There are a number of issues that are undermining civic participation, and endangering the effective running and prosperous development of Springfield Ward.
A. Lack of regular Springfield Ward Advisory Board Meetings leading to disastrous consequences
1. In the glossy 2005 District Plan, the chair of the Springfield Ward Advisory Board (WAB), cllr. Jeremy Evans lauded the District's democratic processes - the WAB an arena for robust and serious debate. The council website states that the Springfield Ward holds regular WAB meetings. However, last year the Springfield WAB did not meet for six months because the chair unilaterally decided that there was no business to discuss, without formal notification or consultation with fellow Board Members, notwithstanding the Springfield Ward has four neighbourhoods which are in the 10% most deprived in England and Wales with chronic multi-faceted problems.
2. Without regular WAB meetings, it was not surprising for the chair of the WAB to be completely oblivious to a major, longstanding (82-years) and high-paying local employer (Yuasa formerly Lucas Batteries) closing with the loss of 350 jobs. As a result, the chair of the WAB - who is also a member of the influential Birmingham Strategic Partnership (BSP), was unable to relay the closure of Yuasa when the BSP met at the end of April 2005 to discuss the impact that the closure of MG Rover would have on deprived inner city wards. Had the chair of the WAB held regular meetings, he would have known about mass redundancies at Yuasa and could have raised it at the BSP and lobbied Job Centre Plus (JCP) and Learning & Skills Council (L&SC) who also sit on the BSP - to treat both MG Rover and Yuasa workers on an equal footing. The chair of the WAB exercised poor error of judgement and Yuasa workers have suffered by being denied the same employment and training opportunities as MG Rover workers. Meanwhile L&SC has £25m left unspent.
https://www2.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/333194.html
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506961.pdf
3. When the above issues were raised at a recent WAB meeting, the chair blamed the former Ward Support Officer for making the decision not to hold regular WAB meetings! The City Council’s Constitution states that those responsible for decision-making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they are seen to explain the reasons for their decisions. Lord Nolan’s Public Life first report states that holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the actions and decisions they take. We need a formal explanation why the WAB did not meet for six months and why did a majority of the Board members who to claim to represent the community and its problems did not complain when the WAB did not meet for six months.
4. To compound the initial error of judgement, on 8th March 2006 the chair of the WAB excluded the representative for Greenly Fields Neighbourhood Forum (an Old Age Pensioner) from the Springfield WAB notwithstanding that Greenly Fields is home to Yuasa Batteries as well other factories in Springfield that are either downsizing (NipponDenso) or have closed in recent years. In addition, the chair prevented the local MP’s nominated representative, Mr. Marcus Brain from sitting at the WAB table. The chair of the WAB is excluding anyone who is liable to question the manner in which Springfield is run and key decisions are taken, in particular to Neighbourhood Renewal Funding.
B. Lack of accountability & transparency in allocation and distribution of Neighbourhood Renewal Funds
5. The government has identified 88 of the most deprived areas in the country and has allocated a budget called the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) to enable those areas to catch up with the rest of the country. Springfield Ward receives over £600,000 of NRF per annum. It is at the Ward Advisory Board that key decisions are made about how NRF is distributed and to which community organisations.
6. Inner city Ward Advisory Boards are dominated by people who appear not to be suitably qualified nor understand the multi-dimensional challenges faced by community but claim to represent the interests / concerns of the community. Their only expertise is being deferential to officials in order to secure public funds for their questionable organisations. The said representatives hardly say a word in WAB meetings, do not question decisions made by councillors (such as using NRF to subsidise a failing mainstream council service e.g. environmental services [a councillor from a neighbouring ward has to personally remove posters from Springfield]; only turn up to bid for funding for their cash-starved organisations and once funding has been approved they could not care less if the WAB does not meet for many months until it is time to submit bids for the next financial year. Only these so called representatives of the community did not know about the closure of Yuasa and the loss of hundreds of high-skilled and high-paying jobs.
7. The awarding of NRF is not open and transparent or subject to proper peer review. It is difficult to establish from which postal address they operate from; what it is their organisation / project is supposed to be delivering in the community (is funding used to pay salaries, rent on property owned by relatives, friends); and what exactly is the criteria that is being used to approve / reject projects. There is no visible improvement to Springfield after £600,000 has been spent. Springfield’s budget appears to be funding projects in the North i.e. Sparkbrook Ward.
8. Nepotism appears to be taking place. A representative on the WAB will promote a project put forward by a relative. Another community representative has two roles on the Springfield WAB depending on who turns up at the WAB; from 30,000 residents living in Springfield, two of them just happen to be relatives sitting on the WAB? One representative privately agrees with these concerns but is not prepared to ‘bite the hand’ that feeds their organisation. Is it sheer coincidence that organisations that receive NRF also receive grants from another source?
