Peter Kent-Baguley

Pedestal Power or what's the point in wrestling with Reginald Mitchell and Robbie Williams?

A City Council press release today declares: "Stoke-on-Trent will this year name its Citizen of the Century as part of its federation centenary celebrations. A shortlist of ten nominations has been decided on by a panel of judges, to commemorate the best Stoke-on-Trent has had to offer over the last 100 years. The announcement will be made at a special Federation Dinner to be held on 31 March at the Kings Hall. The nominees are:

• Jack Ashley
• Arnold Bennett
• Doug Brown
• Clarice Cliff
• Sir Oliver Lodge
• Sir Stanley Matthews
• Reginald Mitchell
• Millicent Duchess of Sutherland
• Phil Taylor
• Robbie Williams

Whoever came up with this crazy obsession with the top City-related celebrity? What's the point: to reinforce at any opportunity the social hierarchy of wealth and power? Putting a select few on pedestals is little short of aping monarchs on thrones. It is medieval and totally irrlevant for a mature, modern societry.

Each of the 10 nominated people have contributed significantly to society in diverse ways. Apart from the Duchess, the contributions went way beyond the boundaries of the federated City of Stoke-on-Trent. Tens of thousands of people, millions indeed, contribute significantly to society in diverse ways. 

But by what criteria are their contributions assessed comparatively? What's the point in wrestling with, for example, the contribution of Reginald Mitchell and Robbie Williams?     

"The city will also be inviting people to nominate their own “Citizen of the Century” via their website at www.stoke.gov.uk later this month. That person should have lived, worked or been educated in Stoke-on-Trent between the years 1910 and 2010 and made a significant and recognisable contribution in their chosen field.

"The panel of judges is made up of City Council Leader Ross Irving, Managing Editor of BBC Radio Stoke Sue Owen, Assistant Editor of The Sentinel Martin Tideswell, local historian Fred Hughes and Vice Chancellor of Staff University Christine King.

Councillor Irving said: “We feel that the shortlist accurately reflects the best of Stoke-on-Trent, both past and present. The Citizen of the Century Award is obviously a huge accolade, so we had to think long and hard about prospective candidates.

If the shortlist is accurate, then why the need for more to be nominated by "people"? Probably a doubt crept in about not having thought long enough and hard enough!

“We also want to hear about unsung heroes, the people who have made differences to people’s everyday lives and have given so much to their communities and the city as a whole.

“The award will be a lasting legacy to whoever is chosen, and will be remembered as one of the most important figures in the entire history of Stoke-on-Trent.”

I doubt that very much. Who ever remembers the best of any list from any era? Come to think of it, what is the point of commemorations? 

Who said volunteering was dead?

The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Hanley has been overwhelmed by volunteers who have offered more than 5,000 hours to help steward the exhibition of unique Anglo-Saxon treasures. Within just a week of issuing the public appeal, more than double the amount of support needed to steward the exhibtion had been pledged. The exhibtion of the gold and silver trasure opens on 13th February and runs until 7th March.

The seventh century treasure is the largest and most valuable collection of Anglo-Saxon gold ever discovered and new items from the 1,500-piece hoard will be displayed at the museum for the first time ever. It is also the first time the treasure will be exhibited in Staffordshire, the county in which it was found.

The museum's volunteer co-ordinator Andrew Watts said: “We have also had offers of help from Anglo-Saxon re-enactor groups. On the first day of the exhibition we will now be joined by King Raedweld of Sutton Hoo, some of his warriors, craftsmen and other folk. They will show how gold items, similar to those in the hoard, were worn and made. Other volunteer Anglo-Saxons will be with us during the display. The response has been overwhelmingly generous. Many of the applicants that we haven’t been able to accommodate in the hoard exhibition are interested in other volunteering opportunities and will become part of the museum service volunteer programmes later in the year.”

Les Higgins, 67, a retired archaeologist from Norton-in-the-Moors, will volunteer on eight exhibition days added: “I hope as many people as possible come to see it. It is very exciting to be a part of the display and the volunteers are extremely keen to help – the fact that the call for voluntees was so over-subscribed proves how the treasure has struck people’s imagination.”

Stoke-on-Trent City Council is working with Birmingham City Council to acquire jointly the Staffordshire Hoard, which has been officially valued at £3.3m. The Art Fund is leading a public fundraising campaign, and donations can be made by visiting www.artfund.org/hoard, by telephone on 0844 415 4004, or via collection boxes in the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery.

