Barnet Council Consultations – A Personal View

In case you didn’t know, I live in the London Borough of Barnet, a council which has recently embraced their statutory responsibility to consult. I say recently, because of course, at the judicial review of Barnet’s decision to outsource most of its functions to Capita, the Court agreed that there had been no consultation whatsoever, let alone meaningful consultation.

In Barnet we have a consultation website http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/ and a twitter account which used to let you know when consultations had just closed, but now also tweets the open ones.

We have consultation, but is it meaningful? I have taken part in a lot of these consultations, and frankly I am underwhelmed. So, here is what I think.

Online consultation

There is a problem here. Online consultations are cheap and accessible for people who are online, but not everyone is. Nearly 3/4 of women over 75 have never been online, so if that is a group which will be affected by the consultation, then you will not reach them. If you aren’t reaching them, if you are not even trying to reach them, then that is not meaningful consultation.

The online forms lead you through the questions, but time out if you take too long think about your response, or typing it if you are not a good typist. Sometimes the boxes have word limits, which are not advertised in advance. And you cannot keep a copy of the online form easily for future reference. Personally, I prefer to read through all the questions first, so I understand where the document is going, and what each question is getting at and I like to have a copy of my consultation response, particularly if it is made on behalf of an organisation rather than me personally.

This might suit the Council, or Capita, but that isn’t really the point of consultation, is it? If what you really want is to listen to people’s views, then you make it easy for them, and put their needs first.

To be fair to Barnet, they have got slightly better. They have, for example, removed the edict that no policy issues can be discussed at Residents Forums, but they have never used those forums for consultation. They have run a few consultations at North London Business Park, inviting people in, but what they have not done is brought consultation out to the people they want to listen to.

Background information

I do not understand how you can possibly consult on a draft policy without actually providing a copy of that policy to look at alongside it. As happens here

http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/consultation-team/barnets-policy-defining-social-interests/consult_view

To be fair, there is an email address, and when I used it I received a copy of the draft policy document and a copy of the questions for the online survey very swiftly. Just a shame that no-one thought to add those to the website at the same time.

Consultation wording

This, I completely accept, is a difficult thing to get right. But I am absolutely sick of the fig leaf of consultation which allows leading questions or a complete lack of options. Back in 2012 Barnet consulted on the future of services for older people. On the positive side, it was recognised that this needed to be in paper format, given the audience, and the Council offered to come and speak to older people in day centres to explain what the consultation was about. On the other hand, the consultation paper was so long (26 pages) that no-one wanted to fill it in. Age UK Barnet rewrote it, condensing it down, and simplifying the wording. The results were very interesting. More people responded to the Age UK Barnet consultation than the whole of the rest of the borough. Not only that, but by simplifying the wording we found that the results were the absolute opposite of the results that Barnet obtained. When people understood what they were being asked and were not given leading questions, they answered differently. Very differently.

So, here is what I think. Asking leading questions because you have already decided what you want to do, and want cover to do that, is just plain wrong. People will, quite rightly, feel tricked. If your proposed policy is so great, stand behind it, make your case and let people decide. Even if it is controversial. Anything less is an abuse of trust. Trust your policy and trust people to be honest about it. People are more likely to accept difficult decisions if they understand them and have been given the chance to have their say.

And whilst you are making the case, lay out the options for people. There are always alternatives.

The consultation I linked to earlier, on defining social interests/ well-being for Assets of Community Value is a case in point. The consultation says that 8 nominations have been received and 6 approved because they have used the statutory framework. They want a local policy that meets local needs. They have decided they already have that policy – the Core Strategy planning policy. It would be easier and simpler to use that. They don’t explain what an Asset of Community Value is, so I will. It is a building or an open space which is of value to the people of the locality, for social reasons or because it improves health and well-being. You can apply to have anything listed; Friern Barnet Library is one example on the register. The Bohemia pub, as was, is another. Community centres, day centres, sports grounds, green spaces, pubs which act as local hubs, post offices, shops which sell fresh food and vegetables could all be registered at the moment.

If the asset is registered it cannot be sold without first giving the community 6 months within which to raise the money to buy it. They may be able to purchase it at a discount. Being on the register is also a material consideration in any planning decision (for example building on open space or change of use of a high street property). It won’t necessarily be the deciding factor, but it is something which has to be taken into account.

Which makes the proposed policy a nonsense. Planning law is all about balancing the rights and tensions between what a landowner wants and what his or her neighbours want. You want space for voices to be heard, and the whole point of this register, created by the Localism Act 2011, is to make a space for local people to explain why a particular place is important. If the policy by which a Community Asset is assessed is the Core Strategy, then not only does it not add any advantage in getting it registered, it actually weakens the case when a planning application is made if the property has not been registered. The Core Strategy is about a broad brush approach; the register is about individual plots, buildings and businesses. Their purpose and focus is completely different.

The draft policy also makes no attempt to quantify or assess the degree of social value. A greengrocers might not be on the register if it is one of many; if it is the only shop which sells fresh food in an area where there are lots of older people who do not drive, it might be vital. A church hall which is only used for Sunday school once a week and occasional wedding receptions might have limited social value, but if it is used for lunch clubs, exercise classes, AA meetings, mother and toddler groups and charity quiz nights, that is a different story.

So, if I was drafting this policy I would look at: distance from nearest alternative; accessibility/ appropriateness of nearest alternative; number of people who use it; vulnerability of people who use it; importance to surrounding businesses/ high street; and contribution to health and well-being strategy.