9. The case of Global Teaching Services (GTS) highlights serious shortcomings with the WAB. The chair received a box of chocolates and a bottle of champagne from a Mr. Mohammed Fiaz who runs GTS. GTS subsequently received NRF. GTS does not have the appropriate planning consent to operate and one of the conditions for applying for NRF is compliance with all the necessary planning and legal requirements. Until recently, both the chair of the WAB and Cllr. Tanveer failed to declare interests in GTS when approving NRF for GTS and whenever discussions have taken place about GTS, thereby breaching the City Council’s Code of Conduct. When challenged at the Ward Meeting of January 2006, Cllr. Tanveer finally admitted to sending his children to GTS. Yet this admission was not recorded in the latest minutes and in the March 2006 Ward Meeting a request was made for this admission to be recorded in the corrections. Did Mr. Fiaz / GTS benefit by giving gifts? Why did the project officer approve funding for GTS when it does not have planning consent and did he receive gifts; and are there other organisations that receive NRF giving gifts to officials?
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/Gifts%20Register.pdf?MEDIA_ID=105921&FILENAME=Gifts%20Register.pdf
10. When a community representative raised legitimate concerns about GTS at a Ward Meeting in August 2005, Cllr. Tanveer insulted the said representative by calling him ‘a liar’, thereby breaching the City Council’s Code of Conduct in relation to treating others with respect. To date, Cllr. Tanveer has failed to apologise despite repeated requests and opportunities to do so and neither has the Council’s legal department taken action to reprimand Cllr. Tanveer notwithstanding a legal officer was present when Cllr. Tanveer used defamatory language. The exchange was not even accurately minuted. GTS has been reported twice for flyposting in the Ward.
C. Failing to listen, address and represent the key problems of the Ward
11. The chair of the WAB is failing to listen to, or highlight the key problems or represent the interests of Springfield when given the opportunity to do so, particularly in respect to employment and training. The chair of the WAB is also vice chair of the Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In the last Committee meeting (21st Feb), a report was presented on Opportunities for Skills Development through regeneration and major developments. The report stated that despite the recent transformation of Birmingham and the creation of new job opportunities, unemployment rates in inner city wards have remained higher than the national average which is leading to alienation; and that considerable skill shortages in the construction, health and social service sectors was being met by importing labour from outside the city. In the meeting, the chair of WAB failed to highlight topical problems in Springfield in respect to unemployment, deprivation as well as the inadequate and inappropriate training given to hundreds of Yuasa workers who could have been trained up to meet the skills shortages in the construction industry. In the last Ward Meeting under matters of urgent local concern, when an attempt was made to highlight this and other matters such as the outcome of a meeting that concerned community representatives had with senior officials from JCP and LSC, the chair was not interested and closed the Ward Meeting prematurely at 9pm when it was scheduled to last until 9:30pm.
1. In the glossy 2005 District Plan, the chair of the Springfield Ward Advisory Board (WAB), cllr. Jeremy Evans lauded the District's democratic processes - the WAB an arena for robust and serious debate. The council website states that the Springfield Ward holds regular WAB meetings. However, last year the Springfield WAB did not meet for six months because the chair unilaterally decided that there was no business to discuss, without formal notification or consultation with fellow Board Members, notwithstanding the Springfield Ward has four neighbourhoods which are in the 10% most deprived in England and Wales with chronic multi-faceted problems.
2. Without regular WAB meetings, it was not surprising for the chair of the WAB to be completely oblivious to a major, longstanding (82-years) and high-paying local employer (Yuasa formerly Lucas Batteries) closing with the loss of 350 jobs. As a result, the chair of the WAB - who is also a member of the influential Birmingham Strategic Partnership (BSP), was unable to relay the closure of Yuasa when the BSP met at the end of April 2005 to discuss the impact that the closure of MG Rover would have on deprived inner city wards. Had the chair of the WAB held regular meetings, he would have known about mass redundancies at Yuasa and could have raised it at the BSP and lobbied Job Centre Plus (JCP) and Learning & Skills Council (L&SC) who also sit on the BSP - to treat both MG Rover and Yuasa workers on an equal footing. The chair of the WAB exercised poor error of judgement and Yuasa workers have suffered by being denied the same employment and training opportunities as MG Rover workers. Meanwhile L&SC has £25m left unspent.
https://www2.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/333194.html http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506961.pdf 3. When the above issues were raised at a recent WAB meeting, the chair blamed the former Ward Support Officer for making the decision not to hold regular WAB meetings! The City Council’s Constitution states that those responsible for decision-making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they are seen to explain the reasons for their decisions. Lord Nolan’s Public Life first report states that holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the actions and decisions they take. We need a formal explanation why the WAB did not meet for six months and why did a majority of the Board members who to claim to represent the community and its problems did not complain when the WAB did not meet for six months.
4. To compound the initial error of judgement, on 8th March 2006 the chair of the WAB excluded the representative for Greenly Fields Neighbourhood Forum (an Old Age Pensioner) from the Springfield WAB notwithstanding that Greenly Fields is home to Yuasa Batteries as well other factories in Springfield that are either downsizing (NipponDenso) or have closed in recent years. In addition, the chair prevented the local MP’s nominated representative, Mr. Marcus Brain from sitting at the WAB table. The chair of the WAB is excluding anyone who is liable to question the manner in which Springfield is run and key decisions are taken, in particular to Neighbourhood Renewal Funding.