Encouraging more jobs and businesses in Stoke-on-Trent

Almost 96% of the 790 people who responded to the City Council's Public Consultation on the Budget said that encouraging more jobs and businesses in Stoke-on-Trent was an important service the council should provide. In fact, of the 12 service areas presented to the interviewees, this was considered to be the most important.

Perhaps a similar result would be obtained in Birmingham, but as Kraft's £11.9bn debt financed take-over bid for Cadbury demonstrates, whatever local councils may do to increase the attractivenes of their patch to entice businesses and jobs, it is the big boys and girls who are the real players, the international financiers, who couldn't care less about the local work forces they invade.

Hardly had the Cadbury board of directors rolled over and accepted the bid (and no surprise there since they will each make millions!) than their chair, Roger Carr, bluntly declares that his prime concern was the interest of shareholders and that job losses would be inevitable! Yes, but if the chief executive, Todd Stilzer, loses his job, for example, he stands to receive a bumper pay-off, comprising a year's pay of £985,000, bonus of £2m and £12m in cash and shares.

Meanwhile, the workers who produce the value, face the trauma of being amongst those who will be sacrificed in what will certainly be a Kraft imposed cost cutting exercise.

This is the reality of international capitalism. The people of Stoke-on-Trent know all about it. They are grappling with the legacy of international financiers who have plundered our once great ceramic industry.  

The motor of capitalism is growth, based on invasion; invasion of companies, cultures and countries. Exploitation of the majority of people and the environment is not only unavoidable it is the essence of the system. This is the reality which people, and increasingly of recent years, government, expect local councils to combat. Really? What could Birmingham City Council have done to prevent the Kraft take-over and the consequent forthcoming job losses? What could Stoke-on-Trent City Council have done to prevent the attack on the potteries and the transfer of manufacturing to the Far East?

Even a postcard is too big for, nothing. 

Confidence is all

Without confidence in the people running the show, whatever the show is, whether it is the government, a major bank, the village football team or the local council for example, the show will be dysfunctional, mired in crises and finally failure.

Before Christmas a senior officer under questioning at a scrutiny committee gave assurances that the voluntary redundancy process would slice off £4.3m from the 2010/2011 budget. There were no doubts.  

However, because substantially fewer than the planned 250 staff signed up for voluntary redundancy (probably largely due to not wishing to sign the gagging order that was suddenly imposed on them) only £1.2m will be sliced off the 2010/2011 budget instead of the planned £4.3m.

So, will the £3.1m not to be saved on VR after all mean more cuts? Not according to portfolio holder for resources, Cllr Kieran Clarke. In response to my questions, he told the Group Leaders’ meeting on Monday, now that the government has limited pay rises for public sector workers to 1%, the excess amount in the draft budget for pay rises will cover the VR shortfall.

But in fact, there is only £1.4m saved as a result of the pay rise cap. Somewhat different from the confidently asserted £3.1m!  

Instead of adding the planned £1.5m to the Council’s pitifully low reserves only £0.5m will be added, thus leaving another £1m to help plug the missing £3.1m. That makes £2.5m to plug the gap but what about the remaining £0.6m?

Maybe wondering about a mere £600,000 is being side-tracked by detail. Although, with confidence in the Cabinet and senior officers being at an all-time low, quite clearly if we are not to be duped into voting for a budget in six weeks time that simply does not add up, we cannot afford (literally!) to leave any kind of detail to those in whom we lack confidence.    

Archbishop of York to be City Council's guest of honour

As part of the centenary celebrations marking 100 years of our federated city, the Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr. John Sentamu, will be the City Council's guest speaker on Friday 23 July at Stoke Town Hall. The theme for the evening will be hope for the future. The evening will also feature songs and music from the City Music School. During the day he will visit a local faith project to see how support is given to local communities. 

Dr Sentamu said: “It is an honour to be coming to Stoke-on-Trent to help the city with its centenary celebrations, and to see a city with such a vibrant and rich history. I want to help by bringing together communities and towns in the spirit of friendship, co-operation and harmony. An event such as this gives everyone, regardless of religion, ethnicity or belief, a chance to come together as one, and give thanks for their city and everyone in it.”

