Forum Topic

Good point.  It certainly is wishful thinking on my part and individual priorities will differ but I am not alone in pressing for it - and it is the position of the Labour Group as a whole.The five pledges designed to focus action on key priorities formed the platform on which Labour stood in the local elections in 2010 and were then adopted nem con by the council as a whole.  There's still lots to do on them but they are still front and centre of the council's plans.The top to bottom reorganisation has the full support of the new administration - and it will test every senior officer against external peers, slim the organisation down and to be successful see the organisation adopt a clear community and customer focus.Changes to Area Committees to encourage a partnership with local communities and their participation in decision making are currently being introduced; and in planning we have now introduced a more open and participatory framework allowing residents, amenity groups and local councillors greater opportunities to influence what goes on - the latter changes being not only unanimously approved by borough council but also being welcomed by the planning department.Things are still a long way short of good enough but when facing a bureaucracy that thinks they should be able to dispose of any and all community assets as they feel fit it is beginning to look like a start.It's a small measure of success but as you know the roof on the St John's Centre has leaked for 20 years, previous administrations ignored it while bleeding the community organisation that managed it dry with repair bills, even the four year's during which you had influence didn't see it fixed, it took me two years just to have the principle of using the money you set aside spent on it - but now the new roof has been set in train by Cllr Ruth Cadbury.  Real progress at last.I was never the only advocate for these things in the cabinet and there is no evidence the pace has slowed since I left it.

Theo Dennison ● 4763d

Precisely John, whilst I have no doubt the decisions made by H&CAC (as a collective, as several individual Councillors opposed such decisions) on some enforcement matters did not have material planning considerations at their heart, what those decisions did have at their heart was the interest of some members of the public.There were countless times when I was asked by certain Members of the Area Committees, usually in front of their constituent, if I would write a "softly softly report" on an enforcement matter.  If you take the notion that my job was to serve the public literally then I should have done so.  Of course I never did, and those Members knew I never would, but they had to be seen to ask me to do so, and my response was always "I'll write a detailed, fair report setting out all of the relevant planning considerations".  I've had other Members tell me in private that a constituent was "a pain in the ass who's wasting everyone's time "  but in public they still had to respond to that constituent's concerns, raise them with Officers etc.In the shop floor reality of working for a Council, serving the public is simply not that simple, and I genuinely think that many constituents simply never stop to realise the many different directions Councils are expected to jump in, and only consider their wishes as being important.What has really struck me from threads like this is, like you, is that at every Council I worked I had a good professional relationship with Members, of course sometimes we disagreed etc. but I still feel 6 years after leaving Hounslow that I could happily have a friendly chat with any Member, indeed I enjoy bumping into both Officers and Members from time to time, whereas now things seem to be very different, and the use of these forums by Members to bad mouth Officers (who for obvious reasons will never respond and thus 'the public' only ever hear one side of the story) is only going to damage relations further.

Adam Beamish ● 4767d

I agree with you, Adam, that defining what "serving the public" means is far from straight forward. It could be argued that the Heston and Cranford councillors, whose power to deal with enforcement issues was suspended a number of years ago, were serving their public by refusing to enforce on officer recommendations. Certainly it was rare to see any objections to the many extensions built without authorisation, and it was usually observation by officers that led to enforcement action. One of the ironies of the previous administration's decision to remove the Area Committee power is that it led to a situation where virtually every recommmendation for enforcement was accepted by members henceforth.It is over ten years since I was in a leading position on Hounslow Council. In my experience most senior officers were always prepared to listen and could be persuaded to reconsider their initial propositions. One very good Borough Solicitor in the mid-1980's was quite clear about the relationship when he said to me "Officers advise, members decide".I don't know how far the calibre of senior officers has declined in recent years. However, a former Hounslow Council Treasurer and Chief Executive, Sir Bob Kerslake, is now Head of the Home Civil Service, as high as you can go in public administration. His successor, Derek Myers, is now Chief Executive of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham councils, the country's first "super-authority". Baroness Amos, now an Undersecretary-General at the UN and former Leader of the House of Lords was, I recall, a candidate for a senior post at Hounslow a number of years ago.During the period when these highly respected people were Hounslow officers, a constant criticism was that salaries at Hounslow were below the London average. Huge salary hikes occurred after 2006. It appears from many comments on this thread that these did not have the desired effect in recruiting quality officers.

