Last night (14th May 2020) I listened aghast to the Call-In on the Cabinet decision (taken 30th April) to close 14 Children’s Centres and Youth Sites, move to an Integrated Family Hub model resulting in saving £600,000 per annum.

This paper has been flawed from the start.

The Cabinet paper was late in being published. Rather than the 5 working days indicated by the constitution, opposition councillors only had sight of the paper the day before the original scrutiny panel convened. The closure of Children’s and Youth Centres is a complicated business as there are so many legal aspects that need to be followed and considered, therefore such a decision should not be rushed.

Questions and reservations were raised at the Cabinet meeting but all were dismissed as not being pertinent.

Cllrs Baldwin, Tisi, Del Campo, Werner (Lib Dem) and Price (tBf) signed the Call-in on the basis that the decision had been taken without full consultation and without legal considerations such as Access and Equality Impacts.

I was absolutely horrified that Cllr Julian Sharpe, the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel started the meeting (view here on youtube) with a statement (starting @05:07) that he was ‘disappointed’ in the call-in and went on to pre-determine ‘that the requirements for this call-in would drop away’.

His role as a Scrutiny Panel Chairman is to be non-partisan, he should always listen to the points raised and foster discussion, whilst keeping the scrutiny process free from political point scoring, thereby allowing for the effective scrutiny of all evidence that is produced from all parties.

His diversion from the constitutional Call-In process and the inability to acknowledge that the signatory members need to present all their evidence, before officers and his administration colleagues speak, was embarrassing as was the interruption of Cllr Helen Price as she was presenting her evidence … but not as embarrassing as the lack of knowledge of the existence of a panel member, a co-opted school governor, who was seeking clarification on the substance of the vote and did not receive an answer. Scrutiny Chairs receive a special allowance of £6107.00 per annum on top of their basic allowance to acknowledge the responsibility of ensuring that the scrutiny process is democratic and fair.

We heard the signatory councillors speak eloquently on why the decision, as set out in the Cabinet paper was flawed and unsafe. This cannot be refuted. The Officers and Lead Member may have spoken about holding another consultation, they may have intended to consider the legal aspects in a ‘further stage’…. but those words were not in the Recommendation in the published paper and therefore WAS NOT the decision that was taken by Cabinet on the 30th April 2020

From the published paper:

“4. This paper sets out the changes that will be required in light of the consultation feedback to deliver the family hubs, including changes to one Children’s and Youth Centres, including closure of 14 sites, and retaining 5 centres.

5. Whilst delivering a more targeted service for vulnerable families, theproposed design delivers a full year cost reduction of £600,000. The basebudget before savings was £4,101,480 which will reduce to £3,501,480. However it is recognised that as the implementation is planned part year, the savings for 2020/2021 will be reduced to £450,000 resulting in a revised budget of £3,651,480. This budget position was approved by full Council 25th February 2020.

1. DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)
    RECOMMENDATION: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i) Agrees to a remodelling of Family Resilience Services, Children’s Centres and Youth Services to a “Family Hub” model(see appendix 1-diagram of the proposed Integrated Family Hub model).
ii) Agrees to the prioritising of services for children, young people and families most in need as set out in 3.3 and 3.4.“

Instead of acknowledging that there was an issue, and the paper had not represented their intent, what followed was just bluster and spin. Cllr Carroll (Lead Member) suggested it was misapprehension on the Opposition Councillors behalf and the paper just required ‘clarification’ or ‘clarity’.

This ‘bluster and spin’ continued on twitter.

It was not a “request”. It was not an amendment for “semantical” purposes. It was a Call-In because the decision taken was unsafe it its published form. The decision was quashed, and a new paper will be presented at Cabinet for a new decision.

The administration must stop treating the opposition councillors with derision, it was the lateness and inadequacy of the paper combined with the refusal to carefully consider the comments from all councillors at Cabinet that culminated in the Call-In. It must also step-up and acknowledge when mistakes are made, again a culture that they must change if they truly intend to move forward in their stated “collaborative way”.

They should not assume that all Councillors are always being partisan in the comments they make. Independents most certainly are not partisan, they have no need to ‘bluster and spin’, their aim is to get things done correctly for the benefit of residents.

Having reflected on the events of Thursday I believe the most important ‘learning’ out of this is to LISTEN, nearly half of the councillors at RBWM are not Conservatives but cumulatively they have skill sets that cannot be found in the Administration. These skills should and must be utilised and all councillors involved much earlier in the papers’ evolution, only then can we say that decision-making is truly evidenced.

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you know. But if you listen, you may learn something new” – Dalai Lama