Helping the mentally or physically ill, the elderly & the poor to fight Council PCNs.
Writing about blunders, democracy and profligacy at Barnet Council.
Here is an opportunity for you to give generously of your time and of your money.
Workshop advertised on Streetlife
A workshop to minimise the potential impact, why does Mr Mustard think that any suggestion of not making the cuts but instead raising council tax would not be acceptable feedback? Would Mr & Mrs Awkward please attend.
Fund raising for a Judicial Review
The CPZ charges campaign recently returned £100 to Mr Mustard as the case was won and fighting fund donations were returned so he has recycled that (as a permanent donation) into this equally worthy case.
Our ruling councillors have completely forgotten that what they are engaged in is public service and one of their mantras has been "deliver better services with less money" which certainly doesn't apply to the Library service (which is less money to deliver a far lesser service, in terms of hours and quality) and it doesn't apply to anything which includes the magic word, no, not 'please' but 'commissioning' which can have all the funds it needs, as Mr Reasonable has amply demonstrated and as this vacant post (anyone miss Craig Cooper?)
which the General Functions Committee will doubtless rubber stamp the extra money for, shows.
The previous incumbent was Claire Symonds who worked closely with Chris Naylor before he moved to Barking & Dagenham, and guess what, Claire has been fortunate to get a new post there (What a waste of fees to Penna when Chris or Claire could simply have picked up the phone and done the deal for free).
The salary merry-go-round really needs someone to put the brakes on it. Here is an idea about salaries Mr Mustard doesn't suppose that there is a cat in hell's chance of Andrew Travers showing such leadership. He is happy to be proven wrong.
A Joint Letter from the Barnet Bloggers to the Leader of Barnet Council
Barnet Bloggers are appalled by reported plans to outsource libraries and make them available to commercial exploitation to companies such as Starbucks and Waterstones. The real purpose of proposals to cut and shut libraries in Barnet is now clear.
In April 2013, a High Court ruling found that Barnet Council had failed in its obligation properly to consult residents over the imposition of the whole scale privatisation of local public services, known then as ‘One Barnet’.
The Judicial Review which had reached this conclusion found that legal challenge had been brought too late, and therefore the two massive contracts with Capita, agreed by the Conservative administration, are now in place for a period of at least ten years.
After narrowly being returned to power the new administration has, as predicted, rushed ahead with new plans to outsource most of the remaining services, at the same time as launching plans to impose devastating cuts in budget.
As a result, we now face devastating plans to slash the funding of our library service by a staggering 60%, a disproportionate and punitive amount which is clearly agreed as a means of preparing the argument for yet another act of privatisation.
Councillors have been presented with a report with three equally damaging options for the future of Barnet Libraries, and residents encouraged to take part in what we believe to be a deeply flawed and subjective consultation process, one which an independent report has described as not fit for purpose:
Now we are faced with new information which, if true, would suggest that far from learning the lessons of the Judicial Review, the authority’s latest consultation process, as well as being deliberately designed to minimise opposition to the three options, is itself a complete irrelevance, and that the outcome of the council’s consideration of the three options is already agreed in principle, if not in detail.
And if this is dialogue is typical of the way in which potential business partners negotiate with the authority, it would also raise serious and wider questions over the integrity of the procurement process in Barnet, past and present.
Whatever the opinions of residents, it seems that there will be closure and sale of library buildings, and the outsourcing of our library service, engineered so as to provide opportunities for commercial exploitation by private contractors.
Such an outcome would be simply unacceptable, and indeed would be an unlawful decision taken in complete disregard of the democratic process.
We ask Councillor Richard Cornelius, leader of the Conservative administration, immediately to halt the discredited consultation currently in place, remove the library proposals from the budget cuts about to be imposed, and to launch an independent investigation into the alleged subversion of the due process of democratic engagement that should decide the governance of our borough, and hold the authority to account in a way that is fair, and transparent.
Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne
Following on from Friday's blog about the slowly reducing spending on library book stock, all brought about by Roger's blog at the Barnet Eye, Mr Mustard's friend also obtained for him the stock figures going back to 31 March 2000 and here they are:
2000
865,558
2001
866,429
2002
620,000
2003
597,062
2004
521,402
2005
537,850
2006
536,175
2007
502,393
2008
482,872
2009
485,662
2010
489,900
2011
469,836
2012
477,999
and in the much more easy to digest form of a table
click to enlarge, back to return
which is very interesting. As the spend has been going down the book stock level follows it but with a 5 year lag which is possibly the average life of a library book. Stock can only have gone up a smidgen in 2012 by buying less expensive books or by not throwing old books away as soon as in previous years.
Apart from the fantastically innovative Friern Barnet people's library, which sadly only has <6 weeks to go in its current format, although Pete Phoenix isn't so named for nothing (we can expect another library to rise from the ashes) it is evident that libraries are only treading water in Barnet.
The strategic library review foresees a reduction in the budget of £1,410,000 over the next 3 years. That is going to help our libraries, isn't it? It is what Robert Rams has put his name to. He couldn't have got it completely wrong could he?
Always advisable to put your specs on before doing anything important like driving or signing a DPR.
Executive summary
Bill Murphy does not read the documents he signs.
Delegated powers reports don't tell you exactly what is going on.
Management can't run One Barnet and manage business as usual.
Work is being pushed down the staff chain to free up management time for One Barnet. This cost will not appear in the One Barnet budget.
Volunteers are not free.
The full version
Mr Mustard is not keen on the council having any secrets so whenever they issue reports with secret appendices he thinks about asking to see them. It might take 6 months or more to make the request, get refused, ask for a review and then send the second refusal off to the Information Commissioner but Mr Mustard is not easily put off. He follows due process to the bitter end.
Here is a DPR that was issued in May 12 having been signed off in March.
Mr Mustard was very disappointed that a DPR of such inaccuracy could have been physically signed by an Assistant Director and so he emailed him
6 June
Dear Mr Murphy
I often struggle to make sense of the DPRs which the council issue.
In the case of 1686 which you have physically signed it is even harder than usual as in the third paragraph of the final page ( I can't give you a section number as you have 9 twice and 9.1 twice and no number for the paragraph I am referring to) you refer to section 5.2 which doesn't exist in the document itself which jumps from 5.1 to 5.4 with only one paragraph between them. Something is missing somewhere.
I also can't make head nor tail of the content which is of interest to me.
You point out that 2 posts will be left unfilled and yet there are costs of £33,312. Presumably these are after the savings have been taken into account? What are the total costs please, what are they being spent on exactly, and what are the savings from the two unfilled posts?
How are 2 days for each of the three divisional managers going to be freed up? Is it by the staff below them in the structure doing more work or by some other method?
Does this DPR allow for the use of consultants?
If you have some before and after staff charts, or some other document, which makes the whole thing clear ( as it certainly isn't how it is written) then I would be pleased to receive it/them.
Yours sincerely
and the following day came a brief reply
7 June
Dear Mr Mustard,
Thanks you for your e-mail. I have asked the Head of Libraries to draft a response. However this was simply a sorting of some anomalies in the existing structure and has nothing to do with use of consultants. However, we will provide you with a fuller reply.
Bill Murphy Assistant Director, Customer Services
Mr Mustard would have preferred to hear from the engine driver and not the oily rag especially as it was the engine driver who got his pen out and signed the DPR which was a complete mess but he can't make Bill do some work, he is far too busy sitting in high-falutin meetings to do any of that. There was also another snag as although he wrote only 47 words of substantive text Bill managed to add further confusion to the already muddled picture. Mr Mustard does like to have things clear so he emailed back.
7 June
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for replying so soon.
I am now even more confused as you say the Head of Libraries will draft a response and yet section 5.1 of DPR1686 (and 1487) says that post is being held vacant.
Hopefully all will become absolutely clear in the delegated reply.
