult and expensive to end Sharon Shoesmith's employment. One wonders how many more to whom this might apply?

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on August 5, 2011 at 1:25

"Would [I] agree that it is immensely difficult to get rid of poorly performing employees at the council?"

As ever, Clive, the answer is: "It depends".

As I've often said, poor perfomance often has systemic rather than individual causes. Redesign systems and most staff respond by raising their performance as part of a work team. Again I suggest you watch a video of Dr Edwards Deming and his red bead game. (Start at 4:30)

Where the key issue is individual performance, it's always a good idea to ask why? Osbawn listed some constructive ways to tackle problems.

If you're looking for a comment on Sharon Shoesmith's performance, I suggest you read paragraph 2 of Lord Justice Maurice Kay's judgement where he sums up the positive views of her colleagues.

In any case, right now I'm more worried about the cuts and losing good staff. 

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on August 3, 2011 at 15:58

I agree, Osbawn. And to my knowledge, the remedies you mention are used at different times in various parts of the Council's services. Sometimes with enormous success. For example, there's no doubt that Haringey Libraries made a remarkable turnaround. There have been many other notable successes in different areas when a fresh approach - perhaps by a new manager - made a huge difference.

So what about the few still disappointing and mustier corners which exist within the Council and sometimes in its voluntary sector and commercial "partners". It often seems these are run by staff who give the impression they wouldn't recognise 'customer service' - let alone 'excellence' - if these suddenly showered on them like highly scented rose petals.

Here - except in the very worst cases - I'd add two vital factors to your list. Changing the culture; and redesigning systems.

I was once appointed as one of the new governors of a school labelled as "failing" which made a complete transformation under two high quality headteachers. For me, a central feature was how many of the existing staff grew and blossomed once proper systems and a culture of achievement were both in place. But it did also need extra resources - cash to replace old books and broken furniture, and even to paint the building. The idea that cuts on their own improve services is simply dishonest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on August 5, 2011 at 8:37

You can read about the Chief Executive's cuts here.

 

You can read about the rise of insourcing here (after outsourcing of services failed).

 

(Unfortunately both of these important topics were left out of the mail out this week.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on August 2, 2011 at 18:54

Sentence them Supreme Court judges to the supreme penalty: 100 years solitary, reading the Daily Mail.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on August 2, 2011 at 21:42

@Osbawn

Libraries are another LBH success story

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page