Dr. Sentamu was enthroned as the 97^th Archbishop of York in 2005, and has spoken about a wide rang of issues since. He has highlighted the plight of young people in modern society, been a strong advocate of community work, opposed racism and slavery, and spoken out against anti-gay laws in the country of his birth, Uganda.

Born near the capital Kampala in 1949, the 6th of 13 children, John Sentamu graduated in law and practised in the High Court, Kampala, until the country's dictator, Idi Amin, could tolerate his independence of thought no longer. Having been locked up for 90 days shortly after his marriage, the couple fled to Britain in 1974 where he studied theology at the university of Cambridge. He was ordained a priest in 1979.

While Bishop of Stepney he drew on his legal expertise and experience and served as an advisor to the Stephen Lawrence Judicial Enquiry. In 2002 he was appointed Bishop of Birmingham where he ramained until he was appointed to the second highest office in the Church of England in 2005.

The Rector of Stoke Minster, Prebendary David Lingwood, added: “To have someone of Dr. Sentamu’s standing in the religious world come to Stoke-on-Trent is a wonderful way to celebrate 100 years of the city’s history. He has spoken out about some of the most complex and important issues that face the modern world. He is a man of great vision and sincerity, and gives a clear message to us all about the differences between right and wrong in an era when those lines are not so clearly defined.

Deepest disarray painfully highlighted political paralysis

After nearly four hours of mostly irrelevant discussion, today’s Full Council decided not to submit any recommendations to the Boundary Committee on the proposed new 45 Wards! The 24 Councillors who supported the Labour Group motion reminded the world, if reminder were needed, precisely why the government imposed the Governance Commission on the Council:  

“The City Council regrets the lack of flexibility allowed in drawing up the Ward boundaries being based on only 45 Membersnand fecommends to the Boundary Committee that they take into considerationnand do their best to accommodate the representatuions receiced during the consultation process.”

For the motion:-  Lord Mayor (Cllr Jean Bowers); Councillors Bagh Ali, Joan Bell, Mick Bell, Clive Brian, Randolph Conteh, Rita Dale, John Davis, Mark Davis, Terry Follows, Joy Garner, Debra Gratton, Mohammed Iqbal, Ann James, Adrian Knapper, Mohammed Matloob, Ian Mitchell, Roy Naylor, Mohammed Pervez, Maragaret Pyatt, Tom Reynolds, Paul Shotton, Denver Tolley and Brian Ward.

Against the motion:-  Councillors Zulfiqar Ali, Mike Barnes, Steve Batkin, John Burgess, Kieran Clarke, John Daniels, Roger Ibbs, Ross Irving, Alan Joynson, Pauline Joynson, Peter Kent-Baguley, Hazel Lyth, Sheila Matthews, Joanne Powell-Becket, Megan Ryan, Anthony Simmonds, Dave Sutton and Lee Wanger.

As can be seen by those in bold, the Cabinet were split 50-50, so no leadership there. The 9^th Cabinet member was absent along with 16 other councillors. There was a certain irony that the 24 supporting the pointless motion were so obsessed with the number of councillors being limited to 45 since the 42 present and voting were in such disarray! The rudderless disunity of the Labout Group has turned full circle on this issue. When they were part of the Labout Elected Mayor’s ruling coalition they were in favour of 45 Members!

My fervent plea to Members to approve the recommendations before us but itemise individual reservations found insufficent support. I, like many Members, didn’t agree with all of the recommendations. Those of us who voted against the motion, however, were not prepared to abdicate the responsibility of leadership vested in us by the electorate.

We cannot afford to continue one step further along this pathetic path of indecision while all the time bemoaning the fact that officers make all the decisions!

I hope to make an optimistic statement following next Monday’s Group Leaders’ meeting.

A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR.

I stop short of adding anything about prosperity for clearly we are going to start paying very dearly for the greedy mistakes of the relatively small handful of financiers.

Peter Pan is playing to packed theatres around the country, and deservedly so. It is an innocent and entertaining story with wide appeal. Peter Pan council budgets on the other hand are neither innocent nor entertaining. Deceitful and demeaning are more accurately their principal characteristics.

The City Council’s Tory Leader and his Cabinet have put out a Budget Consultation Pack devoid of political leadership and economic reality. There is also a marked absence of commonsense on a number of the proposed cuts.

