Author Topic: Community engagement (Read 3251 times)

Russell Holland · « **on:** August 21, 2011, 10:22:08 AM »

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9206977.Residents_may_lose_chance_to_air_views/

I would be interested to hear views on community engagement. In Swindon we have community councils, clusters, parish councils and in west swindon there is the area forum. Any views as to what has worked well or could be better in respect of community engagement?

the gorgon · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2011, 10:41:51 AM »

Community engagement only works if the council actually listens and doesn't spew rhetoric and spin at them!

Perhaps the people of Eastcott feel that their concerns about the Swindon College redevelopment haven't been listened to by SBC and realise that there is little point in engaging with a council that seem incapable of engaging with them?

A similar thing is happening with the whole Croft School business, locals want to engage with the council (going so far as to arrange an event) but the council seems unwilling to engage with them. When the council does respond to residents concerns it does so with spin and rhetoric worthy of Alastair Campbell.

Russell Holland · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2011, 10:53:09 AM »

I think there is always going to be a problem because different people want different things. Also there can be a trade off between immediate local interests and the interest of the town overall. This often comes up in planning - for example there are some types of development which people are not going to want to have near them but are needed for the town. In the case of planning applications - the law requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the local development plan unless material planning considerations apply so there is a defined legal process. Also even if the Council refuses permission, it can still be granted by a Planning Inspector.

What about things like services being provided locally? for example would residents like to have some control over cleaning in their local area. Would there be scope for local commissioning?

Steve Wakefield · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:09:51 AM »

Let us have a debate about what is community engagement?

However let's make one thing clear Parish and Town Councils are properly recognised and constituted in England, there are somewhere between 8-9000 councils. They have powers to raise their own funds through precept and employ over 25,000 staff, whilst their annual expenditure is almost half a billion pounds (£500 million).

Over 15 million people live in areas with parish and town councils or some 35% of the population. I believe since 1997 almost 200 parish council's have been created.

The other mechanisms in Swindon are either informal or a formal ones created on an informal basis by the council. The west Swindon Forum happens because cllrs in West Swindon made it happen and put regular meetings on. So it was an informal, formal council group. I am sorry if it sounds confusing, but in my opinion Swindon's engagement with and by the council is at present piecemeal, with groups and organisations that encompass the whole community.

For example it is being claimed that Haydon Parish council are debating how SBC spent millions of Haydon S106 monies, without full and comprehensive involvement with the Haydon Parish Council. Furthermore it has taken 4 years of meetings with SBC to obtain a partial list of where the monies have been allocated/spent.

Are Parish council's a hard to reach group?

Chris Watts · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:11:48 AM »

The article was accompanied by a picture of residents with the support of local Liberal Democrat Councillors.

Unfortunately, these same local councillors are more likely to be part of the problem and not the solution. Eastcott residents' associations have been marginalised by political participation that can only serve to alienate a large section of the community from participating. Of the four Eastcott Residents Associations, two are chaired by Lib Dem Councillors, one is regularly promoted in conjunction with the Lib Dems Focus group whilst the fourth has managed to successfully hold off Eastcott Councillors' influence. Unless Eastcott Residents Associations can detach themselves from the local Councillors, or any political body for that matter, then they will not be taken seriously by those disillusioned by the political process or by those who are not Liberal Democrat supporters. It is fair to say that, in some cases, the reason people become involved in these groups is because they can not get things done through their Councillors and therefore take the initiative into their own hands, only to find those same local councillors are running the show.

It is right that Councillors and Council Officers should attend resident association meetings, but they should not be setting the agenda, hold positions on the committee or attempt to hijack meeting as the Lib Dems did at a meeting at the Beehive. (for which they were reprimanded by the chair). Furthermore, these meetings should not be seen as an opportunity for self promotion or a substitute for Councillor surgeries, as seems to be the case.

I am aware that this problem is not isolated to Eastcott Ward. It must be a priority for all resident associations to evolve constitutionally in order to ensure that they throw off political ties in order to gain broader acceptance if localism is to succeed.

To this end, I feel it would be prudent for the Council to form a working group to create a templated constitution that all residents association should adhere to in order to be recognised.

