The damage done, Or: The King of Bling has left the building

I arrived late for the extraordinary Barnet Council meeting at Hendon Town Hall this evening, but found a seat in the overflow room with other tardy members of the public. On the end wall, like a painting over a grand fireplace, was a screen showing a sort of bird's eye view of the Barnet Council chamber where the session was in progress. A pigeon in the rafters sort of view of the proceedings.

When I arrived Labour councillor Kath McGuirk was speaking to the Labour Group's motion of no confidence in Tory Leader Richard Cornelius.

With 22 votes to the Tories' 37, Labour couldn't win this vote, not even with the tenuous support of the 3 Lib Dems, but it was important to put this motion to challenge Cornelius's 'One Barnet' programme.

Lib Dem Lord Monroe Palmer laid into the mass outsourcing plan as well, and he is the chair of Barnet Council's Audit Committee so he knows full well about the council's recent bad record in procurement and contract management.

The vote was taken and Labour lost (Brian Coleman abstained, for the record), but in the debate some good arguments were made. Unfortunately, I had not heard most of them and will have to wait for the video footage, that I'm sure Barnet's citizen filmers are editing as I type, to see it.

After a break, and the extraordinary council meeting being over, the ordinary council meeting began.

There were a lot of questions to the executive, raced through. Then there was another break. Public and councillors milled about in the corridors.

Earlier in the evening, I understand, the Conservative Group had met and kicked Brian Coleman out of their number. I'm not sure quite how this works; he was suspended by the national party last week. But I know Coleman wasn't happy about this latest rejection. In the break he was having a row with Cllr Anthony Finn, who is replacing Coleman in some of his committee positions, in a side room. I was too busy looking for a lost telephone, twitching about behind the velvet curtains, to hear what was said, but I know that Coleman was basically accusing Finn of betraying him.

When the council meeting re-convened, Coleman was not in the council chamber. (He is still a councillor until the electors of Totteridge boot him out in 2014. I wonder how delighted they feel about that.)

I know, as Richard Cornelius is always reminding us, that Coleman is innocent until proven guilty. But whatever about his impending trial, this evening's council meeting was a curious showcase of just how disruptive one individual can be.

A large part of the evening was given over to a Labour motion for some periods of free parking in Barnet's high streets at Christmas time. This has to be done to help mend the damage done to local trading by Barnet's disastrous meddling with the parking regime, hiking prices, and removing parking meters so that shoppers have to pay by mobile. Of course, Coleman was the architect of this policy.

Today it was announced that the Council, thanks to the sterling campaigning efforts of Cafe Buzz owner Helen Michael, is introducing various measures to try and woo shoppers back to the shops in North Finchley, and during the evening they announced that they were talking with the shopkeepers of other high streets in Barnet.

Throughout all of this Brian Coleman sat nibbling his fingers and taking no part - for he is now without a group or responsibility - only taking an active part in the proceedings during question time (when he seemed to have asked an inordinate number of questions!).

Later in the evening, after he had left, there was an item of business reporting on how Brian Coleman had - finally, late and grudingly - paid the penalties handed to him by the Standards Board for insulting two Barnet residents by email. Another Brian Coleman sour misdeed.

And, finally, near the end of the evening, again without him there to hear it, it was announced who would replace Coleman as chair of the various committees that he was still in charge of, and that - the greatest ignominy for him personally, I imagine - he was no longer to be considered as a part of the Conservative group.

Alison Moore, Labour Group Leader, was quick to ask whether the Tory Group being lighter by one member would impact on the allocation of committee places, which is done in proportion to the groups' numbers. The Director of Corporate Governance, the soon-to-be retiring Jeff Lustig, said he would look into it.

So the evening was punctuated by reminders of the damage that Brian Coleman has done to the lives of Barnet residents and to the reputation of the Barnet Tory Party.

The Barnet Tories might be happy to be rid of him, but how will they fare now he is merely a glowering presence on the fringes of their group? To be honest, I think they will still fare ill. There was plenty of evidence of it tonight.

A number of residents had arrived to hear the Labour motion for the Council to re-open Friern Barnet Library, or at least to negotiate with campaigners. The motion talked about the fiasco of the now-never-to-be Landmark Library at the Arts Depot which Robert Rams, the Cabinet member responsible, has now admitted is not going to happen. Rams continually blamed the Arts Depot for the failure of negotiations around the library.

He said talks had been going well, when Arts Depot management seemed for some reason he could not understand to have changed their minds.

It strikes me that you are a very poor politician indeed when you are in charge of the libraries in a major London borough but can't hold an adult conversation with the management of the local arts venue.

When I first heard that the Landmark Library had fallen through, I tweeted Robert Rams that the attitude of Barnet Council when they cut the borough's fairly small grant to the Arts Depot had probably soured relations. The Council sat and watched as the Arts Depot management had to cast about to plug the gap in their finances. Now, is it any wonder if the Arts Depot don't feel like pulling Robert Rams's chestnuts out of the fire?

On a personal note, I found this evening dis-spiriting. The public gallery had mostly all left through ennui by the end, even though major crimes against justice and reason continued to be committed in the council chamber.

When the motion was put to approve the appointment of Andrew Travers to replace the scurvy knave Nick Walkley as Chief Executive I couldn't help reminding people loudly that the Conservative Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles regards people like Andrew Travers as 'town hall tax dodgers', because they have been employed long-term as personal contractors rather than being on the payroll, which incurs higher taxes.

As the meeting broke up a few people smiled indulgently at me, the mad loon who can't refrain from shouting from the public gallery when things get too much for her. I felt quite embarrassed about my outburst. Later on, around a table in the Lido noodle bar, it was pointed out to me that Travers had been sat at the front of the council chamber and heard it all when I publicly impugned his character. And suddenly I felt a whole lot better.

Bloggers to Conservative Councillors: Brian Coleman is right about One Barnet!

Letter sent this afternoon by five Barnet bloggers to Conservative Councillors in Barnet a propos Brian Coleman's recent article in the Barnet Press slamming the One Barnet programme.

---
Dear Councillor,

We wrote to you recently about the impending vote on the motion of no confidence in Leader Richard Cornelius.

We observed that there was a rising tide of concern in your ranks about the One Barnet programme of outsourcing, and we asked you to act to halt the negotiations for the privatisation of £1 billion worth of our council services.

