Friday 4th April – Friday 11th April

HOLIDAY

I took a short holiday with my family as it was the Easter Break, to do some walking in the Peak District. As a councillor it can be very hard to get away from work as you are effectively on call at any time. There is no demarcation of your working hours and you can receive a telephone call or email at any time. The only way to have a complete break is to leave the computer and telephone and get away from it all.

 

I believe that a complete break from work is so important and I begrudge it to no one. A holiday is beneficial as it allows you to take a more objective view of both your personal priorities and work issues. A bit of mental distance can provide perspective that is lacking when you are bogged down in the midst of things. It helps prevent the problem of ‘not seeing the wood for the trees’ that is an easy trap to fall into as a councillor.

 

My break reminded me that my reason for becoming a councillor was to listen to the views of residents, make sure that they are informed & consulted on issues that affect them, and to ensure that the decisions and activities of the Council were in the interests of the majority of residents.

Unfortunately the backlog of work that greeted me on my return means that I have immediately returned to ‘firefighting’ again.

Thursday 3rd April 1pm

HEALTH & WELLBEING SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TASK GROUP

Changes to Social Services Charging Policy

I was part of the task group made up of some members & advisors to the HWB committee to review the proposed changes to Social Services charging policy. We asked questions of Adi Cooper Strategic Director of Adult Social Services and Housing and Phil Butlin, Executive Head of Group Finance on the report. I requested further information about the consultation undertaken on the changes and reserved my opinion until I have reviewed that information.

Thursday 3rd April 7.30pm

BEDDINGTON & WALLINGTON LOCAL COMMITTEE

For me this is the most important meeting I attend. First because I chair the meeting, but mostly because it is the place where we can get residents directly involved in local decisions and get a steer from them on policies for the area.

 

Tonight was a particularly important night as we were at the stage of making decisions about which of the many capital projects suggested for public realm funding we would initiate. As we had enough money available to fund the majority of the projects if we eliminated those which were disproportionately expensive (paving central shopping areas with higher quality slabs) and those that needed more detailed proposals, I was disappointed at the reluctance of members of the committee to agree all the remaining projects. It seemed like a slap in the face to the many residents who had taken the time to come to meetings and put forward proposals for projects for the committee to refuse to initiate the work when the money was available to do so. I was aware that there would need to be consultation and discussion on some of the proposed projects but the majority of the discussion centred on what we couldn’t do and talk of things that needed doing but which either hadn’t been submitted as a project or did not fall within the capital criteria for public realm.

 

I was especially disappointed that the ‘EGG’ seating suggested by the Police Youth Panel did not get the opportunity to be discussed and receive input from Inspector Baker, who patiently sat through the whole meeting without needing to be called upon for opinion on relevant projects. Having heard from residents & special advisors that we need to hear what young people would actually like to see, when they do make a suggestion it gets summarily dismissed by our Tory members. There will still be opportunity to have a discussion on the seating at a future meeting as no vote was taken to exclude it; it was only omitted from the first agreed list as we were out of time to debate it when the dissent was voiced by Cllr. Marion Williams.

 

However we did agree to fund a large number of projects which will greatly benefit the area and I hope that residents will take pride in the fact that it was their input that made these things happen.

 

http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=375&MId=1971&Ver=4&J=3

 

 

 

Tuesday 1st April 7.30pm

SCRUTINY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

Main agenda items were the governance of the Stanley Park High School relocation & new build project, and the failure of the council to meet its target of paying 94.5% of undisputed supplier invoices within 30 days.

 

This was the first time I have had to address the detailed plans for the relocation of Stanley Park High School. My questions focused on the design quality of the new build and the user involvement in that design.

 

Nigel Simms the project coordinator responded to most of the questions at the meeting and I found his detailed knowledge of all aspects of the project, and considered responses very reassuring. I was pleased to hear of the number of community groups and interested parties who continued to be consulted throughout the project, and to learn that the building is being designed around the planned school curriculum. I also thought that it was important to learn that the building was designed to be flexible to allow for future changes in teaching methods and models.

 

The co-ordination of the decamp of the PCT and the building works looks to be the first major hurdle and I will be watching to see how this progresses.

 

My opposition colleagues were mainly concerned with the titles of the relevant project officers and keen to find the one person on who they could pin the blame should the project – as they obviously expect – turn into “a disaster”.

 

I was less reassured by the report produced by our head of group finance on the reasons for the failure to meet the 30 day target for payment of supplier invoices. All the underlying problems had been identified, but there appeared to be a lack of conviction about addressing these issues. Here Cllr. Scully and I were in agreement.

 

Although the problems are unlikely to result in any material misstatements in the accounts, they are evidence of internal control weaknesses, and of issues of staff training. I hope that our highlighting of this will result in a strengthened resolve to address these areas.

 

http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=323&MId=1806&Ver=4&J=7

Monday 3rd March 2008 7pm

COUNCIL MEETING

The main item for this Council meeting was the budget.

 

I had submitted a question in my role as Carers Champion as I was concerned that the Carer’s Grant was no longer ringfenced by central government. Unfortunately I did not receive the reply I had hoped for: a public statement that we had made the decision to ringfence it ourselves and to increase the amount. The response was just a reassurance that this authority is committed to its carers and a mention of the additional £85,000 award for respite care. Maybe I needed to make my question more specific.

 

I also contributed to the debate on the recommended budget highlighting the fact that we were one of only nine (of 33) London boroughs to have a moderate criteria for access to social care, the rest requiring a significant level of need to obtain support. I believe that this shows a willingness to support our more vulnerable residents, despite our financial constraints. It is also prudent as early intervention can prevent more costly interventions being required later.

 

http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=146&MId=1829&Ver=4&J=9