former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[James Barber]

Hi intexasasmuch,

Apologies for the time to respond.

Summarising what I think is the state of play....

One of the 2002 Lib Dem pledges was to create a common system of applying for secondary level schools.

Previously each school had its own application form many with tests. You can imagine the amount of effort for parents applying to multiple schools and rewriting the same details over and over again. Each school had its own criteria, some with their own tests. It didn't leave parents with a feeling it was all fair and equal. A really really painful system.

A unified common system with one form was introduced. Hooray. A common test was also introduced that Southwark paid for from an independent body for the first year.

Three years ago it was discovered that each academy had again introduced its own admissions test with some children doing up to 18 tests!

It was then agreed with academy heads to do the tests on their behalf last year (2008) and I'm told it worked well. The costs were split with the academies as the test results were also used to help plan interventions at a pupil level.

Apparently the Harris Acadmeies felt that they'd lost some control and as a result refused to participate in the common process this year, with City of London Academy and Bacon's continuing to work with Southwark.

I'm not clear what advantages Harris believe they obtain by administering such tests themselves as opposed to the potential loss of confidence that they're fair.

I guess this is another downside to the Governments answer to secondary school places being Acadamies. And yes I am against them on principal but it is the 'only show in town'.

Hope that helps.

[VikkiM]

Hi James

I'm sure that most people will accept that there are two ways to pay people - either by a fixed salary or you can incentivise pay and make it performance related. Fair enough you might think. However PeckhamRose is right to point out the unfairness of the system that means only around 40 of the most senior (and already highest paid) staff at Southwark receive bonuses of 10% or even 15%.

But the really outrageous thing is that these bonuses bare no resemblance to council performance - just a few weeks ago Southwark was officially rated the worst council in inner London! Surely we should be holding the most senior officers to account for this, rather than paying them bonuses?

At a recent council Overview and Scrutiny meeting your party refused to review this system of bonuses therefore allowing this ridiculous and unfair situation to continue.

Victoria

Peckham Rye Labour

[willow]

Worst by what measure?

[Sue]

Thank you for getting my tree finally replaced!

I now have a lovely Betula jacquemontii outside my house complete with two stakes and even a little cage around it.

I'm delighted, please pass on my thanks to the tree people. I'm quite sure after all this time it would never have happened without your involvement.

[VikkiM]

Willow it's the by the Audit Commission, the independent body assessing council performance.

[Pugwash]

Thanks James for work you have being doing behind the scenes regarding reducing traffic accidents at Underhill/Barry Road.

Lets hope the measures proposed,when they get installed, help.

[tallgirl]

How can selling owned buildings and then renting buildings be cost effective in the long term? It just simply can't be, it makes the council coffers look healthier in the short term, but in the long term, all Southwark's tax payers will end up paying more. Yet, this was what has happened with council offices.

[puzzled]

methinks I spy lib-dem orchestrated love-in here. could it be anything to do with the forthcoming council election? shurely not not!

[James Barber]

Hi tallgirl,

When you move officers from over 30 offices to one office you no longer need to have 30 sets of receptionsits and security guards employed by the council. You don't need to spend time travelling between offices for meetings. You don't needto have 30 sets of other support staff. You have one boiler to maintain not 30. These are the obvious savings. These savings are considerably more than the rent for that one new building. Equally those 30+ buildings vaied from quite ok offices to really terrible buildings. So retaining officers in some buildings had been really hard. So things like recruitment costs have been high. High turnover of officers in some teams had affected performance.

[James Barber]

Hi VikkiM,

Not sure which audit you refer to. They do so many.

Last Corporate Assessment by the Audit Commission said Southwark Council "Southwark Council is performing well. The Council's ambitions are challenging but realistic and focus on crucial areas for the people of the Borough. They are based on a good understanding of the communities it serves. Core services such as recycling, waste management and services for older people have improved. The Council with its partners are achieving good outcomes for communities in a challenging local context.

The Council has a clear view of what it wants to achieve. Its ambitions are framed around the key themes of People, Places and Services, and are designed to tackle inequality, revitalise the Borough through major regeneration projects, and improve the physical environment, These ambitions are underpinned by clear priorities which are shared and owned by partners and are championed by senior councillors and officers.

The Council works well with its partners. It provides good community leadership, with the police, in tackling violent crime, an important cause of the fear of crime in the Borough, and on wider issues such as social inclusion and the green agenda. The place shaping agenda is progressing with ambitious, large scale regeneration plans for the Aylesbury and Heygate estates, the Elephant and Castle and Building Schools for the Future."