Now your former colleague Brian Coleman, who has been a senior member of the Cabinet and exerted considerable influence within the party, has chosen to speak out against One Barnet in the strongest terms, calling for its immediate rejection.

In his statement in the Barnet Press, Councillor Coleman refers to the proposed outsourcing as ‘an officer-driven juggernaut’ backed up by a ‘revolving door of endless consultants’ with a ‘promise of savings’. By implication, Cllr Coleman does not believe that One Barnet will deliver those savings.

He proposes:

The council needs to dump this flawed scheme and introduce a proper strategy which assesses where services belong, whether that is the private sector, shared services with other boroughs, the voluntary sector or indeed occasionally in-house - a mixed economy is what is needed.

We would give far more weight than Cllr Coleman to considering the in-house option fully as services are reviewed, but we are glad that he is prepared to voice publicly the idea that large-scale privatisation of services is not the answer to all our prayers.

He is not alone in this; many senior Conservative politicians in local government are saying the same. He also says of his erstwhile colleagues:

I don't know any councillors who agree we should privatise the planning department.

We invite those of you for whom this is true to speak out! We ask again: who controls the Council, senior officers or the elected Councillors?

We are pleased to see that at last a Conservative councillor is voicing in public the concerns that many of you have about One Barnet, especially since he has had to put aside loyalty to Richard Cornelius in order to do it. (Although, as he points out, Cllr Cornelius had become convinced that One Barnet will save money, he too was angered by the covert moves senior officers took towards adopting a Joint Venture for the DRS outsourcing.)

Cllr Coleman has also put on record the consternation that many of you felt when Nick Walkley pressed the button on his ejector seat out of the Barnet cockpit.

Of course, we have many differences with Cllr Coleman. For example, his suggestion that Conservative councillors have gone along with the One Barnet proposals because the unions had their own separate objections to them seems far-fetched. We find it hard to believe that the Conservative philosophy has as shallow a basis as knee-jerk hostility to anything the unions say.

Notwithstanding that, and our very many differences with Cllr Coleman over the years, there is an indisputable truth in much of what he is now saying about One Barnet. It is only a pity that someone did not speak out publicly before!

A glance at what is happening with the parking contract recently outsourced to NSL shows the dangers ahead if the Council plunges ahead with One Barnet.

The parking contract has been in place for six months and NSL are still experiencing serious difficulties as a result of 'teething troubles'; this contract was for £15 million over five years. If you scale up from a £3 million a year mess to £100 million a year how much havoc will be wrought in the lives of residents?

Opening his article, Cllr Coleman says:

Something has happened in the last few months in Barnet. Residents have been taking an interest in the way Barnet Council is proposing to operate in future, the so-called One Barnet scheme.

He is right, residents are very interested in that, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Of course, like you, residents are concerned about the fate – for that is what it is – of their council services, and of the money they have paid out in taxes to secure them.

We hardly need to remind you that residents will also take an interest in who was in charge when their services were handed over wholesale to two large companies, and tied up in 10-year contracts. We all know who they will blame when the service delivery falls short of the high standards they have experienced up till now, or when there are contractual wrangles about service levels with the contractors BT, Capita et al.

Cllr Coleman suggests that Barnet Conservative councillors are behaving like lemmings heading for a cliff. That is not a very positive image but we have to believe that his comments do have some valuable insights and that there must be some truth in them that demand your urgent consideration.

We ask you now then to follow the instinct of your own common sense, stop behaving like lemmings, and abandon the reckless One Barnet programme before it is too late.

Yours,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

So, is it OK to dislike Nick Walkley?

Barnet Council CEO Nick Walkley is changing jobs. He has handed in his notice - a privilege he still enjoys while he denies it to so many Barnet Council employees under him who his decisions have made and will make redundant. He expects to be confirmed soon in his new post of CEO for our neighbouring borough of Haringey.

How pleasant to be able to choose the time of your own departure, to control your own career in this way. How pleasant to be at the top of the local government food chain instead of anywhere further down. (Even fellow senior managers at Barnet are losing their jobs in a restructure.)

There has been much speculation about why Walkley is walking. How prescient, some say, to go now before the shit hits the One Barnet fan (much the most popular theory).

I have recorded some scathing views about Nick Walkley lately. I recorded some even more scathing views that failed to make it into the pages of local newspapers, who know the law on defamation better than I do: I’ll say them here instead in more measured tones.

I said I didn’t understand why Haringey would want to appoint as their CEO a man who is despised by many of the staff under him and by most of those Barnet residents who actually know who he is.

I think this statement skirts the safe side of defamation - but, more to the point, is the statement just and why?

I believe it is just and here is why. I have felt a little guilty for the forthrightness of my views - a man’s a man for a’ that - but then I remember this:

This is the poster that Nick Walkley ordered to be plastered around the staff areas at Barnet Council offices on the eve of a legal strike in September 2011 by workers whose jobs are going to be outsourced to the private sector.

Workers who could lose their jobs in that outsourcing, or who, if they keep their jobs, will certainly have to work harder and probably for less money – for how else are ‘savings’ to be achieved? Workers who would be no better than dumb animals if they did not try to defend themselves in the face of this.

On this occasion, I am happy to say, Nick Walkley’s poster campaign, his attempt at intimidation, had the opposite effect to that intended and made those planning to strike even more determined to go ahead.

Any other outcome would have been unjust. Can’t Nick himself see that?

How would he, Nick, feel, I wonder, if he went into work and was confronted with walls of posters aimed at him that said something like: “you are not breaking any laws but I would like to remind you that your job is not safe, I can sack you if I can find a pretext, do your job obediently and know that I am watching you – Your Boss”.

I’m quite sure he wouldn’t like it. So why does he think it is alright to do it to others?

I have examined the evidence, and I have come to the conclusion that not only is it OK but it is in fact completely sensible to dislike Nick Walkley.

I have set out the reasons why below, in the shape of an ‘Open Letter to Nick Walkley’, since that is evidently a medium that he feels to be effective – if it’s good enough for the workers, it’s good enough for him, their boss.

An open letter to Nick Walkley  

These are the levels on which I believe it is reasonable to dislike you.  

First, on a completely impersonal level, for occupying a class position that allows you to bully those under you while you naturally assume your right to control your own destiny, to name your own price. For the hypocrisy involved in that.  