B. Lack of accountability & transparency in allocation and distribution of Neighbourhood Renewal Funds
5. The government has identified 88 of the most deprived areas in the country and has allocated a budget called the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) to enable those areas to catch up with the rest of the country. Springfield Ward receives over £600,000 of NRF per annum. It is at the Ward Advisory Board that key decisions are made about how NRF is distributed and to which community organisations.
6. Inner city Ward Advisory Boards are dominated by people who appear not to be suitably qualified nor understand the multi-dimensional challenges faced by community but claim to represent the interests / concerns of the community. Their only expertise is being deferential to officials in order to secure public funds for their questionable organisations. The said representatives hardly say a word in WAB meetings, do not question decisions made by councillors (such as using NRF to subsidise a failing mainstream council service e.g. environmental services [a councillor from a neighbouring ward has to personally remove posters from Springfield]; only turn up to bid for funding for their cash-starved organisations and once funding has been approved they could not care less if the WAB does not meet for many months until it is time to submit bids for the next financial year. Only these so called representatives of the community did not know about the closure of Yuasa and the loss of hundreds of high-skilled and high-paying jobs.
7. The awarding of NRF is not open and transparent or subject to proper peer review. It is difficult to establish from which postal address they operate from; what it is their organisation / project is supposed to be delivering in the community (is funding used to pay salaries, rent on property owned by relatives, friends); and what exactly is the criteria that is being used to approve / reject projects. There is no visible improvement to Springfield after £600,000 has been spent. Springfield’s budget appears to be funding projects in the North i.e. Sparkbrook Ward.
8. Nepotism appears to be taking place. A representative on the WAB will promote a project put forward by a relative. Another community representative has two roles on the Springfield WAB depending on who turns up at the WAB; from 30,000 residents living in Springfield, two of them just happen to be relatives sitting on the WAB? One representative privately agrees with these concerns but is not prepared to ‘bite the hand’ that feeds their organisation. Is it sheer coincidence that organisations that receive NRF also receive grants from another source?
9. The case of Global Teaching Services (GTS) highlights serious shortcomings with the WAB. The chair received a box of chocolates and a bottle of champagne from a Mr. Mohammed Fiaz who runs GTS. GTS subsequently received NRF. GTS does not have the appropriate planning consent to operate and one of the conditions for applying for NRF is compliance with all the necessary planning and legal requirements. Until recently, both the chair of the WAB and Cllr. Tanveer failed to declare interests in GTS when approving NRF for GTS and whenever discussions have taken place about GTS, thereby breaching the City Council’s Code of Conduct. When challenged at the Ward Meeting of January 2006, Cllr. Tanveer finally admitted to sending his children to GTS. Yet this admission was not recorded in the latest minutes and in the March 2006 Ward Meeting a request was made for this admission to be recorded in the corrections. Did Mr. Fiaz / GTS benefit by giving gifts? Why did the project officer approve funding for GTS when it does not have planning consent and did he receive gifts; and are there other organisations that receive NRF giving gifts to officials?
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/Gifts%20Register.pdf?MEDIA_ID=105921&FILENAME=Gifts%20Register.pdf 10. When a community representative raised legitimate concerns about GTS at a Ward Meeting in August 2005, Cllr. Tanveer insulted the said representative by calling him ‘a liar’, thereby breaching the City Council’s Code of Conduct in relation to treating others with respect. To date, Cllr. Tanveer has failed to apologise despite repeated requests and opportunities to do so and neither has the Council’s legal department taken action to reprimand Cllr. Tanveer notwithstanding a legal officer was present when Cllr. Tanveer used defamatory language. The exchange was not even accurately minuted. GTS has been reported twice for flyposting in the Ward.
C. Failing to listen, address and represent the key problems of the Ward
11. The chair of the WAB is failing to listen to, or highlight the key problems or represent the interests of Springfield when given the opportunity to do so, particularly in respect to employment and training. The chair of the WAB is also vice chair of the Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In the last Committee meeting (21st Feb), a report was presented on Opportunities for Skills Development through regeneration and major developments. The report stated that despite the recent transformation of Birmingham and the creation of new job opportunities, unemployment rates in inner city wards have remained higher than the national average which is leading to alienation; and that considerable skill shortages in the construction, health and social service sectors was being met by importing labour from outside the city. In the meeting, the chair of WAB failed to highlight topical problems in Springfield in respect to unemployment, deprivation as well as the inadequate and inappropriate training given to hundreds of Yuasa workers who could have been trained up to meet the skills shortages in the construction industry. In the last Ward Meeting under matters of urgent local concern, when an attempt was made to highlight this and other matters such as the outcome of a meeting that concerned community representatives had with senior officials from JCP and LSC, the chair was not interested and closed the Ward Meeting prematurely at 9pm when it was scheduled to last until 9:30pm.
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following comment