Under the guise of consultation the Leader and Cabinet have abdicated responsibility for preparing a framework for the Budget, preferring to leave it to emerge from the consultation process! Leader Cllr Ross Irving has been around long enough to know jolly well that budgets are not stitched up patchworks from a range of consultations!

Some basic facts:

The government’s grant confirmed: £127.293m. If there is no increase in Council Tax it will yield the same as the current year: £79.008m. Thus, total income: £206.301m

But,  

Expenditure based on the current year would be £222.811m so CUTS of £12,397m have been proposed.

That would reduce the bill to £210.414m, Still MORE than the projected income so what to do? INCREASE Council Tax or more CUTS?

Answer, more cuts via Voluntary Redundancies plannedto save £4,300m. That reduces the bill to £206.114m., so hey presto, income balances expenditure. Job done and no increased Council Tax!

Before we get over-excited at the seemingly harmless balancing act don’t let’s forget that a balanced budget was claimed to be on the table this time last year. Apart from the fact that a few officers “forgot” to implement the necessary increased charges there’s more than a hint that the “balanced budget” was based on a wing and a prayer. So, no change there.

Of the 128 proposed cuts, some are plainly unachievable. Review of Community Halls (£50,000). This is a long-running saga and most unlikely to be sorted in the short term. Reduction in opening times snd reduced menu choice at the three City-run cafes (£77,000) Daft idea considering thousands of visitors will be pouring in to see the Gold Hoard at the Museum. Publishing the Council’s Our City paper monthly instead of alternate months (£147,000). Highly contentious issue and unlikely to get approval.   

Removal of 14 posts within Chief Executive’s directorate, including that of the assistant chief executive would save nearly £500,000! This is an easy one, however: they’re all vacant anyway!

Review of management of Integrated Youth Support Services (£400,000) That’s a big chunk of saving but would anyone be left to run the integrated youth services?

Assess how to improve the viability of Stanley Head Outdoor Centre (£80,000) Viability? Or profitability? This is well used, popular centre for thousands of City school children every year.

Review of gritting service (£100,000) “There may be an impact on users of the road network during adverse weather conditions.” Really?

Considering the absolute debacle this year over car parking income some brave soul has dared to suggest that £253,000 could be saved by re-introducing charges for evening parking (if they remember to actually do it!) and to stop the mamby-pamby 10 minute period of grace for cars with expired tickets and the 5 minutes grace for those without tickets. That should be a number one hit  with the beleaguered motorists!

Transfer City Farm to a Trust. (£80,000) Is that it? Which Trust? So a trust will take it on without any City Council funding?

Apart from the easy half a million pounds hit (the 14 vacant posts) you can see how difficult it is to confidently notch up another £1m. Let’s not forget, £12m cuts are planned. Next time, why no increase in Council Tax will further impoverish the City.

»8:59 PM    »1 comments (0 )     »0 TrackBack(s)     »Send entry    

   in: NEWS

City Council's secret surveillance record

That there is no alarming increase in the stated number of secret surveillance situations conducted by the City Council during the past three years does not mean that this is not an important issue for a Scrutiny Committee. 36 surveillances were carried out in 2007; 50 in 2008; 31 in 2009. Additionally, there were 7 instances of the "interception of communication data" in 2007; 12 in 2008 and 3 in 2009.

The interception of communication data is presumably long-hand for opening letters and emails. To what degree does someone have to be a suspect before snoopers pry into their private mail? Already, we ca be tracked as we drive and walk around the city, logged about who we look at, speak to, who we meet, the shops we enter etc etc. Perhaps we shoud not be surprised; after all 1984 is long gone.

Who at the Council has the power to authorise this secret snooping? There is one reference in the City Council's Constitution, at 3.44, which deals with the delegation of powers to various officers. Delegated power 163 read: Enforcement Matters - To authorise to carry out Directed  Surveillance and the Use of Covert Human Intelligence Sources when satisfied that the planned activity ifs appropriate and proportionate to its intended aim.

4 Directors have this delegated power: Director of Central Services, Head of Legal Services, Director of Regeneration and Director of Housing, Environmental and Neighbourhood Services.

Whether there are 30 or 30,000 cases of Council  approved surveillance a year is irrelevant: the point is, Councillors need the facts and the opportunity to scrutinise the operation of the powers so that we may be assured there is no abuse of power. 

How many consultants does it take to work out how many consultants the City Council employs?