For the conversation we had in the lunch queue at NLBP where you said you had no moral responsibility for the way Lovells employees, who had earlier been transferred from Barnet Homes, were treated when the company went bust. For the look of puzzlement on your face when it was suggested otherwise. For leaning on the law (be afraid lest one day it lean on you).  

For exercising your right to govern – though in whose name it is not at all clear. Who are you meant to serve? Who do you in fact serve? The people or yourself?  

For getting lucky in life; for riding your luck, and, worst of all, not reflecting on how lucky you are. In short, for your ignorance.  

I am a socialist so I would call your ignorance the ignorance typical of the ruling class. There are many Nick Walkleys in this world; they don’t choose to do what they do, but their class position, the way things are structured, makes it impossible for them to act otherwise than they do.  

Second, for something you did choose, for the job you do. For being among the small professional elite of local government chief executive officers taking fat salaries – in your own case, for no discernible benefit shown to the residents of this borough.  

In cahoots with each other and with the outsourcing companies that want to take over running our public services, not out of the love of mankind but for venal reasons, boosting their profits and in the process making a few richer while most will only see worse services out of the deal and endure harder working lives.  

For pushing through a privatisation plan, One Barnet, that no resident has agreed to. For not even seeing that that is a problem, that politics and perceptions matter.  

For not understanding why, whether you deserve it or not, people think you are running away from Barnet, deserting a sinking ship, behaving like a rat. You moan about the rough ride the bloggers have given you, without having the wit to know why people criticise you or taking the trouble to look at what they see as faults in the system. Don’t we pay you enough to do that?  

Here you are the civil servant, Walkley. You serve a master, any master. You bend with the wind; how readily you bend.  

People wonder how you will fare transferring, as it were, from a flagship Tory borough to a borough with no Conservative councillors. I don’t think this switch will trouble you one iota; and you are so much the worse for that.  

Third, and finally, yes, on the personal level, it is reasonable to dislike you. To dislike you just for being who you are, for being Nick Walkley.  

In order to remember why, I just look at that poster, your decision, your doing, and signed, by you, Nicholas Walkley. 

Regards, 

Vicki Morris
Barnet resident

Meanwhile, down at Mill Hill Depot...

I'm indebted to Mr Mustard for including in a recent blogpost a list of Nick Walkley's 'Meet the chief*' sessions for the next few weeks, while he still IS chief of Barnet Council.

I notice with interest that Mr Walkley is due this afternoon to visit Mill Hill Depot.

'Meet the chief' sessions are a chance for staff to talk to the CEO about what's going on in the Council. I imagine that it is rather a one-way conversation, usually, with him imparting the latest management thinking, and not looking for much actual input from the plebs, sorry, staff.

This afternoon's meeting could be livelier than usual though. Staff at the depot will have heard - through their unions, probably, not from their employer - that their jobs are included in the next tranche of One Barnet outsourcing, which is, it turns out, a joint outsourcing with Brent Council.

Waste, recycling and street cleaning services will be included in this next big outsourcing contract. Once those staff are added to the 70% of staff to be transferred to the private sector under the NSCSO and DRS contracts, about 90% of Barnet Council staff will be private employed (those of them that don't lose their jobs in the shakeout).

We know all about this outsourcing because we read about it on Brent Council's website. I wonder when Barnet were going to get around to telling residents or, more to the point, staff.

* When I was in my early adulthood 'chief' was a term of abuse meaning 'fool'.

The Resignation of Barnet's Chief Executive: a statement by the Barnet bloggers

Dear Councillor

It was announced yesterday that Mr Nick Walkley, the Chief Executive of Barnet Council, is leaving in order to take up a position in Haringey.

This unexpected development immediately raises the most serious questions regarding the progress of the controversial £1billion One Barnet programme which is due to outsource the majority of our council services to the private sector: a hugely over ambitious project which bears the risk of being a spectacular failure, and having a devastating impact on the lives of residents in our borough.

We have a right to know why Mr Walkley, the architect of this programme, is leaving at this crucial point in the proceedings, just as the procurement process reaches its conclusion, and the successful bidders are chosen.

We note that this departure arises in the wake of the revelation that the council leader, Councillor Richard Cornelius, admits that he knew nothing about a decision by the senior officers of the council to change the outsourcing model of the DRS service bid from a strategic partnership to an even higher risk Joint Venture. This is a decision which has been taken by officers acting with consultants and bidders, without oversight from the elected members of this authority, and is therefore an action taken in open defiance of the democratic process which us supposed to safeguard the best interests of residents of this borough.

We question the unrestricted expenditure of millions of pounds on unaccountable consultants acting as "implementation partners" for what is, at best, the biggest risk undertaken by any local authority with the money and trust invested in them by residents and tax payers: a scandalous waste of our money at what is supposed to be a time of austerity, and when we have seen savage reductions in council spending, leading to widespread hardship and the loss of community resources such as the much loved local library in Friern Barnet, and the Church Farmhouse museum.

As residents, tax payers, and local bloggers, we call for an emergency session of the full council in order to discuss the implications of Mr Walkley's resignation and for the immediate suspension of the One Barnet programme pending the outcome of an external and fully independent audit of the risks involved in this £1 billion gamble with our money, our services, Our Barnet.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Ample evidence that scum rises to the top: the cases of Nick Walkley and Matthew Offord

I've been disgusted today by the behaviour of people who earn considerably more than me and most of my esteemed readers, and enjoy prestige and a position of influence.

Barnet Council CEO Nick Walkley, who is paid more than £200,000 a year by us Barnet residents, has announced he is buggering off to Haringey Council. Frankly, I can't think why anyone would want him.

Barnet Council is just weeks away from signing critical contracts with multinational companies to run most of our council services for the next 10 years, the One Barnet programme. Yet confusion reigns at the top.

Walkley has presided over a situation where the Leader of the Council Richard Cornelius doesn't know whether the council is recommending a joint venture or a strategic partnership for the £275 million Development and Regulatory Services contract.

Walkley has succeeded in his time as Barnet CEO in alienating almost all of the staff, and done nothing to stem the increasing disaffection of residents from the Council. This is the fruit so far of the outsourcing programme that he has pushed as the answer to all of Barnet Council's financial difficulties.

