Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
In defence of the appointment of Nick Walkley
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Haringey Council's decision to appoint Nick Walkley as our new chief executive. A lot of what happened on his current role in neighbouring Barnet has been written in the local and national media, and discussed here and elsewhere (and we desperately need it considering the 'Journal' newspaper has just shut its doors), but we need to look beyond that.
What is needed right now is a CEO who is prepared to tackle the ongoing problems within the very council administration. Councillors need to be brave in thinking; "Well, we got things wrong at present, so let us try something else for a change." We should be grateful that Walkley is prepared to come here at all. Very few in the local government community would touch the job managing a borough with such a poor reputation such as ours with a barge pole.
If Walkley has come here to consider 'thinking out of the box', then councillors... and critics here... should do so too. The borough desperately needs change and we need all the help we can get, at a time when the council hasn't even begun to prepare on how to deal with the changes, for example, in the health service and the benefit systems.
I think that in all the arguements for and against, we need to look at Walkley's appointment with an open mind.
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey chief executive, nick walkley
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Oh come on Little Willy, you know I only have eyes for you... you hunk!!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Someone pointed out your comment, to me John. (I skipped over it first time round.)
I'm puzzled as to the things on which you think I "held my tongue for a remarkably long time." That's certainly not the view of several previous Labour Chief whips. (Admittedly two of them went off to the Tories. I hope it wasn't something I didn't say.)
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
@Neville: I've asked her to run in Harringay but she turned me down. Shame.
-
-
Awwww that's so sweet... he did ask me and I was flattered. Its not the first time I've turned you down is it John... I will come out to the next HoL social! (stop making it a work day!)
-
-
Seema, I saw you in the Salisbury last night. Stop making excuses about work nights.
-
-
Why didnt you come over... you could've shared our Smarties!!
-
-
Stand for Council? Will you be my mentor Neville? ;)
Is there anything else in my statement you are going to respond to or is the fact that Cllr Wilson, (the Leader of YOUR party) was also on the recuitment panel for Walkley and selected him leaving you a bit.... stuck!
I spoke to you as an indvidual resident, if you are unable to respond likewise... I am disappointed!
-
-
Why didn't I stand for Leader? <wide smile> I'm not sure anyone would be interested in the answer, Neville. Especially the long answer. Here are two shorter replies.
First, because I've never been a fan of the Leader/Cabinet model. Hearing Clare Short on the radio a few days ago I agreed with her worry that politics was now all about leaders, leaders-in-waiting, etc.
How and why did a democracy dumb down to this? Eddie Finnegan was right to mention Thatcher and her vegetables. But Blair was just as bad. Including his Mayors, Leaders and Council cabinets.
One problem of the Leader/Cabinet system is that it becomes a small group separated from so-called "backbenchers". Very ordinary and sometimes mediocre "cabinet members" lose touch with electors and party and begin thinking of themselves as special. When they're easily captured by the "gravitational field" of the senior officers' group. The "Sir Humphrey" clip I posted before is only a slight exaggeration. So's this one.
The second short reason is that that I have never been willing to play the mutual back-scratching games needed to get votes in the Labour Group. So when Cllr George Meehan stood down, Claire Kober had some votes. Also, as I recall, she had the support of George who is a decent man and someone we trust.
Claire Kober was a fresh face; had been a more than adequate Chief Whip; and could make a halfway decent speech. It seemed brave of her to step forward. She also had a huge advantage: the alternative candidates were Cllrs Gideon Bull and Charles Adje. (For whom the Thumper Principle applies.)
I think we assumed that like anyone in their thirties Clare would listen and learn; inviting people into an inclusive team, as widely-drawn as possible. Sadly, that should and could have happened - but it didn't.
For me the very worst aspect was her almost complete failure to understand let alone try to tackle problems highlighted by the Tottenham Riot. And that is seriously damaging for Tottenham and for Haringey. It's revealing that her email endorsing Mr Walkley didn't even mention this. (Though I expect he'll now prep something upbeat and anodyne on it.)
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
How did we get to the point where a public-sector CEO can make a fundamental set of changes apparently in spite of the elected officials?
Presumably the CEO's power uplift was a response to widespread disaffection with the effectiveness of the council. If so, that's a political failure - we should look for a change there, rather than in the executive who, if I understood Yes Minister correctly, are supposed to carry out policy, not initiate it.
Voter turnout in the local elections for the 57 seats in Haringey jumped from 36% to over 60% last time (2010). In Harringay it was 59.5%, so we only have ourselves to blame, don't we?