I wish the Eastcott Community Council well and hope they continue to represent the local community. I think that their problem is that they seem to measure success on the number of people that turn up. I think that with a residents associations numbers are vanity, and the important thing is that if a serious issue does arise that the residents association is on hand as a conduit into the council without political shackles. Croft Area Residents Association has demonstrated this with 150 attending their last meeting due to the single issue of the School.

Russell Holland · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:18:45 AM »

Steve,

Totally agree with you that Parish and Town Councils are completely different because they are created by statute, are democratic and have precept powers. I am currently looking at how we can work in partnership with parishes, because I want to promote closer working between the Borough and Parish under the One Swindon policy. It may be that in rural areas that the parish is quite happy as it is but in urban areas there may be greater scope for joint working.

I don't know how common it is but in Swindon we have some areas that are parished but some not parished. I don't have strong indications that unparished areas would like to be become parished or vice versa. So it may be that given the historical development of different forums that what works well in one area may not work well in another.

Steve Wakefield · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:56:41 AM »

Quote

To this end, I feel it would be prudent for the Council to form a working group to create a templated constitution that all residents association should adhere to in order to be recognised.

I always have concerns about this as many groups form from the community over one issue, and numbers can be quite great, about a local issue ie a child is injured crossing a road and a crossing is being demanded. A planning application creates a group, the group may well melt away after the matter has been resolved,but the people have to be listened to and represented/advocated for by councillors.

These informal resident/concerned citizen groups usually more than 2 people form and should be dealt with equally in my opinion with teh status of constituted groups. Regulating and making groups follow a process can be viewed by some as trying to choke off groups at birth. I accept if they are to be granted council tax payers money then it should be constituted and be accountable and audited on how that money is used.

Richard Symonds · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:02:25 PM »

The way to get Community Engagement is to take the politics out of the clusters by having a totally Independent Chairman who 'invites' local Councillors to attend.

For my part I used to attend the West Swindon forum but decided it was a waste of my Time and Energy as there are more productive ways of achieving results for my concerns. Notes were taken of what I raised but I cannot remember one instance where anything was actually done about them.

Depoliticise these meetings and people may take more interest in them.

MrGrumpy · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:07:20 PM »

In my opinion, the Borough is set up to protect the 'political' nature of its existence and listening to other people's views would not support this nature. It is a truism that politics eventually gets rid of any administration because of their detachment from the community. An administration will have a certain number of years carrying out their own agenda before the tide turns and people get fed up. This happens for all parties. Therefore, whilst politics is involved in the forums/clusters or any public consultation then ears will never truly be open on both sides because there is no proven track record of the Councillors listening to what people would like to see in their community and, more importantly, what they don’t want to see.

The people of Swindon tell the Council what they think...Only about 30% of the electorate vote in local elections and many residents will say, “We don’t bother to talk to the Council because they do what they want anyway!” OneSwindon expounds the, “I like where I live” philosophy but even when the whole community ({Parish Councils and Community organisations) tells the Borough that they have major concerns about something such as a planning application then it goes ahead full steam with an adversarial and cutting edge – different views to the administration are viewed with great hostility even when they already hold the power and nearly all the cards apart from the ballot box!

Politicians need to be more mature in this matter. Consultation is a two-way process and the compromise might benefit both sides. The community has a great tapestry of knowledge about the local area and the more people you speak to the deeper the tapestry is revealed to be. There is a moral and higher element to community engagement. Doing the right thing has not been a popular idea with politicians for a long while and the ‘moral wing’ has been all but silenced in the current administration in Swindon.

Whilst the Borough has such power already, the balance of power in community engagement is of paramount importance. Whilst the Borough seeks to hold onto this power by appointing cluster chairs from its own, not from the partners or the community, then balance has not been achieved. The system of devolving money to the clusters is still non-existent and there is great confusion on when a system will be put in place.

Everyone needs to understand that the OneSwindon agenda is viewed with suspicion because the central government have aligned community engagement with cost cutting! This kind of presentation of any idea can only break trust between parties.

Steve Wakefield · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:16:19 PM »

Interesting post Grumps

This is the one Swindon Partnership Board just so posters know what is being referred to http://www.swindonsp.org.uk/ssp-index/ssp-boardmembers-2/swindonstrategicpartnershipboard-2biogs.htm

Richard Symonds · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:23:01 PM »

Thank your for the link Stephen

Interesting entry for Rikki (For Free) Hunt, very short on wordage. Has anybody checked his claims and when are one of you politicians going to ask for his resignation as Chairman of the SSEP?