Wouldn't an honorable man stay to see the project through either to success or failure? No, as the Barnet Press puts it, eschewing neutral headlines, Walkley is "jumping ship".

There's one word for this behaviour: contemptible. But, evidently, in the circles that senior local government officers move in, contemptible fits the bill nicely, for he has been offered the job of CEO at Haringey Council.

The mind boggles. I'll warn my friends in the Haringey Alliance for Public Services what's headed their way.

And now to target no.2 of my disgust today. Matthew Offord MP for Hendon - oh, my MP.

He has tweeted about the child sex abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile. He said: “For nine years I worked at the BBC and the rumours about Jimmy Savile were well known amongst staff.”

Barnet Press contacted Offord for more comment. He told them:

“The feeling was this was all well known, and he engaged in activities which were not legal for a number of years.  

“It was something that was known to have occurred in the BBC and it was something that no one really dwelt on.  

“All I had was hearsay... I had no evidence then and I have no evidence now.  

“There would have been nothing more to do. It was 30 years ago.  

“In a lot of these cases we all pray that the behaviour is relegated to the past.  

“He had ...become a peripheral, elderly figure.”

It really doesn't matter how peripheral or elderly Savile had become. Nazi war criminals are still quite rightly being pursued. Crime is crime.

I know that few people took child abuse as seriously as they should have done until reent times, but, really, your heart sinks to think that it was an 'open secret' among BBC staff - including, presumably, senior figures - that Savile was abusing girls. And nobody did anything about it.

How lowly they must have thought of his victims, all those nice, middle-class people making the programmes for the young - shall I say it? - plebs.

Thank God for the whistle-blower, wherever they are, that puts us all to shame disclosing wrongdoing while the rest just whisper in corners and publicly kowtow to the conventions and the powers-that-be and the spangle of the celebrity.

And how contemptible that so many people are casually dropping into conversation now that, well, they knew the child abuser Savile. What a disgusting claim to fame.

If I had known Savile and thought that he was a child abuser and did nothing about it, I would, out of shame, keep that acquaintanceship to myself.

If nothing else, this disclosure by Offord shows that he has absolutely no judgement whatever, not even where it is needed to protect his own reputation.

Barnet bloggers on... Off-payroll Public Sector Pay Arrangements

The subject of Town Hall Tax Dodging (a phrase coined by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) is one of enormous interest to the Barnet bloggers, and we applaud the attention paid to this issue by the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (chaired by the Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP) which took place on Monday 16 July 2012.

This investigation of the issue of tax avoidance by individuals in publicly funded posts came about following the disclosure by Westminster journalist David Hencke that Ed Lester, the head of the Student Loan Company, was being paid through a service company, and that there are similar arrangements on a very significant scale throughout the civil service and the wider public sector.

One witness before the committee was Carolyn Downs, the Chief Executive of the Local Government Association (LGA). She stated that the LGA had found only 13 examples of off-payroll public sector pay.

We know that this national figure of 13 is an understatement since the draft (i.e. unaudited) Annual Accounts of Barnet Council for 2011-2012 show that there are 14 such arrangements recorded as having been in place during the year for senior officers.

Far from being a practice that is diminishing it is noted that in the previous year's accounts there were only 8 such arrangements.

The evidence to the committee was that these arrangements were used in the short-term. We can show that this is not true and that, on the contrary, these arrangements are used routinely for long term appointments.

In Barnet, one ‘interim’ post paid through a private company has lasted for more than three years. An appointment lasting over 3 years cannot be described as short-term. In addition, a Freedom of Information request has revealed that there have been no efforts to replace this individual with a permanent staff member.

Evidence to the committee also suggested that there was virtually no difference between the tax paid under PAYE or via a service company. That is to ignore two factors. If a service company is used certain expenses, such as travelling, can be reclaimed whereas an employee does not get tax relief for home to work travel costs. In addition, service companies are able to pay out their profits as dividends and National Insurance Contributions are not paid on those. The overall contribution to the Exchequer will be less if a service company is employed.

We look forward to the day when Barnet Council ensures that all its officers (employees) are treated equally and that all those people who receive their pay from the public purse recognise what Mrs Hodge referred to as a ‘moral duty’ to make their fair contribution to the taxes which contribute to the good of society.

We call on Nick Walkley, the Chief Executive of Barnet Council, to negotiate the return to the payroll of the officers concerned as this will reduce the penalties that will have to be paid as a consequence of the inevitable HM Revenue & Customs PAYE compliance visit.

We also look forward to following the evolution of this story in front of the Public Accounts Committee once the summer recess is over.

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

19 July 2012

"It weren't me, guv!" Nick Walkley and Helen Michael

I was quick to believe that Nick Walkley, Barnet council's chief executive, was guilty of dobbing in North Finchley traders spokesperson Helen Michael to Scotland Yard. Were he able to speak about it - he's not? - I think Walkley would plead, "It weren't me, guv!"

Walkley, as returning officer for Barnet, had been responsible for acting on a complaint and first reporting Helen to the local police for not putting contact details on the bottom of her anti-Brian Coleman parking posters. Helen soon rectified that technical error.

Her poster was part of - not all of - the reason for Brian Coleman losing his Greater London Assembly seat in May.

But it seems likely that it is someone else, not Walkley, who has prompted the police - Scotland Yard now! - to take their investigation of Helen further.

Seeing that no rational purpose can be served by pursuing Helen, we can only presume that someone is following a personal agenda here. Now, whose finger-prints are all over this? We might never uncover that mystery but I'm sure we all have our suspicions.

One can lay many 'crimes' at Nick Walkley's door - walking off with £200,000 plus a year of Barnet residents' money in wages, while flogging their services to the private sector is one misdemeanour that, in my view, he should pay heavily for. But persecuting Helen Michael seems not to be among them.

At the 'Barnet council, not for sale!' conference today, the participants debated a motion of solidarity with Helen Michael. Barnet TUC chair Helen Davies said that Helen would be one of the last people she expected to see being leant on for campaigning against the council's crazy policies. Yet that is what is happening.

We unanimously agreed that an injury to one is an injury to all, and pledged to support Helen. Scotland Yard should drop their pointless investigation of her.

