Whichever
Party wins control of the Council on 22 May there needs to be a re-think of the rules regarding response
times by Councillors, a requirement on response times by Council contractors,
and on reporting things publicly back to Committee on implementation or
non-implementation of decisions. The former issue will be dealt with in Part 2
on the Carillion Library Contract. This part discusses the issue of Council
decisions in relation to Fairfield Halls governance.
I submitted
the following question to the 24 March Council meeting:
‘What are the conclusions
of the Charity Commission’s Operational
Compliance Report published on 25
February on the Council’s
decision on the governance of the Fairfield Halls
charity,
when they will be reported to the relevant Committee,
and who are the
current charitable Trustees?’
Pollard’s
written response states:
‘The Fairfield is the responsible organisation for
this work so we
direct the questioner to that organisation.’ He gave the url
for the
Commission’s report.
He then added:
‘The council’s nominees to the
board of Fairfield (Croydon) Ltd
in 2013/14 are Councillors George Ayres, David
Fitze, Timothy
Godfrey, Lynne Hale and Dudley Mead.’
Is Pollard Holding the Council in Contempt?
I asked a verbal
supplementary question:
‘Given that
the proposed changes ion governance were approved
by Committee and full
Council, through you I request the Mayor
‘ Will you rule on whether Cllr
Pollard is treating this Council
with contempt in not stating when the
Committee will be told
that the Council’s decisions cannot be implemented and
the reasons why’.’
Pollard
replied that the decisions had been set aside in a subsequent Committee
meeting.
I am
perfectly happy to admit if I am wrong so I checked back in Committee papers
and could not find what Pollard was referring to. I did not include the issue in my review of the Council meeting posted on
Croydon Citizen (http://thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/can-learn-croydon-councils-last-meeting-local-elections).
No Report Back To Committee
I emailed
him on 25 March as follows:
‘I am
perplexed by your answer to my supplementary question
on Fairfield Halls at
last night’s Council meeting.
You
referred to a discussion at the Cabinet which meant that
the previous decisions
on governance have been superceded.
I cannot
find any such reference in the report Fairfield Halls Capital
project
position update and capital investment to the 18 November
2013 Cabinet
meeting.
This report
deals with the issue of changes to the lease, not to governance.
The minutes do
not record anything about the governance issues.
Nor does the
governance issue appear to be addressed in the report
Fairfield Halls
Modernisation Project – Award of Professional services
Consultancy Procurement
Lots 1,2 &3 to Corporate
Services on 26
February 2014. Until the minutes of that meeting are posted on
the website I do not know whether there was a minuted verbal report
on
governance leading to decisions.
I
appreciate that in the cut and thrust of Council meetings it is not
always
possible to be able to recall the exact facts of every single issue
that may be
raised.
It
does seem to me that, unless I have missed something in the
documentation, the 29 April Cabinet decisions still stand, and
that
therefore there should be a report back to Cabinet on
why the Council’s
proposals cannot be proceeded with.
I would be
grateful if you would let me know if there is something
I have missed in the
paper work, or if I am correct that the matter
will be reported to the next
Cabinet meeting.’
Pollard Reveals Behind The Scenes Failure To Implement Council Decisions
Well by 8
April I had not had a reply so I sent him a reminder. To be fair to him he sent
a very quick reply in which he stated:
‘As you
rightly state a report went to Cabinet on the 29th of April 2013
putting
forward proposals in relation to the governance arrangements in
respect of
Fairfield (Croydon) Limited Halls (and also the London
Mozart Players Limited).
The recommendation delegated authority to the Executive Director
for Children,
Families and Learning to finalise negotiations
on the basis of the detail
set out in the report.
Unfortunately it was not possible to reach agreement
with Fairfield
Croydon Limited on the details and therefore the proposal
did not
proceed. Relevant Members of the Council and senior officers were
kept fully apprised of this situation. The decision was not therefore
implemented however there is no need for an additional report to be
brought to Cabinet in such circumstances and there is no intention
to do so at
present.
It is considered by the Council that the Corporate Services Committee
reports
that you refer to were able to proceed notwithstanding the fact
that the
governance proposals were not implemented.’
I trust this answers your queries.’
WELL - NO IT
DOES NOT
because all this was done behind the scenes. As so much of the Council’s
affairs are delegated behind the scenes is it any wonder that residents can
misunderstand what is going on? Openness and transparency are key
principles in the democratic process. The outcome of behind the scenes action
should always be reported back publicly. After all unless there is a report
that the decisions on Fairfield Halls governance could not be acted upon, and
better still if they are not formally noted as such, they remain Council
policy. Will the Party that controls the Council after 22 May change the rules
to ensure that non-action of decisions is formally recorded in public Committee
or Council papers?
Background reading
Background reading
Charity Commission report: www.charitycommission.gov.uk/media/598002/ocr_fairfield_-croydon-_limited.pdf.
Previous discussions by me on Fairfield Halls can be see at by typing 'Fairfield' into the search box top left of this page..
I can be contacted at: sean.creighton1947@btinternet.com
No comments:
Post a Comment