I've been a member of Southwark Councils Audit and Governance Committee for three years.

Each year the Audit Commission challenges how Southwark Council accounts for the value of council houses. Quite complicated as some are due for demolition such as those on the Aylesbury.

Each year Southwark has to employ the person who wrote the document the Audit Commission are supposed to measure Southwark against to explain yet again to the same Audit Commission people how they should do their job.

Each year the Audit Commission doesn't produce a basic project plan.

I've tried doing a Freedom of Information on them to extract such documentation. They refused on public interest grounds.

Every year The Audit Commission put their fees up much higher than inflation.

If we want to change to a private external auditor the Audit Commission decide who it will be if they deign they'll allow it.

My personal experience of them has been exasperating. They are judge and jury and don't give me any confidence they know what they're doing.

Each council should have a duty to obtain competent external auditing. The Audit Commission perhaps should regulate such auditors but not undertake them. It seems total conflict of interest that they should decide if they are performaing well.

[intexasatthe moment]

James - thank you for your reply regarding admissions to secondary schools in Southwark.

My enquiry was initially prompted by your remarks about Caroline Pidgeon securing a common admissions policy .

I agree ,we do now have a system that uses a common application form ,it's just the admissions criteria that vary so much.

With a child who went through secondary transfer prior to 2002 ,I don't recognise the situation you describe - yes ,individual application forms ,but state schools weren't all asking year 6 to take tests.

I note your remark that you don't approve of Academies in principle and that it's the Governments choice that this is the " only show in town ".

But didn't Lib Dems support the Academy movement until recently http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6008298 ?

Isn't it a bit disengenous to distance yourself from the fact that Southwark now have so many schools that control their admissions policies and are not accountable to parents or Southwark ?

[tallgirl]

Why didn't the council buy a building in a cheaper part of the borough rather than rent in one of the most expensive parts? At least then the new building would then be owed by the council, rather than the council now being forevermore being in the hands of landlords?? Rents have dropped, but as the rent on the new offices were set at the peak of the property boom, fixed for 5 years, you are now paying over the odds in rent. I saw an article in the Southwark News a few months ago where the Tory councillors were complaining about the journey they have to face to use the new offices. The new offices are right in the north of the Borough, so it is indeed a long way for them to go for support services etc. What has happened to the council staff that were employed in all the council offices? Have they all been redeployed within the council or have they been made redundant in these hard times?

[mightyroar]

Hi James, on another thread you posted the following:

'At primary school level a bulge of pupils for the next 6-8 years is predicted and plans afoot to cope with this.'

Can you say what the plans afoot are?

[James Barber]

Hi tallgirl,

Buying a new building would have cost ?50m+. If we found that capital budget it would mean not doing so many other things. The Tooley Street building was the winning option from a number to house around 2,000 council officers. However, the other options were in the north of the borough where offices large enough are being built. We discounted the option of moving everyone to somewhere outside Southwark like Croydon. We didn't have an option with a vacant site anywhere else in the borough. In about 3-5 years time their might be such a site at Elephant&Castle. The first break period for Tooley Street is after five years. I'd be delighted if in five years time the council moved from Tooley Street to E&C and made money reletting Tolley Street with a racing office property market.

The move has been a stunning success. It's saving more money than planned and earlier and I'm hopeful further money will be saved.

[tallgirl]

James,

I don't work for the council in any capacity, so I'm just guessing that it would cost say 5 million a year to rent the Tooley Street Offices. If my guess is about right thus in 5 years of rent 50% of the capital cost would be paid for (say if was 3mill, this would be 30% or 7mill 70%). Whatever way you look at it makes more sense for the council to buy than rent, also wouldn't there have been quite significant sums made from all the smaller Office buildings that were sold? This would have ofset the capital cost of purchasing new council premises.

[James Barber]

Hi tallgirl,

Blimey I wish. But I'm afraid the council can't borrow money without following archaic central govt rules. They decide the marginal rate of interest we borrow at. When Tooley Street was being decided 14% interest rate. The marginal rate drops in 2014 when 70's and early 80's massive interest rates are finally flushed out of the accounts.

So to buy the property would require not spending money on many other capital projects, schools, roads, leisure centres, street lighting, Southwark decent homes, etc.

The sums from selling ex council offices raising ?35m so far BUT with vacant possession ie. they're empty. So again Southwark Council would have had to borrow money and reach central government agreement or more likely delay lots of capital projects.