Helen Michael: open letter to Councillor Richard Cornelius and to Scotland Yard

Since the electoral defeat of former Assembly Member and Barnet Cabinet member Brian Coleman in May, Barnet’s Tory council leader Richard Cornelius and his colleagues have sought to distance themselves from most of the more controversial policies that Coleman promoted.

Most significant among these is the parking scheme, which has caused so much anger among the residents and traders of this borough.

At a meeting with Barnet traders at a North Finchley forum in December last year, Councillor Cornelius was told in no uncertain terms by the shopkeepers and small business owners of this borough about the devastating impact of this ridiculous scheme. He replied:

“I’m listening, but I haven’t got any intention to do anything else other than that ... I’ve heard you and it’s obviously affected me. I don’t know what I can do. I don’t know if I can do anything.”

Local cafe owner Helen Michael said:

“We are wasting our time – you’ve said in no uncertain terms that you’re not going to do anything. We are begging for our businesses, for our livelihoods. Please do something.”

Councillor Cornelius and his fellow Tories sat back and watched as the life of our local high streets ebbed away, in some cases losing up to 40 percent of their usual level of trade.

He refused to do anything for us, so we acted for ourselves.

Bloggers, traders, residents, community activists and trade unions united and voiced their opposition to the changes. Prominent among the campaigners was Helen Michael. As spokeswoman for North Finchley traders she made every effort to focus attention on the injustice and devastating impact of the policy, and hold Councillor Coleman to account for the consequences of his scheme. Her efforts won admiration from London Mayor Boris Johnson – and even Richard Cornelius, who is reported to have suggested she should think of standing as a Conservative candidate for the council.

Only since Brian Coleman lost his seat on the London Assembly, and then his Cabinet post, and in response to two other electoral defeats, has the Tory group on Barnet Council admitted that the parking changes were unfair, and sought to retract them. Councillor Cornelius has now apologised for introducing the policy, and a review is underway.

How ironic it is, therefore, that the woman who did what Councillor Cornelius failed to do, and fought for the best interests of residents and traders, is now being investigated by Scotland Yard, after an allegation of wrongdoing in relation to a poster produced by her in the course of the parking campaign. An omission on this poster was rectified early on in the campaign, and Helen Michael was informed by local police that there would be no further action.

Despite this assurance, Helen Michael is now being investigated by officers from Scotland Yard, and yesterday spent two hours, under caution, being interviewed at a local police station about the poster, and her motivation for its publication.

We believe that this targeting of a local campaigner is a deliberate and politically motivated act of intimidation.

To involve the police in this way is inappropriate, and a serious misuse of their time and resources.

We call on Council leader Richard Cornelius to speak out against the victimisation of a brave, resourceful and admirable woman. We call on Scotland Yard to desist from taking any further action in regard to this matter.

Signed:

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Hands off the Barnet One!

Are the people in charge of Barnet council mad? They seem incapable of avoiding making fools of themselves. Dangerous fools.

They have moved against North Finchley trader Helen Michael - by anyone's standards, a respectable woman - for putting up posters criticising Brian Coleman, during the elections to the Greater London Assembly.

She was visited once by local police in relation to these posters, but the police seemed satisifed with the remedy she offered.

Now the police have visited her again - a Scotland Yard investigations unit, no less - at the instigation of Barnet council's chief executive officer, Nick Walkley.

He is also the returning officer for Barnet. He earns a tidy sum for this, in addition to the more than £200,000 Barnet residents are paying him in his day job.

Replying to a complaint about a different incident, a small infringement of electoral law on polling day, Nick Walkley said he took a very dim view of such things. Dim views are what Nick Walkley specialises in, it seems.

Does anyone in Barnet, any resident aside from the most vindictive or pettifogging individual, care what infringement Helen Michael is supposed to have made?

Get a grip, Walkley! You are trying to foist the 'One Barnet' privatisation plan on us. Now you are making Helen Michael into the 'Barnet One'!

Other bloggers have more detail on this story. See Mrs Angry and the Barnet Eye.

Take me out and shoot me... Or: Brian Coleman: My Part in His Downfall

North Finchley traders representative, Helen Michael

It's a funny thing but, for all all the excitement of yesterday, what is exercising me most this morning is the fact that I missed the chance to take a great picture.

At 6pm I was standing with a friend outside the entrance to Alexandra Palace, at the count for the Barnet and Camden London Assembly member election, when Brian Coleman arrived, with his mother.

It was clear by then that he had lost his London Assembly seat to Andrew Dismore, and people had been speculating on whether or not Coleman would show his face.

Now, here he was, against a spectacular backdrop of all of London, walking towards me. What did I do?

I'll tell you what I did. I failed to take a picture. And I have the audacity to call myself a journalist!

On reflection, it's lucky I didn't. Lucky for me, lucky for Coleman, lucky for everyone. His miserable face was a picture of studied light-heartedness; he was clearly utterly miserable. He lost by 21,000 votes, after all. (Full result here.)

He went into the big hall where the counting took place for the very end of the count; then he stood in the Palm Court while a knackered Nick Walkley, Chief Executive of Barnet Council and its returning officer, read out the result, and then, I understand, sloped off while a justifiably delighted Andrew Dismore made his victory speech. No speech from Coleman. No chance for the rest of us to practise our agreed upon dignified applause.

Yesterday was a great day for me and lots of other Barnet campaigners, trade unionists, anti-cuts activists, and residents who are simply browned off with Coleman. All of these 'constituencies' were represented up at Ally Pally. It was also a great day for the local Labour Party.

After such a day, month, year it would be tempting to write a blogpost along the lines of "Brian Coleman: My Part in His Downfall", casting oneself as Spike Milligan (although much less funny, of course).

If I'd got That Picture yesterday I could have stuck it at the top of this blogpost and written: "Errr, look at me! If nothing else, I'm the one with the camera who whips it out at the right moment." Instead, I'm the one with the camera who forgets all about it at the crucial moment and rather too compassionately steps aside to let a wounded man, not to mention his mother, pass unhassled.

I'm too soft, that's my trouble; it's why I'll never make it in politics. Or journalism.

I'll write some more analysis of the election result soon, and say What I Think Should Happen Next. In the meantime, I hope you like the picture I did put at the top of this blogpost. (I hope Helen Michael doesn't mind it.) It's a hommage to a rather famous picture of Brian Coleman, celebrating his councillor's code of conduct hearing - which he lost, by the way! - against "Barnet Eye" blogger Roger Tichborne.