After all unless something has happened of which I am unaware Digital City still owes the Council £400,000 plus rising interest doesn't it?

Steve Wakefield · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:28:09 PM »

Cheers Richard

More detail here:

http://www.swindonsp.org.uk/ssp-index/ssp-boardmembers-2.htm

Richard Symonds · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:34:48 PM »

Quote from: Steve Wakefield on August 21, 2011, 12:28:09 PM

Cheers Richard

More detail here:

http://www.swindonsp.org.uk/ssp-index/ssp-boardmembers-2.htm

Very interesting how much do these positions command in salary and expenses?

I would love to know what they have achieved to date a per pro cost?

and you have not answered my question as to when one of you politicians will demand the resignation of Rikki (For Free) Hunt have you?

How on earth can this organisation enjoy any credibility as long as he is Chairman of the SSEP

Steve Wakefield · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:18:26 PM »

Richard

Read this http://www.swindonsp.org.uk/ssp-index/ssp-index-7.htm

Russell Holland · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:30:38 PM »

Thanks for replies.

Chris, Richard and Mr Grumpy- I agree that there is a debate to be had about what role Councillors should have - my instinct is that Councillors need to have an important role because they are democratically elected. When it comes to clusters the question would be who would be the appropriate representatives. If you take the One Swindon Partnership Board - the representatives are all senior people from their respective organisations so in that it case it is a question of each organisation nominating someone. In the case of an individual ward or cluster it is not so clear as to how to make up the group. It is like Steve says - sometimes a group may be a small number of individuals so may or may not be representative - however as Mr Grumpy points out - given election turn outs can be low the same point can be made about Councillors. However, I think the democratic aspect of Councillors is something that needs to be recognised.

Richard - on the SSP - I don't think there are allowances for being on this. Maybe Steve or someone can correct me if I am wrong. In respect of Rikki Hunt's role I think that he was nominated by the SSEP so I think it is a matter for the SSEP rather than the Council see http://www.ssep.org.uk/ssep/ssep-about.htm It is up to partner organisations who they nominate.

Mr Grumpy - I see where you are coming from and I definitely would agree with you that community engagement is of paramount importance. I would also agree that, at this stage, the Council has not yet formally decided on the precise community governance arrangements. This work is taking place at the moment - so we need to consider (1) the lessons from clusters (2) the different models for community engagement (3) borough parish relations and other factors. So at the moment - I would say that we are at the start of the journey and are open minded about what form engagement and community governance will take. I realise this sounds a bit nebulous but by embarking on a different way of providing services it is going to take time to work out what works for what types of services in what areas. However, we are committed to putting more power into the hands of residents.

Planning applications because they are governed by their own laws are in a separate category.

I also accept your point about community engagement and cost cutting. I think all I can say on that is that yes there is a serious need to reduce public expenditure because of the deficit. However, the desire to increase community engagement and devolve power is motivated by a philosophy that would like individuals, families and communities to have power. While it is felt this will enable scarce resources to go further, the main motivation is to redress the balance of power between the individual and the state.

Mart · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:04:11 PM »

All of the time that councillors are required, out of pragmatism if nothing else, to have an allegiance to a political party then they are hopelessly compromised.

It is political allegiance that defines the rules of engagement.

If I have a Labour councillor I know that whatever I say, or an appreciable majority of the ward say, then all of the time I have a Labour representative my message will be trumpeted if it is counter to the Tory view, and mangled if it is supportive of the Tory view.

It is self perpetuating bollocks and no matter how large the lexicon of names that talking to your voters gets the outcomes will remain drearily consistent with those desired by the ruling party.

A particluar blind spot is WiFi, all the time Rodders and Gazza are in charge not one Tory will say a feckin thing out of line or off message.

Fact.

If you want to engage with the electorate disengage from the party system.

Baaa goes the sheep.

the gorgon · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2011, 03:09:48 PM »

I think Mart has summed it up very nicely. Using Croft again as an example look at how Jim Grant has seized the controversy to bash the Tories with.