John Connelly ● 4767d

TheoI like the sound of what you are saying, and even one or two of the things you are not saying.  It will be a very pleasing irony if your administration, having its own majority, can achieve some of things that we as part of a coalition were unable to achieve.  If that was indeed to be the outcome of your efforts you would have no more loyal advocate that me (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I'll leave you to decide!).I hope though you will not consider it churlish or ungracious of me to express some misgivings on account of the fact that we are dealing here with a local party, and in many cases with individuals, who have been gatekeepers to change for so long in the past.  Indeed what you appear to be telling us is that the Labour ethos in Hounslow has effectively been turned on its head.  Under the circumstances I think what the active community would really be reassured by is a bold and very public statement of intent followed, over time but hopefully not too much time, by demonstrable delivery.Is there a reason why you are no longer on the Cabinet, and should anything be read into the fact that you are not?What inspired this new approach?Will there be a definitive statement of the administration's position on community empowerment and is there a roadmap to achieving it?What help, if any, would you like from the community in seeking to achieve your objectives?These will prove to be exciting times if there is substance to match the words, and I too wish you well.

Phil Andrews ● 4769d

It all depends on what one's interpretation of "working for the public" actually means.I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I think it's naive and far too simplified to suggest that "the essential truth is that at a local authority both councillors and officers exist to serve the public", because the relationship is nothing as direct or straightforward as that.Virtually every aspect of every Council function has, at its heart, a set of regulations and legislation.  Those regulations/legislation are set by national government and are drafted/progressed through Parliament with due consideration given to the general public, communities etc.Council Officers then have to carry out their duties in accordance with those regulations/legislation.  In carrying out those duties, of course there will be, and there should be, interaction and involvement with the general public, but no Officer can get away from the relevant regulations/legislation that essentially control the remit of their duties.That's why I express that the view that it would be inaccurate for any Council Officer to ever claim that they work to serve the public, because such a claim would be vastly oversimplifying the reality and, essentially misleading.  Equally, to take the other extreme, it would be absurd for an Officer to claim that if they avoided interacting with the community/public whenever possible and merely always acted in accordance with the relevant regulations/legislation, they were still serving the public because those regulations/legislation had been drafted with consideration of the needs/aspirations/protection of the public at their heart.  Somewhere between those two extremes is the factual reality of how a Council Officer can and should serve the public and that's all I've ever said.Hence, your reference to my 'philosophy' has me rather lost, because I don't have any such philosophy, I merely state the factual reality yet for some reason that is interpreted as though I possess some kind of contempt for the public and would steamroller the public at every opportunity. 

Adam Beamish ● 4776d

AdamYour professional qualifications, your expertise and even your personal qualities are not being challenged in any way.You have, on more than one occasion, expressed the view that as an officer of the Council you did not consider yourself to have been working for the public.  Your honesty in saying that is respected, but it is not a view that would be conducive to holding high office at a Council that places community empowerment at the core of its entire being.This doesn't in any way mean that I think the community is always right, or that everybody within it is as pure as the driven snow or without a personal agenda, but none of this negates the essential truth that at a local authority both councillors and officers exist to serve the public and not the other way around.  As a democratic institution of government that has to be the raison d'etre of a local authority, and its existence makes absolutely no sense if it isn't.We have an Environment Department in Hounslow at present which runs fairly much according to your philosophy and my single biggest regret about our time in office is that as community councillors we did not find the time to take an axe to the whole sorry set-up, no matter what the short-term cost to the public.The Lead Member with responsibility for Environment under the administration of which we were part was an efficient, experienced, conscientious and thoroughly honest councillor who did a good job in managing the department in terms of its day to day operation, but in my view was the last person we would have chosen to do what needed to be done.  Environment needed a butcher not a conciliator.On a personal level I must confess that my priority when assuming office was dealing with Housing, and there I found myself up against a wall of organised opposition from officers, union leaders (although not the members), political opponents and even the official "residents' representatives" and coming out of that lot on top, which I believe I did, took a lot of my time and energy.  It was, in microcosm, a battle for the soul of local democracy between two fundamentally opposing philosophies, essentially mine and yours.The similar problems that existed in Environment were not immediately apparent, and we exacerbated them massively by appointing the present incumbent to the most senior post.  I even voted for the man at his selection panel!Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it can be very cruel.