Helen, a representative of the North Finchley traders who have suffered so much as a result of Barnet council's - in the first place, Brian Coleman's - parking policies, has borne the brunt of Coleman's legendary rudeness recently. She is one of the people who has helped to defeat him in this election and deserves a place of honour.

UPDATE: A few pics from yesterday taken with my crappy compact camera, none of Brian... oh, I told you that already: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11722019@N03/sets/72157629969910817/

"A Tale of Two Barnets" - screening dates

If you haven't yet seen the Barnet community film "A Tale of Two Barnets" - residents' views on parking charges, adult social care charges, One Barnet privatisation, plus interviews with Barnet council CEO Nick Walkley and Barnet council leader Richard Cornelius (phew) - there are several free screenings coming up, starting tomorrow lunchtime:

"A Tale of Two Barnets" screenings – open to anyone and everyone

Wednesday 28th March, 1-2pm
New Barnet Community Centre, 48-50 Victoria Road, New Barnet, EN4 9PF

Wednesday 28th March, 6-8pm
Greek Cypriot Community Centre, Britannia Road, North Finchley N12
Includes screening of “A Tale of Two Barnets” plus the Our Barnet Residents’ Forum – all welcome!

Tuesday 3rd April, 7.30-9.30pm
The Larches, 1 Rectory Lane, Edgware, HA8 7LF

Wednesday 4th April, 7pm
Cafe Buzz, High Road, North Finchley

Wednesday 18th April, 7pm
The Wilson Room, The House of Commons, SW1A 2TT

Saturday 28th April, 7pm
The Church of the Sacred Heart and Mary Immaculate, Mill Hill Broadway, NW7

Click here for the film's website.

"A Tale of Two Barnets" exceeded all of my expectations - Barnet resident

I expect you have heard by now how well the premiere of the film "A Tale of Two Barnets" went on Monday night. It was a full house at the Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley! The programming was rather haphazard but, hey, we don't do this sort of thing every day.

Barnet TUC hired the venue for the occasion, and the anti-cuts group, the Barnet Alliance for Public Services, did much of the work to publicise the event, and stewarded on the night.

A lot of people have put a lot of work into this project, in the first place, naturally, the director Charles Honderick and the producer Roger Tichborne. They have done an excellent job.

"A Tale of Two Barnets" is a film about aspects of life in Barnet today, under the current Conservative regime, both national and local. Yes, it was critical of both. (Although it could have been a lot worse!)

The film focused in on some of the issues that have exercised Barnet residents lately. These included the rises in parking charges, and the rises in charges for adult social care services. They have a common theme: Revenue Income Optimisation (RIO). The council, responding to a smaller grant from central government, is casting about for ways to increase its take from those services it charges for. RIO (a lot less fun than it sounds) means that someone visiting a resident living in one of the borough's Controlled Parking Zones must now pay £4 for the privilege if they want to park - until recently, the price of a visitor permit was £1.

And RIO means vulnerable adults having, for example, to pay more in order to visit day centres. As a consequence some decide that they cannot afford to - then they miss out on social interaction, and their carers can miss out on vital respite. (I know how important this is, since I share in the care of an older person.)

And a third theme covered in depth in the film was the One Barnet programme: the plan to privatise most of the council's services through offering (to date) three large contracts to the private sector. Part of the justification given for this alarming leap in the dark is, again, the cuts in the money from central government. (Few of us who know anything about One Barnet believe that it will ever save any money at all. Indeed, it could end up costing residents more, and is likely to lead to worse services.)

I could go on all night. You must see the film for yourself! Its stars include: bloggers Mrs Angry (Broken Barnet blog) and Mr Mustard (LBB Spending blog), Professor Dexter Whitfield, Julian Silverman, Linda Edwards, David Attfield and so on...

The council was given the chance to have their say in the persons of the Chief Executive Nick Walkley and council leader Richard Cornelius.

Richard Cornelius is a politician, supposed to be in charge of what happens in the council. In this film he has all the best lines - and, of course, completely unscripted. Memorably, this, for example:

“I’m not sure there is much I can change about Barnet, so I have set my expectations quite low.”

Gobsmacking, but at least he delivers this line with a disarming smile.

Nick Walkley is a charmless, overpaid local government technocrat, who, with his friends, is behind the drive to privatisation. His salary, £200,000+ per year, puts him among the top 1% of earners in the country. (Chancellor George Osborne is likely to grant him a tax cut in the Budget today.) Yes, those people going on recently about being the 99% were defining themselves against... the Nick Walkleys of this world. Makes you shudder.

Go and see the film, which will have many more showings around the borough in the coming weeks. See for yourself what you think. This should be a real eye-opener for many residents!

New screenings will be publicised on the film's official website here, and I hope to plug them as they come up. If you would like to screen the film in your area, enquiries please on 07754 910425.

"A Tale of Two Barnets" premiere, 6-8pm, Phoenix Cinema, East Finchley - TONIGHT!

The stars will be out tonight, Monday 19 March, for the premiere of Barnet the Movie, or, as it turned out to be "A Tale of Two Barnets". Preview here:



Come along to the Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley to see the premiere for just £1! If you arrive at 6pm you can watch the press interviews with the director Charles Honderick and some of those taking part in the film. The film itself goes on screen at 7pm and lasts half an hour. After that there will be Q&A with the director, some of the stars, and the audience.

There will be many more screenings throughout the borough - and one in Parliament - in the next few weeks, and the film will be available on DVD. But if you can get along tonight you really should try. It will be an occasion. You'll get to hear the background to why and how the film was made - and find out more about the reaction to it from Barnet Council.

Why, you know they even tried to ban leaflets advertising it from the libriares?!

I have done some publicity for the film on behalf of Barnet Trades Council who are supporting the screening tonight. I thought I'd share the description I've written. It rolled off the pen and makes it clear why this is such an important film.

"What would I like to change about Barnet? I'm not sure there is very much I can change about Barnet." Thus Richard Cornelius, the Conservative leader of Barnet Council. That's laissez-faire taken to its extreme!

Meanwhile, the unelected chief exec, Nick Walkey, on £200k per year (thus, among the 1%), plus his senior management team, which includes several 'town hall tax-dodgers', are pushing through the One Barnet privatisation programme that will create worse services, worse pay and conditions for Barnet council workers - and big profits for multinational companies such as Capita and BT.

