Topic: Wierd in Eastcott: Savernake Community Hall palmed-off onto the Tamil Association

[Richard Symonds]

Tweet

I know I'm cynical but I can't help but think that the Administration only worries about rules when it suits their purpose.

Not you are not Gorgon you are being Realistic!!

[Muggins]

Tweet

"Look at the Walcot Dome and how it was left to founder and get into trouble twice"

I don't think that's entirely fair, sometimes a group will not admit they are getting it wrong, or cling on to the failing centre - for reasons best known to themselves - because I've never been able to figure why!  There is always more going on about this than gets written in the papers, usually left out because it protects people, sometimes bills are mounting up which the community charge payers ends up paying.  sometimes, poeple just don't answer phone calls emails from their Lease owners. I'm not saying that happened at Walcot but I do know of cases where it does.   

I have never known SBC in all it's different guises and tempers, ever take away a well run centre from the community group running it.

I could, and I have often, grumbled about the lack of support offered but then, there seems even on TS to be a feeling that there shouldn't be any, even if the times were not so hard.   

[Richard Symonds]

Tweet

I think you are missing the point Muggins.

It was well known that the Dome was in trouble and help was promised by the Administration, but never provided.  For the reasons you must ask Rod Bluh.

I think it is clear then who is responsible and it is certainly not the fault of the Trustees because from what I know they weren't even aware of their responsibilites.

and yes it is important for the Administration to help but not interfere with any of these organisations not forgetting that they are volunteers.

For my part I offered that help but for reasons better known to the Trustees it was not accepted!

[Tobes]

Tweet

This move is surely the thin end of the wedge.

If community halls, then why not other elements of public provision?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dear people of Eascott,

We have decided that the future responsibility for the management of street lighting in your area is to be passed to the Kingshill Moth Apreciation Society. This decision has nothing to do with you, and we have not actively sought your opinion, although a year ago, we did write to anyone who'd regularly contacted us about street lighting (in this case, resulting from a question about the effect of sodium lighting on the navigation of Deilephila Elpenor moths) .

We will be holding a meeting to confirm discuss our decision with you, because some of you appear to be kicking up and questioning the completely open and transparent way we've gone about doing this.

Although the people now managing the street lighting will do so without mandate or without direct answerability to you or any of the rest of the residents, you will continue to fund the new 'mist-net street light moth-trap' scheme through your rates, and we will of course retain ownership of the hardware.

Thanks for this opportunity to confuse you and waste your time.

We hope you're as excited as we are to divest ourselves of another area of responsibility, you know, another of the things you think you pay us to administer, but which we'd prefer to get whoever is on our current favoured list to volunteer to do for free instead!

Yours, obediently and probably wearily, following the latest political dictat,

Joe Schmoe
Faceless drone from SBC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok ok, maybe I'm not being entirely fair to the poor officers having to enact this policy, but I'd much prefer SBC to either manage the halls or hand them over to a worthwhile group in their entirety (with PROPER due diligence, agreed criteria and full engagement from the community). Keeping ownership of an asset you're relying on volunteers to try and manage looks like a recipe for long-term decay and ultimate disaster.

[Bassettina]

Tweet

Something very strenge happening in Eascott.

The Back Garden Group have been made aware of a letter in circulation to 'regular users of the hall' that it's furture management is to be handed over to 'The Tamil Association'. The letter basically presents this change as a fait accompli, but invites anyone with any comments or criticism to contact the person in SBC - a certain Mark Feeney.

A few dozens clicks got me to this community consultation (led by Mr Feeney), which seems to hint at the bigger picture: http://www.swindon.gov.uk/cd/cd-consultations/cd-consultations-current/Pages/cd-consultations-current-communityservices.aspx

The language is inpenetrable, even by council standards, but it contains some key statements:

One Swindon is an invitation to everyone to look beyond public services as the
agencies responsible for stepping in, enforcing, removing, directing, funding,
delivering, prioritising, deciding and providing. Whilst we will always have a
role around public protection, public health, community safety and
safeguarding the most vulnerable, we want to move forward with a new focus.

We want public services to work more closely together and we will do this by
looking at joining up teams and services, creating more opportunities for
voluntary and community sector delivery, creating more effective routes for
local people to determine what key services they want to receive at a local
level, and testing out different ways of working together.

Whether this is right, wrong or fluffy Cameronesque politi-b*ll*cks, the aim is to shift as much out into the community sector as possible, while reducing grants and maintaining taxes at their current leevls.

What is strange, is that the decision over the Savernake Hall and some other community orgs is happening before the consultation has ended. Is any of the rhetoric sincere, you have to wonder.

[Martin Wicks]

Tweet

Its called the "do the job for nothing" initiative and relieve us of the bother (and the expense) of doing it. They are "empowering" the local community.

[Muggins]

Tweet

I've just sat through a very long afternoon of people telling us where we've been doing it wrong these years, of course, they didn't head it up like that, the intention was to sell a new (that's a laugh) way of getting community engagement!

They did cover the VALUE of the volunteer - called volunteers something else, but can't remember what.  There were no more than 4 'volunteers' there.

