The full picture. Several people have commented they would like to read
Cllr. Burtons Letter to The Peterborough Evening Telegraph and the editorial response by the Editor to that very same letter by Cllr Burton.This now appears below and our original story follows:
Letter: No ‘rubber stamping’ of neighbourhood council review
Published on Saturday 12 March 2011 10:00Cllr Burton writes: In response to the article on page 19 of The Peterborough Evening Telegraph of Thursday 10th March 2011 I would like the opportunity to point out what I see as wholly and flagrant inaccuracies in your reporting of the matter of the review carried out into the functioning of neighbourhood councils – soon to become “Area Committees” if the recommendations are accepted and also to give a better balance to the events at the scrutiny committee hearing.
I strongly reject and am quite outraged at the suggestion that the review was “Rubber Stamped”.
Nothing before any scrutiny committee or any other committee of this council that I have ever attended has ever been rubber stamped. There was a great deal of debate, certain items were changed upon reflection.
No - a rubber stamp it most surely was not.Then the article stated that the review was started because “They came under fire from a number of councillors”- wrong, the cross party review group, which I chair was initiated because it was obvious to the members of the scrutiny committee that as they were performing at that time, the neighbourhood councils were simply not working as well as they could, and so it was the sensible thing to do to look for possible improvements.
That is what scrutiny is for.
The article sought to concentrate on minor suggestions and neglected to mention the exciting initiatives such as area tours by the committee members and all partner agencies and other such ways of engaging with the people of the city.
By providing free transport to anyone who needs it to attend the committee meetings and a total re-launch of the committees to explain to the people how they operate, what they will mean to people and how we look to improve them in the future.This review is far from being the perfect answer, we realise that and that is why the review will be carried forward into the future to continue to learn and respond to residents’ demands.
The article also carried a disproportionate amount of remarks from Mr Julian Bray of Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch in my opinion,
He purported to represent the views of all of Peterborough’s Neighbourhood watch groups, I have since found out that this is far from the case. [JB comments: I have channged Cllr Burton on this and he refuses to answer]
We allowed him to speak far beyond the original time he had been allotted and he wondered why we had not consulted him or his army of litter pickers.
You failed to report in the article however, my carefully considered response which was that we had consulted with well over 100 groups across the city, we had asked for input from every elected member, we had asked for input from similar sized local authorities with successful area committee models.
We had asked all partner agencies for input, and most pertinently we had spoken to the top city police officer, who interestingly is highly supportive of our proposals, we did not see the need to ask this one man who has high opinions of his own importance. It was simply not possible, practicable or desirable to ask everyone in the city - that is what the point of our system of democracy is - to represent you the people who put us in our privileged position, for the only alternative is anarchy!
The final point I made with my call for the public to engage remains however, I said that a certain section of the public are always saying, “They” should do this or that, It is about time that those same people realised that they are the “They”. We need the public to engage with us for us to be able to adequately represent them.
Area committees are the future of local government at the local level, they are the face of the “big society”, and they offer integrated services at lower cost. The report is a public document, we have nothing to hide. Read it, enjoy it, be part of it.
Cllr Colin BurtonUNUSUALLY in response to Cllr. Burltons letter the Editor of Thed Peterborough Evening Telegraph decided to use his Editorial leader to deliver a few home truths to Cllr. Burton
l EDITOR’S NOTE: Perhaps Cllr Burton should have read the article more carefully before firing off his letter.
We stand by the story. Rubber stamped was a phrase used to reflect the fact that the review had been passed forward without major amendment.
The neighbourhood councils HAD previously come under fire from councillors - the review started as there were concerns about the funding – both David Sanders and John Holdich to name two were critical of their set up.
The article summarised some of the suggestionsmade in the report - the report is a 30-page document with 17 recommendations - the article focused on the ones referred to in the meeting.
Perhaps the fact that Cllr Burton is not only a member of the scruitiny committee but also chair of the group reviewing neighbourhood councils makes it understandable that he is so sensitive about the number of points outlined.The comments reported by Mr Bray were far from disproportionate.
The fact is that he had some points to make - just because they were critical and Cllr Burton doesn’t like them doesn’t mean they should have been reduced or ignored.
We did not fail to report the fact that a consultation had taken place or that 100 groups had been consulted - it’s all in there.