I'm afraid I spent days asking exactly the same questions as you before I was convinced. I met the Finance Director and others several times. I pitched these and other questions and we really couldn't have done it any other way. Equally any delay would have required significant capital to keep existing offices working.

[Jaws]

Jaws Wrote:

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

> Hi there Mr. Councillor, I have emailed you twice

> - both with read receipts and still have had no

> response... (td)

Hello?

James - are you reading me? over.

I have emailed twice to this email addy: '[email protected]' with read receipts and have not had any reply...

[Amelie]

James

If the Audit Commission is not following its own published rules then you should do the following:

1. Make a formal written complaint to the Chancellor of the Exchequer - he appoints the Commission's senior staff asking for those staff to be disciplined for misconduct.

2. Make a formal written complaint to the Cabinet Secretary for breach of the Civil Service Code, which binds the Audit Commission.

3. Write a formal solicitor's letter to the Audit Commission requiring absolute compliance with its own stated rules within a set time limit. Make clear that if the Commission does not comply LB Southwark will not allow it on to Southwark premises, and the Audit Commission will be taken to Judicial Review. Tell the Commission that you have also complained to the Chancellor and the Cabinet Secretary requesting disciplinary action for gross misconduct.

4. Write a formal letter of complaint to the relevant Select Committee giving chapter and verse.

5. Write a formal letter of complaint to the Standards Committee setting out the Commission's failure to comply with its own published rules and ask for a formal enquiry.

You have it within your power to make life extremely difficult for the Audit Commission and you should not hesitate to do so.

[James Barber]

Hi Jaws,

I don't have an email from someone calling themselves Jaws.

I', sorry but for whatever reason I don't know which emails you refer to. Please accept my apologies. Can I ask you to tell me the email address or subject line and I can trace what I've done with them. OR send again.

[James Barber]

Latest Met Office weather forecast is for heavy snow in London and SE tomorrow and Thursday - a day earleir than previously expected.

I've checked and Southwark COuncil has 500 tonnes of salt/grit in stock. The government is still directing via its Salt Cell that all councils only use salt at half the rates they need to. Clearly spreading half the salt a day Southwark plans for means some areas will be left without. Not a direction Southwark needs or wants to receive.

[dukesdenver]

Hi James,

Can you comment on the book stock supply and selection arrangements for Southwark Libraries? Are books selected for us by suppliers as mentioned here:

A major scandal in the public library service

...or are decisions made by Southwark Library staff?

Thanks.

[James Barber]

Hi dukesdenver,

I'll officers as although I'm dead keen on the library service I've never investigated or had casework on book purchasing arrangements.

[James Barber]

Hi dukesdenver,

Your fears about Southwark are unfounded.

Southwark library staff have told me that Southwark is a member of a 42 library authority purchasing consortium. This consortium has pronounced buying power and some stock is 'selected' by supplier BUT in the sense of standing orders to fulfil:

- reference stock

- large print materials

- talking books

- best selling fiction

- romantic fiction

- bestselling non-fiction

- some categories of childrens stock.

This minimises the time to get books and gets great prices. Apart from this base stock purchasing each library selects books that its found local users want. Equally in areas of adult fiction, graphic novels and childrens fiction experienced Southwark librarians select the stock required. Further purchases are made for areas that mainstream suppliers don't cover e.g. BME intersts, local history.

The way books are purchased is via Electronic Data Interfaces for quotes and using EDI for invoices is being considered.

The generall principles behind why stock is chosen is:

- stock select as efficiently as possible

- skills and kowledge of both staff and suppliers used

- newly published titles avialableto librarys users asap

- statistics used to inform buyers

- number of different supplier used to ensure range and quality of books

Any more Q's let me know.

[mrsw]

Apologies if others have complained about this and I am going over old ground but I feel I must raise this. I was crossing Forest Hill Rd today by the junction with Colyton Rd - there are roadworks, no visible workmen, temporary traffic lights but NO temporary pedestrian crossing. It was quite hairy crossing the road. After the terrible tragedy on East Dulwich Rd/Peckham Rye the other week, I am astounded that this is allowed to happen. Who is responsible and to whom can we complain? Lives are being put at risk here.

There seem to be a general problem of loads of roadworks in the area at present but with no workmen working at them. Only yestyerday I tripped over some plastic covering on the pavement on Lordship Lane yesterday by some small roadworkd. Fortunately I didn't fall but this could have been nasty as I was carrying my baby at the time.

Grateful for a response from James Barber or anyone else.

[dukesdenver]

Thanks James for the library-related reply. It's good to know that there is still plenty of local decision-making taking place.