Phil Andrews ● 4776d

Phil,Thinking about your post whilst stuck in traffic earlier tonight, I found it quite eye-opening.Undoubtedly whilst there's plenty of common ground between us there is also disagreement between us over the role of the wider community in decision making. I think the key difference is that you place much more general faith and belief in the honesty and integrity of the community as a whole than what I do.  I have, and continue to do so, witnessed blatant attempts by either individuals or groups of individuals to mislead others by producing deliberately skewed information, claims or evidence.  Taking it to the extreme, in my time I've had one resident attempt to ruin my career by making a completely fabricated and extremely serious allegation against me, and the amount of abuse and basic s**t I used to endure from residents often went beyond what most people would find acceptable (being a tough skinned Northerer has its benefits !). Ultimately there are usually zero consequences for such individuals, so there's no deterrent.  Whereas most professionals are members of their respective professional organisations so are required to adhere to relevant codes of conduct etc.  Professionals make mistakes, and sometimes professionals go bad, I'll never deny that, but there are always two sides to every story, Of course the vast majority of the public are completely reasonable and proper, and of course we mustn't forget that although I'm an ex Council Officer, I have absolutely no links, professional or personal with any Council, and I'm very much a member of the community - if I wasn't I wouldn't post on these websites !. It's basically a very tricky balancing act in my view and certainly not one I would envy any Chief Officer having to juggle, especially in the current climate of dwindling resources etc.But I was also equally interested in your comments about my career etc.  I'm not one to blow my own trumpet, but reviewing my career -1) I've spent over six years as Team Leader at various Councils in London, and ten years working within Council planning departments.2) I've been Taylor Wimpey's Planning Manager for the entire Greater London region.3) I've worked for over four years for a planning consultancy and on a daily basis act on behalf of multi-million pound developers, multinational companies, individuals and resident associations objecting to both big and small planning applications, and acting on behalf of Councils.4) I stood up for my principles, even as a consequence of which I was essentially paid off (which I never requested) by a bullying Director at a Council.5) I sit on the committee of a Residents Association.Basically, there's absolutely no reason why I couldn't, if I wanted to, be a Director at a local authority,  I've got such a broad experience from all sides of the fence etc.  Yet you wouldn't want me anywhere near a Chief Officer post, which I find quite strange in light of both my professional background and my qualities as a person in terms of standing up for principles and also working with the community.The main lesson I feel I learnt from Mike is that a Council officer is never 'off work', if I still worked for a Council I wouldn't post on here, because there would always be the danger that someone would try to associate anything I posted on here with my Council role, and consequently cause problems.  That's why I always resolutely believe that no Council Officer should ever post on these forums, even though I find that quite sad and not the way I would want things to be in an ideal world.

Adam Beamish ● 4776d

AdamI don't intend this as a put-down in any way but member panels were only convened when a chief officer was being appointed.  Candidates for more junior officer posts would usually be interviewed, and taken on (or not, as the case may be), by senior officers.It would not be my usual practice to publicly criticise an officer by name, for the reasons that you have given.  However the "deal" has to be that that officer will respect the boundaries imposed by his or her office and not attempt to exceed them.  When a chief officer actively attempts to subvert or interfere in any way with the democratic process, as certainly happened in this case, then as far as I'm concerned all bets are off.To my recollection I have only once before publicly criticised a senior officer by name in the way that Paul has here and that was, once again, when said officer overstepped his brief (in that instance he announced that he would not co-operate with me as an elected member because he apparently disagreed with the verdict of the electorate.  As karma would have it I later became his Lead Member and he swiftly moved on to pastures new, an arrangement which suited us both).It doesn't surprise me to hear that you learned lessons from Mr Jordan.  Although you always present your views on this forum with civility, respect and grace I do to be honest find some of your statements concerning the role of the wider community in the decision-making process quite frightening, and for that reason I am glad you will not be applying for the vacant post.That does not mean I do not wish you all the very best with your future career, of course.

Phil Andrews ● 4777d