Wednesday 23 May 2018

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/independent_person

If you apply for a job, check for typos and include your phone number when using the contact email for information. That's what I didn't do.

Anyway I asked the contact about being an "independent person", on condition I could do something about the lack of criteria for sacking council members, and have no response.

The job is almost a volunteer job but has up to a few hundred quid in expenses that might be more than I could earn in other ways in the time. A bit like being a school governor, paid not-a-lot to nod.

The job does not come with a forensic or detictive budget. There is no money for finding-out the contradictory stories behind what the "independent person" is told on a committee about a council member who is faced with this stuff. It looks as though the council member thing is just a lure go get someone to attend staff disciplinary meetings and be hoodwinked, if that is the right word. It looks as though the "independent person" will end-up on a lot of staff disciplinary committees, with the same lack of budget for forensic work.

About council members. There is nothing to say where the boundary lies.. So if a councilor says "Councillor right", and I think
"Councillor wrong", thi
there is no case law, no text, no links list, no nothing. Which is daft because there are loads of things anyone might think wrong that are perfectly legal, If a council member does something tabloid-ish and bizarre, I might approve and others might disapprove. If a council member - or several in committee - cut core services to fund street furniture that people notice more - is that wrong? I think so, but there is no point turning-up on a committee after the event to tell someone with the opposite opinion, and then maybe be over-ruled by a committee, all for expenses. I think that people like Latfur Rahman and Shirley Porter got caught-out eventually for this kind of stuff, but not by any independent person on comittees at Tower Hamlets or Westminster Councils.

The headline is about judging Councillors who have crossed the line into badness according to the Localism act 2011 and local detail as laid-out in the Richmond Constitution, which just repeats introductory words like "good" and no more. No links to detail. Nothing like "same as local government association", or "same as Birmingham" or "same as ministerial code". Nothing about the Councillor who does a number of bad things I could list. It's obvious. Pushing for contracts to be done by members of your family is the oldest one, I think. Pushing for members of groups who talk to each other and their associated organisations to get lots of grants and approvals is another. That's what Latfur Rahman did in Tower Hamlets before being found guilty of trying to use public spending in order to fix an election. He wasn't pushed out by the Independent Person in Tower Hamlets, whoever that was, who must have known what was happening. No such system existed in at Westminster City Council when Shirley Porter did things before emigrating and trying to avoid summonses. I forget what she did, bit minimizing the core insurance-like services that are trusted to local government and maximizing the obvious services like street furniture were part of the deal.

I wrote that I would apply if there is a chance to write the section of Richmond's constitution that covers conduct of Councillors.

There is an odd thing about the job that it starts by talking about Councillors, but it looks as though you'll be roped-in to staff disciplinary meetings instead if you apply.

I added something about the union recognition agreement, to make sure that union members (like people with legal insurance or anyone else - it's a long story) get the same kind of help as dismissing managers get from their human resources department. Things like help going to the government's Advisory Conciation and Arbitration Service would be good. The current system is that most unions and legal insurers want to get commission off a no-win no-fee tribunal lawyer, so there is no way for the parties to try and settle the real problems via ACAS.

Anyway, if anyone wants to apply for the volunteer job of independent person, as not-described, this is the link
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/independent_person

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apply to be an Independent Person, promoting standards in public life
We are looking for Independent Persons to assist in promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct amongst elected councillors and co-opted members of both the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, and Wandsworth Councils.
About the councils
Both councils are supported by a single officer team, but remain sovereign with their own members and decision making. We are therefore seeking potential candidates who can serve either one, or potentially both councils.
About the role
The role of the Independent Person is to support the work of the Councils’ Standards Committees and, on occasions, to consider complaints against members and advise members and officers on appropriate action to be taken in respect of the complaints.
The Independent Person may also be involved in disciplinary matters in relation to the dismissal of the councils’ statutory officers.
Attributes and experience
Successful candidates will be able to demonstrate:
Experience of reviewing information to reach evidence based conclusions
Strong personal ethics
High standards of probity
Good committee skills
Strong communication skills
Experience of mediation or dispute resolution would be helpful, as would knowledge of public sector ethical governance issues. 
Who should not apply
Current and former (within the last 5 years) councillors, co-opted members or employees of Richmond Council and/or Wandsworth Council, or their close relatives, are not eligible to be appointed to these positions.
As this is an independent position, you should not be a member of any political party.
Payment
The Independent Person is not a salaried position but an allowance of £300 to £400 per annum is offered to those who wish to claim.
How to apply
Please read the full information pack (pdf, 227 KB) before submitting your application (MS Word, 124 KB).
The closing date for applications is Tuesday 29 May 2018. Interviews will take place in June.
Contact
For more information, contact:
Paul Evans, Monitoring Officer for Richmond Council and Head of the South London Legal Partnership
Phone: 020 8545 3338
Email: paul.evans@merton.gov.uk

Thursday 17 May 2018

White Hart Lane level crossing

Afterthought:
there is a call for names to stick on the bridge, or to call it if anyone ever wants to call to a bridge.
Vegetable Bridge would be a good name, because it is in a vegetable patch. Commuters see the veg patch out of their train window. School pupils see it on the walk to school.



So many people meet each other at the White Hart Lane level crossing, that I feel I am interfering in what some lobbied-for, which is a no-left-turn with traffic cameras, but people from other postcodes use the roads too, and that's why the idea of consulting little groups of "local people" is not a good idea. People from other postcodes matter too.

People should turn left over the white heart lane level crossing from Worple Way

The other flawed idea is that cars should not turn left over the crossing. You do not have to visit to guess that railways have relatively few road crossings, and so a chance to use on it a useful thing. It's useful to the motorist and to people who use other crossings, otherwise more congested.
If you do go to the area you will see some old NHS buildings, being re-built. It isn't obvious, but there is still an NHS clinic on the site with 700 outpatients, mainly older people with brain impairments and younger people with learning difficulties. There are only two out of the hoped-for three psychiatrists there at the moment, with none of the activities they would like to encourage on site, and I am not quite sure what the office staff there do, but the point is that a lot of people with bad concentration bob in and out of the place by car, some of them diagnosed with dementia, and the last thing they need is a traffic fine. My mum, in that position, got two.
There are builders bobbing in and out nowadays as well, and the more they are chanelled onto one particular route, the more congestion they cause.

What I understand of the other agument

I understand that primary school children for the school over the tracks, prams, patients, mums, and anyone waiting for the crossing gates to open can in theory be squashed if a long vehicle turns left and cuts the corner where they are standing.
I understand that a bollard or a post with some tyres round it would prevent the problem, as would a bigger cut out of Railtrack's land that I hope they would grant for the safety of people waiting. All it takes is the moving of a fence.
I think that is the end of the other agument, but unfortunatly I can't meet the councillor consulting at 4.30 today - I am not in the area - so have posted this. I am happy to meet any of the people who lobby the other way so that the councillor can watch us disagree politely, rather than being caught in the middle. Or maybe there could be a boxing match to settle the issue.

J Robertson
2 Avenue Gds, London SW14 8BP - about 200 or 300 meters from the gates on foot and slightly further by car, son of a patient of the hospital 50 meters away from the gates.