I looked around the room and if everyone in it, came to just one more community meeting a year and listened as well, then we could do so much more.  I have a fancy that the only one in that room that will be working harder and longer by the end of this year will be ?? Muggins!

I'm off to buy a lifeboat and a life jacket, i'm expecting rocky seas ahead.

[Tobes]

Tweet

It smacks a bit of Orwellian double-speak, because they appear to be failing to deliver the very thing they claim to be aiming for!

I know of one charity, which provides services for SBC for free (ironically enough, largely through the use of local volunteers) - and which receives numerous references from SBC social services departments because of the excellence of the assistance it gives vulnerable young people. It is currently located in a building which SBC charges it to use - even though through its work it actively saves SBC ££££s and delivers real positive and measurable results. Its very much part of the community. But because its not a 'regular user' of a community hall at the moment, this organisation will have been completely unaware of the opportunity to bid.

Use of a facility like this would secure the future of the charity in question - and yet, every time they consult with SBC about it, they get given the brush off and another bill is presented for a building which, once they vacate, will no doubt become another empty cost overhead for the council - and indirectly, everyone who pays rates.

There really needs to be a bit more of a professional approach to the way they conduct things to make it all more joined up, otherwise all sorts of opportunities are going to get needlessly missed.

[Tobes]

Tweet

Latest intel. is that several members of one of the main users of the hall - the toddler group - were completely unaware of any opportunity to bid for the ongoing management of the hall.

The process (with the implication of the motives) of this fait accompli hand-over are looking increasingly open to question... It may be just an unfortunate set of circumstances and people reading too far in to something... but on the current performance of SBC, it seems reasonable to exercise some caution and scepticism...

Lets see if the meeting resolves anything.

In the meantime, I'm requesting a moratorium on any handover until:

A - the process can be checked as being delivered as described
B - the wider community (ie. those who help subsidise the building and for whom it ought to be a LOCAL amenity) are invited to have their say too

[edit update, I've just had it confirmed that this is something the ward councillors are going to ask for]

NOTE - I imply no criticism of The Tamil Association and if the correct procedure is followed, they may indeed be the best suited candidates to manage the hall, if that is the will of the community. However, I believe that there is significant cause for concern for the process to be properly scrutinised.

[concerned_of_Old_Town]

Tweet

I had a circular through the door from TS blogger and  aspiring Labour candidate Chris Watts asking for our views and giving an update. According  to Chris's note the council have informed him that  the consultation process has been going on for two years and ALL groups had an open invite to join in at any time.  It would be interesting to find out what the consultation involved as the council view does not match the Toddlers group.

However the more I think about it makes sense for the actual users of the Hall  manage it  (rather than the distant council) as they know exactly what they want and will be empowered and motivated to make it a success.  In an ideal world be good if all the users form some kind of management committee and take joint responsibility for managing the Hall. Did the council try and make this happen?

However experience at work and elsewhere suggests that committees and volunteers do not necessary work and you need real doers who are prepared to get their hands dirty and do the hard graft!  If the Tamil group are going to do this good luck to them.  However need safeguards  to ensure that the minority groups are not marginised and every one has an equal chance to run the Hall.

[Mart]

Tweet

S'all OK, in the interests of balance I have just rented out Euclid Street. I carried out extensive consultation.

The new management team is:

A subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group

Involuntary membership in the group (no personal choice)

Differentiated on the basis of culture such as language, food

Groups who have a religion other than the dominant faith.

Yes, management has been handed to a group of WASP married couples in full time work earning an average of £26k a year.

Did I mention I 'did' consultation?

I did you know.

[Muggins]

Tweet

I know based on previous expereince that we think that SBC is just riding roughshod over everything, when it seems proper consultation was at an all time low, but I wonder if this is a latest lack of consultation is new thing or a temporary thing. 

A councillor is saying on a another social networking site, that he didn't know his road was being shut, can't find out who has planned to shut it, can't remember any consultation on it etc.  Now if a councillor can't find that out, hasn't seen any paperwork etc. on it, then it looks like Tobes is right - consultation simply has not been done.

Could it be that the people who usually set the ball rolling on this have been made redundant or replaced with people that have not been properly 'inducted'. 

Or could it be in the BIG re-organisation the very thing the changes are being made for - greater community power in Locality, are already falling a tthe first hurdle.

Tobes, have you and the community been introduced to your new Locality Lead, because this could not be a better job to start them on.

[Richard Symonds]

Tweet

A councillor is saying on a another social networking site, that he didn't know his road was being shut, can't find out who has planned to shut it, can't remember any consultation on it etc.  Now if a councillor can't find that out, hasn't seen any paperwork etc. on it, then it looks like Tobes is right - consultation simply has not been done.

So as I have said above it is pointless for Council agreeing to any motion because they do not have to be implemented?

Just for those of you who skip read, it was agreed in full council some six or seven years ago

'That Officers 'Must' Advise Members of anything relevant to their Ward.'

Meanwhile in Eastcott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tobes]

Tweet

Tobes, have you and the community been introduced to your new Locality Lead, because this could not be a better job to start them on.

Is that one and the same as the previous CPCP thingumy bob? If so, yes, I do believe he is involved and has been copied on correspondence.

[Muggins]

Tweet

It might not be the same one, what Cluster, whoops, locality are you in?