Admittedly we had not quoted Cllr Burton on this point but we had quoted Cllr Todd when she made the same point.
Cllr Burton’s quotes were used to summarise the position at the end of the artice.
The article was a fair and accurate summary of the meeting, just because Cllr Burton didn’t like parts of it doesn’t make them inaccurate. THE EDITORWe now return to the orginal story:
Julian Bray addressed the "Strong & Supportive Communities Scrutiny Committee" last night at Peterborough Town Hall. They want to close down local Neighbourhood Council and Neighbourhood policing meetings and introduce a bland Area Committee concept. The source public document file is on:
Julian Bray MCIPR, Chairman,
Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch remarks relating to the Neighbourhood Council Review delivered to the Strong& Supportive Community Scrutiny Committee Peterborough City Council Wednesday 9th March 2011
Bourges/Viersen Room –Town Hall
1. I’m Julian Bray, chairman, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch [PFNW] – we have 1,300 page hits on the PFNW website http://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com/ every 30 days, so we are more than recognised as being an active receptive voice in the neighbourhood and I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to comment and I’ll try to be brief and to the point. I speak for all my colleagues, unpaid front line volunteers, in the neighbourhood watch networks, all over this proud City and beyond.
2. I should also explain to our council professionals, that I am a member of the Royal Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a life Member of the National Union of Journalists and a full member of Equity. I’ve also during my career controlled national Government public relations and marketing contracts. Just so council PR and communications teams fully understand where I’m coming from.
3. I also worked on the multi-million pathfinder IT Fujitsu Services contract for West Midlands Walsall council, then on an outsourcing spree, when this whole concept of seamless service, one stop shops was first introduced a decade ago, so I know the process and it’s many, many, very expensive pitfalls. Walsall Town Hall eventually dropped the idea, but in the process spent a few million essentially to save face, but then adopted or regressed (as you like) to a structure that local people, electors were more comfortable with. And needless to say I’m happy to assist the committee and the task force.
4. Having found out about the proposal and this meeting from the Evening Telegraph as late as last Saturday, I really have to question why this important change to the democratic process was not raised or mentioned on Thursday March 3rd, the most recent Stanground Central, Stanground East (incorporating Park Farm) and Fletton Neighbourhood Council meeting (full report on http://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com/ ).
5. I also have to ask why not one single Neighbourhood Watch scheme, group, committee at county, regional, city, or any other level has been approached and asked to contribute or comment. Neighbourhood Watch members are the people on the ground, we are the people who practically deliver solutions on a day by day basis to police, social services, health professionals and act as a sounding board for future police policy decisions. We’ve even been asked to explain the digital switchover to our residents and members!
6. We are also in line, due to police cuts, to take over some of the basic functions of police routine administration and operate highly visible street patrol schemes such as StreetWatch.
7. On the democratic theme, I see only two residents have been canvassed by the task force and I have to admit none of the pictures of the task force members ring any bells with me. Indeed not one of them has seemingly contacted anyone at neighbourhood level or rung bells in South Peterborough or north, east and west for that matter! Although this is a wide ranging proposal to reform/abolish the local neighbourhood council concept in favour of bland ‘Area Committees’.
8. Dumping our neighbourhood councils – but in so doing without full consultation. But they have travelled and interviewed someone in LUTON!
9. The neighbourhood policing panels have also been done away with, almost by stealth, according to this proposal; again with no consultation, no input from neighbourhood watch, no input from neighbourhood policing teams, neighbourhood sergeants, neighbourhood PC’s neighbourhood PCSO’s or anyone else directly associated with the neighbourhood.
10. Bodies on the ground, and without Neighbourhood Watch and our regular contact with police that phrase could sadly become a reality, harsh but true.
11. Surprising as it may seem, the idea of neighbourhood councils are a fundamental part of the democratic process, to which every councillor is paid for and has signed up to. I don’t want to live in an Area, how dare you, that’s outmoded 1980’s corporate marketing jargon. I live in, help to create and support a living neighbourhood.
12. Council officials, many of whom do not live in the City and some even live hundreds of miles away, their families see the City of Peterborough as a distant commuting destination and accordingly evening meetings are nothing less than an intrusion into their metropolitan family lifestyle. Some have little or no physical connection with the day to day residential and community aspect of living and surviving in this City.
