by David Skentelbery
A FURIOUS row has broken out over Warrington Borough Council's plan to hand over leisure and cultural services to new, not-for-profit organisations, saving around £500,000-a-year.
The proposals have come under fire from unions - and from an opposition councillor.
Cllr Kevin Reynolds (pictured), Liberal Democrat, was involved in heated exchanges at a meeting of the council's executive board.
Afterwards, he complained bitterly at not being allowed to ask questions at the board meeting.
He said: "At the last meeting of the full council we were told we could put questions to the executive board. But when I tried to do so I was told I should have given notice and that I should put my questions in writing.
"These schemes involve the biggest ever movement of council staff out of the council. I wanted clarification about numbers involved and about the implications for people's pensions.
"We are talking about the jobs of about 500 people here - people who have given many years service to the council, but who are going to be transferred to some trust or charity. There are a lot of questions about these proposals which have not been answered.
"It looks to me like privatisation by the back door."
In a joint statement, the Town Hall unions UNISON and GMB complained that a 162-page report on the proposals had been dealt with in just 13 minutes by the executive board, with no questions and no debate.
UNISON joint secretary Jason Horan, and GMB secretary Bob Pinnock said they were incensed to hear claims there had been full consultation with the unions.
They said: "To suggest consultation has taken place is a blatant disregard of the truth.
"It was clear from the document that behind-the-scenes work over a lengthy period had been going on, but at no point were any meetings proposed or arranged to consult with the trade unions.
"The first sight we had of any report was at the executive board meeting which decided to move forward with implementation. It's a disgrace that full and meaningful consultation has not taken place on proposed options and delivery models which will now be fiercely challenged."
Leader of the council Terry O'Neill condemned Cllr Reynolds' actions at the executive meeting as "heckling."
He said: "Cllr Reynolds' heckling and outbursts showed a complete lack of respect for the hard work put in by council officers.
"The papers for the meeting were issued over seven days previously so if Cllr Reynolds had genuine concerns, why did he not submit his questions as per the council constitution or at least approach me before the meeting started?
" His actions smack of pavement politics and he appears to be more concerned about trying to grab headlines than acknowledging that it's his Coalition government that has slashed £50million from this council's budget.
"Unlike other Tory and Lib Dem councils where they are shutting down services or handing them to the private sector, here in Warrington we are looking to set up not-for-profit leisure trusts which we see as the best way to safeguard our sports centres and community facilities and also protect local public sector jobs. Our proposals also ensure that any profits get re-invested in these facilities and do not get paid out in the form of fat-cat dividends."
The proposals involve two not-for-profit organisations to take over the running of the council's leisure centres, libraries and cultural services like Pyramid and Parr Hall and Warrington Museum.
The council claims the move will save £500,000, secure delivery of the services and attract external funding not currently available to councils.
Buildings and assets would remain with the council and a board of trustees, which will include borough councillors and Warrington residents, will be set up to give each organisation its strategic direction.
The day to day management of these services and all current staff who work in them will transfer out of the council's employment and into that of the two new organisations.
Cllr Kate Hannon, executive member for leisure and culture said: "I must stress that we are committed to protecting local jobs and ensuring we continue to deliver quality leisure and cultural services to our residents."
Follow @warringtonworld
The proposals have come under fire from unions - and from an opposition councillor.
Cllr Kevin Reynolds (pictured), Liberal Democrat, was involved in heated exchanges at a meeting of the council's executive board.Afterwards, he complained bitterly at not being allowed to ask questions at the board meeting.
He said: "At the last meeting of the full council we were told we could put questions to the executive board. But when I tried to do so I was told I should have given notice and that I should put my questions in writing.
"These schemes involve the biggest ever movement of council staff out of the council. I wanted clarification about numbers involved and about the implications for people's pensions.
"We are talking about the jobs of about 500 people here - people who have given many years service to the council, but who are going to be transferred to some trust or charity. There are a lot of questions about these proposals which have not been answered.
"It looks to me like privatisation by the back door."
In a joint statement, the Town Hall unions UNISON and GMB complained that a 162-page report on the proposals had been dealt with in just 13 minutes by the executive board, with no questions and no debate.
UNISON joint secretary Jason Horan, and GMB secretary Bob Pinnock said they were incensed to hear claims there had been full consultation with the unions.
They said: "To suggest consultation has taken place is a blatant disregard of the truth.
"It was clear from the document that behind-the-scenes work over a lengthy period had been going on, but at no point were any meetings proposed or arranged to consult with the trade unions.
"The first sight we had of any report was at the executive board meeting which decided to move forward with implementation. It's a disgrace that full and meaningful consultation has not taken place on proposed options and delivery models which will now be fiercely challenged."
Leader of the council Terry O'Neill condemned Cllr Reynolds' actions at the executive meeting as "heckling."
He said: "Cllr Reynolds' heckling and outbursts showed a complete lack of respect for the hard work put in by council officers.
"The papers for the meeting were issued over seven days previously so if Cllr Reynolds had genuine concerns, why did he not submit his questions as per the council constitution or at least approach me before the meeting started?
" His actions smack of pavement politics and he appears to be more concerned about trying to grab headlines than acknowledging that it's his Coalition government that has slashed £50million from this council's budget.
"Unlike other Tory and Lib Dem councils where they are shutting down services or handing them to the private sector, here in Warrington we are looking to set up not-for-profit leisure trusts which we see as the best way to safeguard our sports centres and community facilities and also protect local public sector jobs. Our proposals also ensure that any profits get re-invested in these facilities and do not get paid out in the form of fat-cat dividends."