This 30-minute film has been made by independent film maker Charles Honderick to reflect the views of residents of the London Borough of Barnet on the state of the borough and its governance at an important time. Residents and users of Barnet Council services talk about their hopes and fears in a period of austerity and uncertainty. The borough is embarking on a large-scale privatisation plan, 'One Barnet', dubbed by former council leader Mike Freer, now a Conservative MP, as 'easyCouncil', and this is also explored in the film.

The council's Chief Executive, Nick Walkley, and the Conservative Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius, both appear to explain their thinking on the issues raised.

This film will be of vital interest to the wider public. 2012 is a crunch year for London economically and politically. The outcome of the mayoral and GLA elections in May will in part hinge on whether Boris Johnson's "doughnut strategy" - targeting the outer London boroughs - will work a second time.

Barnet is crucial in this, particularly as controversial GLA member Brian Coleman is the rep for Barnet and Camden and faces stiff competition from Labour's Andrew Dismore, the former MP for Hendon.

Come along and find out what Barnet residents think of their borough in 2012!

Barnet's 'barbarian bureaucrats' - take a bow, Nick Walkley and Robert Rams

The Independent's literary editor Boyd Tonkin finishes his Friday column with a bitter comment about Barnet council's decision to close Friern Barnet library:

Our barbarian bureaucrats

In Britain, we don't burn books; we merely allow councils to shut beloved public libraries. It has much the same effect. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the plan to close Friern Barnet Library in north London, the beautiful little branch where my life as a young reader properly began. Apologies for returning to its plight, but it (sadly) stands as fairly typical of the national scene. On Monday, Barnet council confirmed the closure of the branch and future sale of the site. They seem to have refused any serious consideration of the carefully-costed rescue proposals put forward by local campaigners. A new library is, in due course, promised at an arts centre elsewhere, but the timetable is clear as mud - again, par for the course with so many authorities. Polite, resourceful and eminently reasonable, the Save Friern Barnet Library campaigners justly feel that the council has treated them with scant respect. They certainly had no joy this week from Barnet CEO Nick Walkley, who earns £200,976 pa from public funds.

Tonkin's column is mostly taken up with the 20th anniversary of the siege of Sarajevo and the assault on the libraries there.

...sustained grenade bombardment set alight the buildings of the National and University Library, with its 1.5 million volumes and 150,000 rare books and manuscripts housed in the neo-Moorish old town hall. Citizens saved perhaps 100,000 items...

We're not under that level of assault in Barnet! But I wonder what we would do to save our books?

Open Letter to Barnet Council - Important questions regarding Finance Matters For Schools Limited

Dear Mr Cornelius and Mr Walkley,

We would like to draw to your attention the following information, and ask you to respond to some questions on a matter that we consider to be of serious public concern.

We have reason to believe that a Private Company registered as FINANCE MATTERS FOR SCHOOLS LIMITED http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07814930

may have been formed with the intention of securing contracts with schools that currently purchase financial services from the Council.

We understand that all three Directors may be current employees of the Council.

First can you confirm that all three of these Directors are indeed Council employees?

If not then the rest of our questions are not applicable.

If this is indeed the case, we would like to ask the following questions:

Are these individuals currently employed by the authority?

If one or more of these Directors are Council employees, can you confirm that it is not a breach of any regulations for employees to set up a private company whilst still being paid by the Council that will deal directly with services directly associated with their current employment?

Furthermore please confirm that they may continue to have access to confidential data, and that this would not secure unfair advantage over any other possible bidders for these services?

Do you know how many Barnet schools have given notice that they are terminating their contracts with Barnet Council Financial Services?

When did they give notice of termination?

What reason did they give for termination?

How many schools have signed contracts with FINANCE MATTERS FOR SCHOOLS LIMITED?

Were any senior managers including the section 151 officer aware of this company

Have there been public and private discussions amongst senior managers on the creation of this new company within the Council?

We understand that Financial Services to schools are included in the NSCSO One Barnet bundle of services.

It would seem extraordinary, therefore, to us as residents, that council staff could allegedly be openly touting for business during the Competitive Dialogue process, and we would ask you to confirm that an urgent investigation should take place, and that you can assure us that all four bidders will be informed that such an investigation is in progress.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Barnet staff told their job is safe... in Croydon

I visited the Barnet Unison picket lines at North London Business Park this morning, and then went with some of the strikers to the Larches Trust in Edgware, where they plan to do a day's community work. You can see my pictures here.

A report about the strike on the BBC news website includes the following comment from deputy council leader Daniel Thomas:

"Any staff who move as part of the restructure will remain in the local government pension scheme, keep the same level of pay and have a job guaranteed for 12 months at the very least from their move.

"I'm sure many of our residents would envy that level of certainty in the current financial climate."

What they might not envy is that, in order to do their job, those staff might be required to travel two hours each way and fork out for a zones 1-5 travelcard, cost more than £2,000.

That is the current fate of the 30 or so office staff of Barnet's soon-to-be-outsourced parking service. They have been told that they must work from Croydon. The staff are, naturally, very angry. One told me this morning how he had already given up one job expressly because he wants to work locally because of his childcare responsibilities.

The parking service is due to transfer at the end of March. Please email Barnet council's chief executive Nick Walkley and your local councillors and ask them to intervene on behalf of these Barnet staff who are, frankly, being shafted. Please let me know if you get any reply; you can contact me on publicity@barnettuc.org.uk.

You can find your councillors' contact details here; Nick Walkley's email address is nick.walkley@barnet.gov.uk.

These staff wonder why they can't at least be offered a job with NSL, the company that has won the parking contract (worth £25 million), in one of its offices closer to Barnet, in Enfield, for example.

If something is not done for these staff, the first to be transfered out of council employment, other Barnet council staff will conclude that the promises made about their future are just hot air.

Big Brother's poster campaign: Barnet bloggers write to councillors

Five Barnet bloggers have sent the following letter to Barnet councillors today.

***

Dear Councillor,

We are writing to share with you our concerns about the recent decision of the Chief Executive Nick Walkley to erect posters throughout the council offices bearing an ‘Open letter to staff’.