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard
7 June
Dear Mr Mustard - the council has an interim arrangement where we have a joint Head of Libraries and Customer Services - hence sharing the post as part of the savings - so yes - we did not fill the head of libraries post as a stand alone post. (hence the Head of Libraries who I mentioned earlier does not exist as such but I can't admit to yet more error)
Bill Murphy
Mr Mustard had to wait 2 weeks before a proper reply was received.
21 June 12
Dear Mr Mustard,
Many thanks for notifying us of these anomalies. The published DPR was an exempt report which had specific information removed so individual members of staff could not be identified. This, unfortunately, corrupted the numbering system. Following your email we have submitted a new version of this report, which should now be clearer.
The vacant posts are indeed the two temporarily vacant Head of Service posts.
Regards,
Lauren Doody
Head of Customer Services and Libraries, Chief Executive Service
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7009 / Mobile: 07500 817968
Having pointed out the complete horlicks that Barnet Council had made of the report, which no-one at the council had noticed, you would think, would you not, that a copy of the new version of the report would have been attached to Ms Doody's email? You would be wrong if you think the council would be that helpful. Mr Mustard had to wander over to the council website to find it for himself.
I wrote
in the first place because the DPR made no sense. You have corrected the errors
in the numbering which is good but the content still does not make clear what is
happening nor does it address the specific questions that I asked on 6 June 12
so please do respond to those now especially the organisational before and after
charts.
There is
no detail in section 5.1 "The proposed changes to the libraries management team"
are not specified. Please now provide the detail requested.
Section
5.1 also says that the "full-time Head of Service Post is to be reinstated."
Earlier there is reference to two vacant heads of service posts. Which one is to
be reinstated? Is there a plan to delete the other post?
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard
He waited patiently until 4 July.
4 July 2012
Dear Mr Mustard,
Apologies for the delayed response.
Please find attached the before and after structure charts that should hopefully make things clearer. No posts will be filled by consultants.
It is expected that the temporary Head of Customer Services and Libraries post will be deleted in December. Following this, the Head of Customer Services post will be reinstated. It was expected that the Head of Libraries post would also be reinstated but this has been superseded by the senior management restructure. The Library Service will now report to the Head of Youth and Communities in the Children’s Service.(? Are adult customers going to become low priority?) The exact structure of the management team will be decided once this post is appointed to.
Kind regards,
Lauren Doody
Here are the before and after charts. One has to ask oneself why these were not published with the DPR and instead made into state secrets as they don't contain any revolutionary material.
Mr Mustard was busy and so he didn't write again for 2 weeks but he was still puzzled at to what was going on. It should make senior management at Barnet Council reflect upon the clarity of the reports they issue if they cannot be understood by anyone who happens to pick them up.
Mr Mustard wrote again and now having received an email reply, in the interspersed format, he just about understands what has gone on.
Sent 18 JulyReply 24 July
Dear Ms
Doody
I am starting to understand
what is going on but am still struggling with section 8.3 which says that the
realignment of staff will create 2 days per Divisional manager per
week.
Now there are 3 Divisional
Managers (DM) so using a 7 hour day they want to free up 3*2*7 = 42
hours.
This was an approximate estimate of the kind of time that the arrangements would save.
An additional 1/2 librarian
has been added so that is 18 hours of work that can be passed down by the DM
Adults to the team leaders and then some of their duties down to the
librarians.
Yes, this is correct.
Moving the 3 bookstart team
members away from a direct report to reporting through the bookstart coordinator
must also save a little time. How many hours have been allocated to
that?
As before, an
approximate calculation was made but it is the equivalent of about 2 days per
week of a Divisional Managers time.
The final time saving to
come to the 42 hours is from the DM Ops who is going to pass some of their work
down to the sole support officer whose work will instead by done by a volunteer.
How many hours will the volunteer work for please and has the volunteer been
found yet? Is there a job description for this volunteer? and if so please can I
have a copy.
This is not correct. There are no volunteers involved in this scenario. The administration post is a paid temp who will assist with the volunteer project (arranging interviews, managing CRB applications etc) This frees up time from the 4 members of the volunteer project team who are all within the wider management team.