I cannot see how to curb the power of the CEO. If/when, the CEO starts to do things we don't like, it'll be way too late and it doesn't look like there's anything we can do about it. Presumably, we won't even know it has happened until the effects are felt, as Haringey seems to actively prevent residents from getting information about what officers do and have done, possibly in an attempt to screen them from wrath.
I think the Council has a department that tries to increase the quality of public consultation and I don't imagine that running an effective local authority is easy, but surely there are some basic things we should all expect?
Every non-exempt document should be searchable on the website but it isn't, for example. Worse, not only is there no archive or audit trail we can examine, many documents are destroyed every week in an age where storage costs are trivial. The least they can do is document their activities and let the plebs be humbled by the magnificence of their wisdom. I understand that every meeting a councillor attends must be minuted - why is that not being adhered to? Surely this is something we can all press for that will help us in the long term wrest back control of our own back yard?
It sounds as if we have a CEO function here is too big to fail - how has that worked out for us in the past?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
How did we get to the point where a public-sector CEO can make a fundamental set of changes apparently in spite of the elected officials?
Er, we have not got to that point.
The idea that Mr Walkley was somehow selected in spite of the wishes of democratically elected councillors (and not because of them) is manifestly preposterous.
The proof, if proof were needed, that the CEO continues at the pleasure of the democratically elected, is that the last CEO was let go after a relatively short time. And for reasons that aren't entirely clear - I have no opinion on the merits of that change.
-
-
So the CEO simply carried out the policy of the majority of Barnet Councillors as instructed by them, without significant modification?
From what I read, the Barnet bloggers characterised the CEO as personally responsible for most of the dramatically risky and potentially severely harmful changes there, for privatising the hell out of Barnet Council by letting contracts for £1bn. They also blame him for abandoning the management of this huge change mid-course for a better job.
It's a private-sector title CEO, and most appear to operate with a high degree of autonomy. They're in it for the money.
I noticed with the continuing Hornsey Town Hall disappointment (no space for the community inside the campus) that the people who won this public space for private limited company use seemed to be highly paid too.
They deal with a council who's personell below the top tier are badly paid and severely cut to ribbons. The Haringey CEO didn't seem to even notice - bigger fish to fry I guess.
The richer 1% seem to possess a lot of skill - the private school (£15k/yr fees to foreign students) persuaded the Council to give them a huge public asset right in the middle of our town for free (well, a £1 lease for 125 years) and to add to the culture of secrecy by keeping it all very quiet in 'commercial confidence'. If only they'd chosen to repeat their offer to renovate the Ally Pally Theatre and move in there!
It enables them to move from their existing £5m turnover from 400 students in Wood Green (where they are sorely needed).
There they pay £600k/yr in rent, but when the library car park is sold off by LBH to pay to renovate our Town Hall, they'll have a luxury HQ for a projected 600 students in a Town Hall that will have had millions of our money spent on it, not least the £4m of our taxes they've been awarded already just for filling in a form.
All this for £1/year in rent and some fundraising they say they'll try to do. I wouldn't be surprised if all concerned were given honours for landing such a fantastic bargain!
So I guess with a high salary comes the power to initiate to your advantage and the skill of getting what you want without being accountable for anything. Not simply faithfully implementing the policy of others.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
The comments on the Guardian piece continue to tell the story. Here's the most recent, perhaps a little partisan:
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
The FUTURE SHAPE, EASY-COUNCIL,ONE BARNET things are manifestations, in Nick Walkley's case, of a particularly sinister malevolent personal arrogance.
Here are one or two of my encounters with him:
1] When I was considering standing for the council [as an independent] and he gave a 'welcome' guidance speech. In the course of his speech he said: "all financial decisions have to be passed by myself......" So I asked: "Did I hear right? Are you telling us that the elected councillors can't decide policy......?" and before I had finished my question he pointed to his chest and said: "It's me!..."
2] At the end of that meeting I went up to him and spoke about contracts worth some £50 million + which had been given to firms which had been fined some £millions recently for their part in a £multi-billion 'bid-rigging' fraud, against various councils. I named the firms concerned. He said he knew about the cases I was referring to. I asked him whether, as the one who determined council spending, he was going to continue to give them contracts, and he said that they had not been proved to have cheated Barnet, and so he was going to continue.
3] At a council meeting when he physically stopped me and some others from entering the gallery of the council chamber, telling a lie denying that we had been allowed in by the council leader. It took a policeman to stop him preventing our entry.