The posters did not contain any new information that was not already conveyed to staff in an email on the same day. Why, therefore, were the posters necessary? What is clear is that at a time when the council is making cuts to valued services, this was an appalling waste of money.

Custodians spent valuable time putting the posters up when they should have been carrying out their normal duties. We are taking steps to find out the cost of these posters and will share the information with residents. We would welcome any light councillors can shed on this and on how the decision to approve the poster strategy was taken.

The overall effect of the posters is surely to further alienate much of the workforce from council management and bring more disastrous PR for the council. If they seemed like a good idea when the decision to use them was taken, surely seeing the effect when the entire council is plastered with identical copies of one poster – only, in different sizes – can only embarrass those who thought of them.

We hope you will agree, the whole poster episode has been ludicrous and ineffective, the impression given that the council management team is starting to panic.

What can be salvaged from this? It is time for the council to recognise that staff will not be bullied into accepting the “One Barnet” outsourcing project. (Our own view is that the programme should be scrapped.)

It is also high time that the council consulted fully and properly with residents over One Barnet. It is scandalous that the representatives of the bidding companies can meet with senior Barnet management, yet the council – neither the leading Conservative group, nor senior council executives – has never appeared in a public forum to justify to residents these plans which will have a profound impact on council services for years to come.

We invite your views on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Blue Barnet skies

I was sitting on my sofa this evening thinking about those demented posters, signed by CEO Nick Walkley, that Barnet council now has plastered all over its offices trying to put its staff off defending their pay and terms and conditions. How many days are they going to remain up (undefaced)?

The same message on those posters is repeated by council leader Richard Cornelius in an interview with the Times series.

Trying to fathom how these people's dastardly minds work, I realised that they, Barnet Conservative group leaders, Barnet council senior management team, must have got together one afternoon for a bit of a brainstorm over what to do to scupper Barnet Unison's effective industrial campaign.

I don't know who was there in person but whoever was presiding, Walkley, probably, must have commenced proceedings with a phrase such as "Nothing is ruled out, ladies and gentlemen. We need some real blue skies thinking."

That is how they came up with the idea of the giant posters. Not just one or two giant posters, but giant posters EVERYWHERE!

It occurred to me that they must have come up with many completely hair-brained ideas even worse than this one, ideas that should never see the light of day. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the bonkers idea that Nick Walkley should write to the 400-odd council staff planning to take a half-day strike on Tuesday 13 September, and tell them:

Finally, I want to let you know that today the Council will be presenting an injunction application to the High Court in connection with the 13 September strike. The Council has not taken this decision lightly, however, we have been and remain deeply concerned that Unison have thus far failed to comply with the requisite legal procedures to ensure a lawful strike. We have raised this point with Unison in connection with each ballot, however, we now believe we are left with little option other than to submit a formal challenge to the High Court. We consider that it is of paramount importance that all parties, specifically, the Council's employees, are afforded the full and proper legal protections provided for under industrial relations law. I will let you know the outcome.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Walkley, Chief Executive

Absolutely bonkers, I think you'll agree. Thank goodness that one was left on the drawing board... Oh, hang on a minute, unfortunately some idiot decided that was one of the ideas that would be implemented, along with the giant posters, and they typed up the letter and delivered it to some of those staff due to take action.

Later in the afternoon, a new letter had to be sent out without that final "nuclear option" paragraph, but not before everyone had been thoroughly alarmed.

The mind boggles at what other ideas were aired in that Blue Barnet skies meeting! Could any be more bonkers than the idea of the injunction?

***
Now, here, for no very good reason, are Erasure singing "Blue Savannah".

Nick Walkley comes over all Stalinist

When Barnet Conservative councillor Mark Shooter said this:

I do not believe Soviet bureaucratic initiatives like One Public Sector, Labour’s Total Place (and Barnet’s Future Shape/Easy Council) ideas are... the way forward...

he clearly could see the way the wind was blowing.

Chief executive Nick Walkley, who has been steering the One Barnet Programme (latest name for Future Shape/easyCouncil), has started to reveal distinct Uncle Joe tendencies.

Overnight at the council's North London Business Park offices a poster has appeared, an open letter to staff, signed by Nick Walkley. It accompanies a letter sent to all staff in eNews.

Taken together, these two texts slander Barnet Unison, saying that they have had a good offer put to them regarding staff due for transfer to the private sector under the One Barnet Programme; that they've refused to put the offer to their members; that in calling a half-day strike next week of the staff first up for outsourcing they are deemed to have rejected the offer...

Barnet Unison reply that they understood that the offer that had been put to them was embargoed, not to be discussed with members yet; that, in any case, the offer is not half as good as the text on the poster says it is.

I want to thank the person who has forwarded these pictures of the poster - it probably felt like quite a brave act. Because, as you can see, the poster is absolutely EVERYWHERE: in the dinner queue, apparently; lining every corridor; replacing every poster that was there before; and appearing in all sizes. One would be enough, you might think?

What is the intended effect of this then? What do you think?

I think it has been done to frighten staff. Yes, I'll repeat that, to frighten staff.

Nick Walkley, the grown-up, highly paid, supposedly expert professional public servant has decided to try and bully fellow Barnet council employees, like a school bully would throw his weight around in the playground. What do you think of someone like this? Sinister and unpleasant about sums it up for me.

Probably not all that bright, either, since, if I were a Barnet employee, I think I would lose any residual respect I might have had for the boss who behaved like this.

P.S. Here is the text on that poster:

An open letter to staff

As many of you are aware, council staff have been in discussion with Unison over "TUPE Plus" proposals for staff in services that may be provided by an external supplier in the coming years.

The council has listened carefully to the concerns put forward by individual staff members, Unison and other trade unions.

However the action of calling a strike on 13 September by Unison confirms that the offer has not been accepted. This package of measures is a substantial package of enhancements over and above the protection provided by TUPE. The key points of the package are:

* all employees in services moving to a new employer will be able to continue their membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme uninterrupted and unchanged

* local union recognition will be protected for staff moving to external suppliers

* terms and conditions of staff transferred will be protected for at least one year after leaving the council's employment

* any changes to terms and conditions after that first year will have to be negotiated with the appropriate trade union

This offer of protection of pension rights and terms and conditions is a significant commitment at a time when both the public and private sectors are operating in challenging economic circumstances.

Regards

Nick Walkley