As the first decade of the C21st century slides its way into history, a Freedom of Information (F.O.I.) question directed to Stoke-on-Trent City Council is stonewalled on the trumped up excuse that "we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would be more than £450."

Most people, I am sure, will be amazed that a City Councillor was obliged to submit a F.O.I. question anyway!

So what was this ever so difficult data requested that would cost far too much to locate?

Cllr Michael Barnes' questions were:

1. How many Consultants currently work for Stoke-on-Trent City Council, including NSRP?

2. How much is the total estimated cost of these consultants for this financial year 2009/10?

3. How many individual consultants or interim officers are currently paid more than £500 per day (or equivalent based on a normal officer hours) by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council or the NSRP? Please include those employed for doing only 1 day (example) per week and earning more than £500 for that week.

4. How many individual consultants or interim  officers have been paid more than £500 per day (or equivalent based on a normal officer hours) by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council or the NSRP and have now left, and what is their total cost? 

Part of the officer' response states: "Information currently held by the finance department only relates to September 2009 and will not provide an accurate account of the costs..."

If it were the case that the finance department held the information only for September 2009, then obviously it would be useless for Cllr Barnes' questions but how can it be possible that the statement is accurate. Of course it is not.

The information for questions 1 & 2 was recently provided for the Member/Officer Working Group on Consultants. I am a member of that group. The names of consultants was included in the spreadsheet circulated at the meeting but officers insisted, with the support of the Council Leader (who chairs the group), that all names be deleted from the spreadsheet we were allowed to keep. So, I cannot say how many consultants were listed but the point is that information would cost little more than 20p of some officer's time to retrieve! 

The total forecast cost for the current financial year (2009-2010) is £2,310,324.

This information related only to consultants paid via the Council's General Fund, ie the main Revenue Budget. We requested information about all other consultants employed but paid for by various grants. That information should be presented at our next meeting in January.

Employment of consultants is not, in every case, avoidable and unnecessary but on the vast scale that the City Council employs them it is entirely avoidable and totally unnecessary.

Far from admitting or pretending that the data requested is so scattered, deeply embedded and practically impossible to collate the senior officers should be making sure that such data is gathered together, regularly updated, monitored and available for scrutiny and analysis.    

By the way, the best answers to this end of decade festive time question title of this posting will be in line for a very tasty Co-op Fairtrade chocolate torte. 

Stoke-on-Trent City Council's voluntary redundancy mayhem

I have argued repeatedly, at group leaders' meetings, Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee and in Full Council, that the Cabinet's approach to voluntary redundancies is absolutely the wrong approach. Proof of that is already seeping out! Already, several  staff have contacted me to voice their serious concerns about various aspects of the process. Officers within the Neighbourhood Management structure have been given volunary redundancy, or more precisely, their posts have been declared redundant, qualifying the post holders for voluntary redundancy. Full Council recently agreed that no further action should be taken on the ill-conceived restructure of Neighbourhood Management until the specially established Task & Finish Scrutiny group researched the issue and made its report.

Yet, in full contradiction to that decision officers within that area have received formal approval of their voluntary redundancy!

But the mayhem doesn't stop there. Suddenly, on Thursday when officers began to have individual sessions to discuss their voluntary applications, they were presented with a compromise agreement to sign: in plain language, a gagging order!

"You undertake that you have not already and will not, whether directly or indirectly:

a) make any statement about the Council, or any of their officers or members to the press, broadcasting media or any other person for publication; or

b) make, publish or communicate to any person any disparaging, derogatory or negative statements, whether in writing or otherwise, concerning the Council or any of its or their officers or employers. (sic)

This is quite outrageous. Setting aside "disparaging" and "derogatory" why on earth shouldn't a former employee make a negative statement if they can justify it? More importantly, who decides what is precisely a negative statement? On the face of it this is an extremely worrying attempt to control the lawful democratic rights of former employees.   

Secondly, has someone decided (officer/s and/or Leader/Cabinet Member/s?) that if an officer is deemed to have made a "negative" statement about the Council that their post cannot be considered for voluntary redundancy? Sadly, things are every bit as topy-turvey as I had perceived them to be.

Thank goodness the Council Leader agree to my request on Friday that an urgent group leader's meeting be called this week so that this seriously worrying issues can be sorted out. 

»10:24 PM    »1 comments (0 )     »0 TrackBack(s)     »Send entry    

   in: NEWS