There was a very interesting article I read just now on the BBC News website about political folly (in general but also in respect to the Euro) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14587364. A US historian describes it as "a perverse persistence in a policy that is demonstrably unworkable or counter-productive". No amount of engagement will do any good if SBC is hell-bent on a ~~folly~~ policy (why does WiFi spring to mind? $:-\$ ).

Russell Holland · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2011, 03:45:31 PM »

The role of political parties is another interesting debate.

If there were no political parties it is difficult see how politics would work in practice. Suppose everyone were an independent, how could a consensus be reached? Most major decisions would have to be made based on a series of deals between those individuals. the advantage of a party is that candidates can run on broad platforms so that broadly speaking people know what they are voting for. Even if there were no party labels most people would lean towards more or less government involvement so they would tend to gravitate towards each other and coalitions or groups would naturally emerge.

For myself, I consider that I have an obligation to the people who live in my ward, to Swindon as a whole and to promote, so far as possible, the aims and objectives of the Conservative philosophy. Most of the time I don't find that there is any conflict between these objectives.

I would however draw a distinction between the role of political parties in general and the role of political parties in community engagement. I would agree that if there is a sense that community engagement is taking place to promote a party then most people will switch off.

With One Swindon and Stronger together it is important to keep in mind that this is something agreed by all parties so the move is towards greater community engagement.

Muggins · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2011, 04:38:56 PM »

Move over you lot: - not that I would have a long enough post on here to say all I need to say - from someone who is trying to do it every day and has been for the best part of thirty years.

I will agree, that if you are to go about meaningful community engagement, then those you engage need to feel that it has been a worthwhile experience or they just won't bother next time. Over the years the various groups I've been with have made demands - perhaps not the right word, in the first instant, we've never gone to the council with anything other than to 'ask', nicely at first, if the response is a big fat NO with no LOGICAL explanation as to why, then we've gone off and done on our swatting about our rights to 'ask' and checked for ourselves whatever gave us the idea to think we could ask in the first place. If we find we could/should ask and that the reasons for the NO are not correct, then we have tried again with a 'report' on the policies, interpretations etc. that we felt fitted the bill. Usually the answer is still a big fat no, becasue someone won't admit they got it wrong in the first place.

Over the years we got really good at that - nothing quite like it for 'building capacity'.

On occasion we have worked with or alongside the Parish Councils, and I have found that they do usually know their stuff. They have a bit more clout that the ordinary community association and if I had not been so busy here, I would have liked the experience of being on a parish council (I could be - I live within yards of a parish boundary)

Community Associations get a pretty raw deal - they usually need a bit more support to do what they have to do and they differ widely in knowledge, activites and responsibilities. They are nearly all, if not all, charities, some charitable limited companies, most of them hold licences (not alchohol) etc. There are totally insufficient support (quality and quantity) for them from all quarters at present and even less funding and with no community asset transfer policy and therefore no leases, they are hamstrung at bringing in more larger funding to their centres etc. As charities or even if they just have charitable aims, they still have to hold AGM's, produce audited accounts, the people interested in doing this for their communties are still elected to the committees at AGM's.

Councillors are elected to represent their wards - not their own ideas and I get concerned about how they gather that information and how they give feedback - other than their local party groups and political leaflets. I/we do not expect our councillors to achieve everything they are asked, but again the refusal or inability to to things.

Community groups or interest groups are in much the same state and function in the same way.

However you go about engagment - you can't do it without us, and as I said at a meeting the other day - you (not the personal you, Russell, have to stop ignoring the awkward customers and learn to deal with them, just the same as we do those awkward people in our communties - they are usually the more passionate about their interest and therefore know the most. It's a skill worth learning anyway. Learn how to bring them into the light, so to speak and be willing to take an enormous learning curve and move into the light yourself.

One last thing - there has been a mantra in SBC that we front line troops (so to speak) - 'the same old, same old' I believe we are called -are standing in the way of this vast army of volunteers and engagement, that for some reason can't get past us. This is an absolute fallacy - there is no vast army and the picture of emptiness you see before you know really is as frightening as it looks.

We have been treated dreadfully over the last 5/10 years.

I'm only still here because I'm cussed.

Russell Holland · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2011, 04:43:35 PM »

Muggins - thanks for the post - I don't know what your background is exactly but if you have voluntary sector experience and would like to meet to discuss anything relating to communities please feel free.