One other small point.
Section 8.1 says there are around 100 FTE staff. I note that there are over 120
posts on the chart. Is the difference because a number of the posts are not full
time?
Again this was to give a general idea of the size of the service. This number includes part time staff.Mr Mustard is not keen on approximation as vital detail can be hidden in that way.
Thank you for your
help.
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard
Now that was interesting. Mr Mustard misunderstood the job title of someone and in the explanation which corrected his misunderstanding he found some very interesting information.
There is a project team of 4 people to manage volunteers. Now they may of course be doing other things as well but it gives you an idea of the scale of the backup and management team that is needed to accommodate volunteers within libraries. Volunteers are not a completely free resource (and not a substitute for qualified librarians).
Food for thought here. Are volunteers worth the money they don't get?
You can read the whole article on-line and I will give you a quick precis here ( vent your spleen in the comment box! ):-
60% of the population have not been into a library in years.
Only 20% go to the library at least once a month.
Middle-class liberals are trying to keep libraries open for the less fortunate, not for themselves.
Google has replaced the reference library.
We live in an information rich society.
Most homes have fast computers & whizzy mobile phones.
130,000 new books were published in 2009 in the UK ( i.e. a library cannot stock them all )
330m books were purchased in the UK ( book shops are disappearing faster than libraries )
Virtually every kid has a desk at home.
Libraries at secondary schools are uniformly good.
Libraries are needed less.
Mr Mustarddoes not agree with most of the article although it is true that he tends to buy his books rather than visit the library ( it is very impersonal with the computerised booking in and out system - Mr Mustard prefers to talk to people )
Now Mr Mustard couldn't understand what point Robert Rams was making, so he tweeted, as follows:
Which side are you on. Keeping libraries or closing them?
and back came the answer:
as i have done in Barnet, keeping them open where possible, building new ones, spending more on books and securing their future
So Cllr. Robert Rams tweets a link to an article that recommends closing libraries and then says he is in favour of keeping them open, building new ones and spending more on books and securing their future.
Let us take this a section at a time.
Keeping them open where possible. Now Mr Mustard seems to recall that there is a library review document ( link here ) which Rams presented to some deadly boring council meeting and what did it say about keeping them open
Was he referring to Hampstead Garden Suburb library? It won't be down to the council if this building stays open but testament to the public service ethos of local residents i.e. in spite of Barnet Council not because of them.
Was he referring to Friern Barnet Library? This is also under threat of closure.
No good news then at present in the keeping them open section. How about "building new ones".
A new library is planned for the Brent Cross redevelopment. As that is a 20 year plan it's a bit early to consider these other than fine words in a report.
A new library in Grahame Park. The building of that area is also going to take years and the payments due from the developer were recently deferred so the wait for this will also be years.
So no new libraries then at present.
Oh, Mr Mustard nearly forgot the Arts Depot. A building already fully fitted out and without the spare space free into which to put a library any larger than a telephone box. The Arts Depot simply can't fit a library into their building. A fortune was spent on consultants during the construction which proved this.
Let's not forget the Garden Suburb Institute who were supposedly going to offer a self service facility for Hampstead Garden Suburb's former library users. except that the Institute needs to concentrate on its core activities and hadn't been fully consulted so that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
The new library shelf is bare then.
Spending more on books. Now this is a great one. The library strategy does foresee £10,000 extra spent on books but also envisages an overall cut of £1,105,000. Well of course the cuts will arrive but not necessarily the extra book spend as these are budget figures which can easily be changed along the way.
What is £10,000 spread across 300,000 residents? it is 3p per resident. That is about a page of a book each.
There is nothing that ensures the future of libraries in the strategic review. A new review could change things at the drop of a hat.
So Cllr Rams leaves one confused. He probably needs this book:
and this one
as Mr Mustard thinks that Robert Ram's heart really isn't in closing libraries but he doesn't want to step out of the cabinet, he can only tweet his discomfort.
_001.jpg)
_002.jpg)