13. I’m not saying that council officers are not professional, but simple human nature would dictate officials find the most accommodating system to first suit them and not us, the residents and voters who live in this City.
14. So I’m strongly suggesting to you, each one individually, this proposal is still very much work in progress, the basic consultation is fatally flawed and the whole Part II, 64 page document (and I have read it) not suitable for a proud city council but would probably work for a Borough or even a town such as Luton.
15. Neighbourhood Policing Panels with their own specific single agenda meetings are a key and a vital element in obtaining Neighbourhood Watch and neighbourhood agency co-operation and resources, combating all forms of anti social behaviour, serious crime, rape, drug and drink offences, domestic violence, property and street crime such as muggings and bag snatches.
16. We even have Neighbourhood Watch members on our patch physically painting out grafitti on street furniture and telecoms turrets. The utilities having supplied us directly with the paint, as council officials take months to remove unsightly tags even though they are made aware of them. I still have some bleached out street signs on my patch Ramsay Way it should read. PCC neighbourhood managers have known about this sign for some 5 months. It will however feature on our website.
17. It stands to reason that Neighbourhood Policing meetings cannot be truncated into a superficial one size fits all one shop, or rushed through at the early start of an “Area Committee” public meeting and sitting in a horseshoe for heavens sake! [The horseshoe format is specifically designed so that all members of a committee can see each other, those addressing the committee however sit facing the horseshoe with their backs to the main body of the hall i.e. the ‘audience’ and effectively block and exclude the ‘audience’; as all they see throughout the meeting is an ever changing row of backs and therefore cannot connect to the person or persons addressing the committee or even see the committee.]
18. Indeed figures on our patch show that ASB incidents are dramatically down ask Neighbourhood Policing Team Inspector Matt Snow at Hampton. Clear up rates do however differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood.
19. The initial terms of reference do not mention at all Police led neighbourhood policing panels and they only seem to come into the narrative on page 17 where the success of the police led meetings are brutally hijacked to make the ‘Area committee’ concept ‘more interesting’ and ‘attract an audience’, the reality is that council officials in some areas have simply failed.
20. It is expedient according to the proposal to hijack and annex the successful police-led meetings. I’ll just say it’s a crime to do so. Police Neighbourhood Panels in conjunction with e-cops really do work.
21. At police led meetings it is the concentrated opportunity for Neighbourhood Watch and local social activists to exchange information and intelligence with police and agencies.
22. Agree objectives face to face, to get information on ASB hotspots and a whole range of crime issues, underage drinking, glue sniffing, domestic violence, car theft, drug taking, criminal damage. The result: we can dynamically and immediately adjust the local Neighbourhood Watch strategy, accordingly this cannot be done in a one size fits all PR driven arrangement.
23. Save the one stop shops for the likes of Vivacity to play with. It’s just not practicable, sensible or something that Neighbourhood Watch members would feel comfortable with. We would then have to seek out our own private meetings with police, thus adding to their workload, thus avoiding an endless agenda suggested by an “Area Committee”
24. Over the years, many Neighbourhood Watch leaders and supporters have been threatened and one leader in particular - instrumental in breaking up a gang culture in her area - this included murders and generation on generation family vendettas - had police protection for five years following the trial and jailing of the offenders. Tell her, that her selfless years of running and sustaining Neighbourhood Watch schemes is now just cannon fodder for a bland one-stop shop where we all sit in a horseshoe..
25. Crimewatch committee members may also discreetly attend the police led meetings , they are very unlikely to attend or welcome the one size fits all format. For that is what it is.
26. Councillors, you have the power to conduct a fully inclusive and well thought out consultation. You have the power to send this incomplete and lopsided proposal back for further work. Drill down, (a bottom up consultation if you like) talk to the people on the ground, in the neighbourhoods, the people at the front line, volunteers who don’t mind getting their hands dirty, litter picking even, all to support their community and local neighbourhood.
27. An ‘area’ is just a slab of concrete. It sounds nasty and indeed the proposal is at face value just that, unworthy of a proud City, the City of Peterborough. Honourable councillors and officers. Thank You
(C) Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch Peterborough UK Tel: 01733 345581 Broadcasters direct call ISDN 'down the line' 01733 555319 ISDN Codecs G722 & APT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Many thanks your contribution is appreciated