How NOT to make a decision and NOT bring the public, staff and traders along with you

Seldom can I recall a council decision so poorly made and so poorly justified as the council’s planned changes to the operation of Ormskirk market from April.

I’d much prefer to be able to show you the officer report which went to the council’s cabinet and critique it, but the report is private and confidential and it seems from the reaction of the council since then, that the attitude of “least said, soonest mended” prevails.  Unfortunately for the council, public disquiet understandably continues, so I will try to shed some light on the matter.

The decision was taken by the council cabinet (7 Labour councillors who hold the senior decision-making positions) in June last year to approve changes to the operation of the market from April 2020.  The report before councillors gave the impression that the changes were required to save money and that the market traders had been widely consulted and were in favour of the changes.  The report was passed by the councillors on cabinet in less than 1 minute with no questions asked or comments made.

Our West Lancashire wanted to ask the officers who wrote the report some questions at the subsequent scrutiny committee, but no relevant officer attended the meeting.  This pattern of rapid decisions by cabinet followed by no chance for effective scrutiny is a sustained pattern at the council.  The first three questions I asked at Overview and Scrutiny Committee this year received the answer “We don’t know” from the officers present. 

So, in Our West Lancashire we set about our own investigations.  We discovered financial inconsistencies in the reported financial position of the market.  The report to cabinet in June presented a financial position based on budgeted figures for the current year, not the previous year’s actual figures.  Expenditure is usually overestimated.  In addition, the financial figures presented to cabinet included costs for “pilots” involving gazebos that the council stated in the same report would end.  If that was the case, those costs should have been removed from the figures presented to councillors.

We carried out a survey of market traders.  It was clear that there had been no meaningful consultation with the traders by the council and the council subsequently confirmed to us that they have never asked the market traders if they are in favour of the proposed changes.  Our West Lancashire asked and found that only 1 in 5 traders supported the changes.  

An inclusive, self-learning organisation involves, consults and seeks improvements from its employees.  I will be careful what I say here, but I can say that the council employees who put up the market stalls were not involved in the proposed changes and their ideas were not sought by their managers.  Up to sixteen of these staff face receiving redundancy notices in the coming weeks.

So, in the autumn, Our West Lancashire started raising concerns with council officers and cabinet members.  We raised the profile of the matter through press releases and Facebook postings.  Throughout, the council has deemed that it does not need to comment on or justify its actions in any way.  This is not the sign of a organisation confident in its rationale at the service of its population.

We asked for information on the financial inconsistencies.  It was finally received only after repeated requests and many weeks late.

Residents contacted Labour cabinet members asking for an explanation of the changes to be made.  Those residents have not received substantive responses after several months.

We raised questions with the council’s health and safety manager.  After two weeks he went away on holiday with the questions unanswered.

I raised concerns with the portfolio holder, Councillor Yates in November.  He promised to keep me updated about his discussions with officers.  Nothing.

I asked questions of the Council Leader, Councillor Moran in the council meeting in December.  No answers.

I corresponded again with Councillor Yates at the beginning of January… well you can guess the result.

There are aspects of the council’s plans for the market that make good sense to me, but others raise real concerns.  It’s difficult for me to talk about all those in detail because the report is private and confidential, but the council could easily release large parts of it into the public domain without breaching commercial confidence.

If the council think that least said, soonest mended will continue to stand them in good stead they are mistaken, they will pay a price.  In the meantime, they could start to rebuild some trust by fully answering the questions put to them and justifying the decisions they have made.