The consultation does not explain any of this. It does not provide options. It drives you, inexorably, to one forgone conclusion. The wrong one. Do me a favour and tell them that.

http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/consultation-team/barnets-policy-defining-social-interests/consult_view

Listen to the answers

There are obvious ways of not listening. I took part in the consultation on fitness activities in parks. I had things to say. It closed on 4 Dec and the results were expected on 11 Dec and feedback on 18 Dec. It is now 22 Feb and there is no sign of the results.

I recently sat in a focus group on adult social care. The facilitator did a good job of allowing everyone to have their say, which they did. Some more than others, but all broadly expressing the same concerns and experiences. At the end the facilitator summed up with three different versions of “So you agree with the policy broadly, but…” all interrupted by members of the group. Although I had not commented on this point in the policy either way, it was really clear what everyone else was saying. Any summing up which began with you agree with the policy was not an accurate reflection of the consultation feedback. So I said that. There was silence and then the point was taken. If this was the conclusion drawn from a group who were sitting there, able to challenge it in the moment, then what on Earth are the conclusions drawn from raw data which no-one sees.

And then there are the consultations where the public get the “wrong” answer.

In 2011 Barnet came up with the wonderful money-spinning wheeze of hiring out our public parks for private events. Blogger Mrs Angry covered this extensively

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=parks

There was an outcry and the policy was withdrawn, but it appears that it has quietly sneaked back, buried deep in this consultation on charges:

http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/environment-and-operations/street-scenes-fees-charges-2014-15/consult_view

And if you fancy responding to that, do me a favour and kick into touch the proposed £21 charge for people who cannot use online or automated telephone payment options – you know, the old, the hearing impaired, those with learning disabilities and early dementia, the vulnerable people who need a little time and patience. We can give them that, can’t we?

Thank you. Rant over.

Chair or chairman? Sexism, power and words

Last night Barnet Council voted to amend its Constitution. They voted to reduce the time allowed for public participation in meetings and they also voted to change the title of those chairing committees from “Chair” to “Chairman”.

Mr Reasonable was at the meeting and wrote about it here

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/misogyny-arrogance-and-decision-making.html

According to the blog, the amendment was proposed by the committee chair, Councillor Melvin Cohen, and passed because of his casting vote; Conservative councillors voted for the amendment; Labour and Lib Dem councillors voted against it. Councillor Cohen is the Mayor this year but announced at the beginning of his tenure that he would not hold with usual form of Mayor’s being apolitical and intended to vote.

I think this is wrong.

I think using a gendered term for the role, like Chairman, sets up an expectation that the role will be filled by a man. Its the image that you see in your head when you close your eyes and say Chairman of the Board. It is normative – that image of the man in a suit, probably middle-aged and probably white, and almost certainly not disabled, is what comes into your head. Its what is normal, what you expect. Now try picturing a person with the title Chair. Not such a clear image is it? The word doesn’t carry the preconceptions about gender, and when that clear stereotype falls away so do the others. That image of who ought to fit the role affects both the people who are electing a chair and the people who apply for it.

The title of Chairman reinforces the idea that stereotypically masculine attributes and skills are what are needed to fulfil the role well. As chair of a trustee board for six years this is what I think makes a good chair: reading the papers and planning the agenda; keeping to time; listening; facilitating discussion, sometimes by playing Devil’s advocate, sometimes by ensuring everyone has the chance to speak; building consensus; making sure there are accurate minutes; and following up on action points. I don’t think there is anything particularly manly about any of those skills, but maybe, as Mrs Angry points out in her post here, we privilege some of those skills above others when we consider it fundamentally a man’s role.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/friday-joke-im-lady-or-sex-and.html

I do think that a chair derives his or her authority from their skill, not their title. I certainly do not think that the addition of the suffix “man” to the title “chair” adds any power, authority or dignity to the office. I find it offensive that in 21st Century Britain people think power, authority or dignity is bolstered in this way, whether a man or a woman holds the role.

I do not think it is right that a committee chair should be forced, by virtue of the Constitution, to apply a gendered title to their role which they are uncomfortable with. I would not agree with the Constitution being changed so that the title of all committee chairs, regardless of gender, should be Chairwoman either.

I don’t know why Councillor Melvin Cohen felt it was important to propose this (in my view) retrograde amendment. I do know what supporters of the change on Twitter have said:

That it is only the “loony” politically correct or “loony” left who believe that the change of the term Chair to Chairman is wrong and promulgates or supports any gender bias. To which I would say that women have throughout history been told that there thoughts and feelings do not matter, that they are “hysterical”, the very origin of the word coming from the Greek word for womb. Disparaging people with insults really does not engage with the argument. The argument is clear – that words have power and that titles are political symbols. If that is untrue, why is it necessary to make the change FROM Chair TO Chairman?

The second argument that has been made is that Chair is an offensive term because it refers only to a piece of furniture. This is obviously nonsense. There is apparently no difficulty in using the word chair as a verb in this context – it is not a problem to say you are chairing a meeting. The use of the word Chair as an alternative to Chairman dates back, according to Wikipedia, to the mid 17th Century, so it has a long established history and is widely accepted. A much longer history than the word “selfie” and even more widely accepted than “bedroom tax” to name two new additions to the dictionary. We are completely comfortable with words having alternate meanings in our language – a bat can be a furry flying mammal or a piece of sporting equipment, without causing any confusion or outrage.

I wonder whether, in fact, this change is lawful. Councillor Alison Moore stated in the meeting that she personally found the title “Chairman” offensive. Given that there is a positive public sector equality duty not just to protect from discrimination but also to encourage people to participate in public life or other activities where their engagement is disproportionately low, it is difficult to imagine that this change does not breach the Public Sector Equality Duty. Surely a woman in her position should have the right to determine how she is addressed?

There are perhaps bigger issues and bigger battles in Barnet today. But if it is important enough to change from Chair to Chairman, then it is important enough to consider the wider implications of that change.