The proposals involve two not-for-profit organisations to take over the running of the council's leisure centres, libraries and cultural services like Pyramid and Parr Hall and Warrington Museum.
The council claims the move will save £500,000, secure delivery of the services and attract external funding not currently available to councils.
Buildings and assets would remain with the council and a board of trustees, which will include borough councillors and Warrington residents, will be set up to give each organisation its strategic direction.
The day to day management of these services and all current staff who work in them will transfer out of the council's employment and into that of the two new organisations.
Cllr Kate Hannon, executive member for leisure and culture said: "I must stress that we are committed to protecting local jobs and ensuring we continue to deliver quality leisure and cultural services to our residents."
Follow @warringtonworld
Share this article
| Tweet |
11 Responses to "Row over leisure and culture hand-over" 
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 8:10:20 AM BST
Here again is the modus operandi of Warrington Borough Council. Spend months producing a vast report to back up whatever you would like to do - for whatever reason. Offer minimal time for consultation and discussion. If you can, avoid it all together. Row with anybody who asks the slightest question. Make it political. Labour don't have a monopoly on this because the last authority followed exactly the same pattern of behaviour.
Incidentally, while Terry O'Neill is trying to provide us with a nice populist soundbite about 'fat cats', he might also want to consider that these savings are being more than offset by the ridiculous pay rises awarded to WBC's very own fat cats. i think we'd all agree to chair him shoulder high around Golden Square if he got to grips with the money grubbers and corrupt offices in his own organisation before overhauling a key council service in this way.
|
Author)|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 8:29:13 AM BST
It is time that councillor O'Neill and the rest of the Town Hall politicians realised that "Dictatorship" in a Democracy isn't the way forward. You take people WITH YOU BY DISCUSSIONS, not BY A BIG STICK.
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 8:47:50 AM BST
I understand that a number of local authorities have, or are, setting up so called not for profit trusts to run leisure departments. Warrington is not unique in doing it, and indeed seems to be behind the pack. I understand that there are VAT and business rates savings to be made by setting up such organisations. Given most people who use leisure type services now opt for those run by private businesses, I'm not sure leisure can be considered a key council service anymore, so I guess if Warrington doesn't overhaul how it runs its leisure department, it might well cease to exist in the years to come.
|
|
said this on 12 Nov 2011 3:55:12 PM BST
so many of them have gone to the wall - have a lo9ok at Hertfordshire
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 9:07:36 AM BST
Maybe so. But why give 13 minutes discussion time to a plan that has been developed over many months?
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 11:12:50 AM BST
Indeed, if it is a fully developed plan it shouldn't need further discussion at all, all the discussions should have taken place during the development of the plan. Not sure why your council has a board meeting, might be better to just publish a list of things that the council will be doing.
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 12:04:43 PM BST
They should have done, but clearly didn't. As I said in my first post, this is a pattern of behaviour we have seen over a number of years.
regarding your point made below in response to CTP, you could argue that this top down style of decision making, coupled with a routine inability or unwillingness to deal with contentious issues and mistakes, only serves to alienate voters.
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 9:43:00 AM BST
Altho' they have only been in control for a short period of time it is time for Councillor O'Neill and his colleagues to step aside from attempting to run this Officer lead Council. The word "Consultation" ought to be uppermost in the minds of our elected Councillors, however, this is just what is missing at the moment. There must be a better way of running WBC that the current "Dictatorship". Roll on May 2012 when we can all have a say! We simply have to elect people to run WBC who are prepared to discuss projects with the electorate to obtain a concensus. This current Executive Board must realise that they cannot conduct themselves in this way without speaking to residents. It is quite clear that this decision has been made elsewhere and that discusssion has been taking place behind closed doors over a long period of time. Staff, as usual, have not been considered and quality of service provision will not even be on the agenda.
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 11:30:49 AM BST
Alas CTP only about a third of your voters actually vote, so regarding a concensus, given that two thirds of people don't vote, it can be assumed that they are either content with the way things are or can't be bothered. With regards to consultation on this matter, do you really think many people would bother to take part, and at the end of the day, if those who do take part don't get what they want they will condemn the consultation as a sham. I guess the only thing that you can do CTP is stand for election in May 2012 and see if you can get elected and see if you can bring in the changes that you want, but don't be shocked or upset if residents are then critical of you.
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 10:04:14 AM BST
It shocks ms how the unions don't know half the stuff that goes on, do you know there trying to alter our hours yet again!! It would cost more to run the services in the way they want but yet again no one listens. This council will soon be gone!
|
|
said this on 19 Oct 2011 7:47:25 PM BST
Why are we so surprised? It should be clear to us all by now that secrecy, lack of consultation and a propensity for mushroom management has been endemic in the administrations of Warrington for many years. This state of affairs is ingrained in the workings of the Council, whichever party or groups are in power. The ethos of concealment as a nod and a wink for confidentiality or expediency has seeped into every corner of the Town Hall. So much so, even council officers (ie. employees of the Council) have been shown to have concealed significant or vital facts information from the elected members, secure in the knowledge they will not be brought to book when their situations became known.
Liberally paraphrasing Lord Acton “Everything secret degenerates, even within the administration; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.” Until all our elected members resolve to run their respective administrations in more open, transparent and democratic fashion the people of Warrington will continue to be the losers.
|
