One of the criticisms levelled at the Council by interim Chief Executive Michael Frater was of bullying carried out by both Members and Officers.

In an interview with the Surrey Mirror reported today, our new leader Dr Andrew Povey asserted the widely discredited myth that “It is a delicate balancing act between being a tough manager and a bully”.

Bullying is nothing to do with tough management, it is bad management. Bullies are deeply insecure people, lacking management skills who bully to hide their own shortcomings.

How can the Council hope to eliminate bullying if our leader cannot tell the difference?

Today was the first Full Council meeting following the appointment of the new leader and cabinet. In the 2 previous Lib Dem group meetings we had agreed on questions to raise and motions to propose.

Questions are submitted a few days before the meeting and writen answers are circulated the day before. At the meeting the questioners are then called to ask any related supplementary questions if not satisfied with the answers provided.

Question Time

I had tabled my first question in response to the comments at the first meeting by outgoing Chair Angela Fraser regarding Equality and Diversity

The Surrey County Council Equality and Diversity policy states ‘Our elected members are responsible for acting in accordance with this equality and diversity policy and supporting the organisation to promote inclusion in our day to day practices. Committees have a role in overseeing and ensuring the implementation of the equality schemes and action plans’.

Does the leader believe it is appropriate for a Member who has publicly stated at full council that they do not believe in Health and Safety or Equality and Diversity to serve as a Council representative on the Surrey Police Authority, or indeed on any of the the Surrey County Council Committees?”

I received the following rather unsatisfactory answer from the Leader, Dr Povey

“I strongly believe that treating residents and staff fairly, and looking after their health and safety , is a key role for the County Council. I am sure all Members of this Council would subscribe to this and apply it in their roles in committees of the County Council and the Police Authority.”

I had planned to ask a supplementary question asking what action the leader would take if a member were to publicly disagree with the policy, but the Chairman announced that Mrs Fraser wished to make a statement.

She claimed that she was “emotional” during the last meeting, that she was fully committed to the principles of Health and Safety and Equality and Diversity after all and apologised unreservedly for any offence caused by her comments.

Under the circumstances I thought my point had been made to good effect so decided rest my case!

There were good questions from other Lib Dems including new member Will Forster regarding support of a Surrey wide Credit Union, from Stephen Cooksey challenging the justification of the reduction in size of Select Committees without consultation, from Hazel Watson concerning the publication of members overnight allowances, and from Colin Taylor on a bodged intervention by SCC into a catering contract at Nonsuch Park.

From the Residents Association, new member Eber Kington had 3 questions and managed to weave some scathing attacks on the leadership into his supplementaries; quite the performer and very eloquent in his own way.

Only one question from the Tories, although really it was more sycophantic statement than question, allowing the leader to agree and effuse on what a great place Surrey would be as a base for the Olympic teams in 2012.

All questions and full minutes can be read in full on the SCC website although they don’t reflect the atmosphere on the chamber, nor do they include the frequent side swipes (mainly against the Lib Dems) which some members seem to enjoy incorporating into their statements.

“Going through the motions”

I wasn’t expecting quite the level of personal animosity from the Conservatives towards the Lib Dems during the debate on the motion proposed by Lib Dem leader Hazel Watson, who moved that the Council agree that the budget planning and preparation must be started and completed earlier in the financial year and that the process be improved in future.

Given that the interim Chief Executive Michael Frater in his criticisms of the Council had stated that “… medium term planning and budgeting…is ill developed, and unsustainable… It is not based on a strategy, on priorities or on need…It is not corporate nor is it sustainable. I have not seen an approach as unsophisticated as this in my entire career” , it is clear that there are deficiencies in the process which need to be addressed.

Quite a few members spoke in the debate, with many merely taking the opportunity to make some rather spurious and vicious attacks on the Lib Dems and to venture how wonderful life would be with a Conservative government rather than addressing the real issue.

Tony Rooth (Con, Shalford) made a fairly tortuous point about how Lib Dems were always pressing for a reduction in waste and moving too many motions, going on to say how the Council should “reduce its rubbish” (the Lib Dems), “introduce rationing” (of Lib Dem motions) , ending by saying how we were “just going through the motions” to a collective groan from both sides the chamber.

He also reiterated the common complaint that Surrey was an underfunded council, speculating that this would change with a Conservative government. As Chris Townsend (Independent, Ashtead) pointed out, it is doubtful that a Conservative government would provide any more funding and reminded Mr Rooth that Michael Frater’s opinion is that Surrey is actually quite well funded (as a “floor” authority it gets more money from Formula Grant than the formula alone would provide) and that the Conservatives should stop using this as an excuse for all its failings.

Michael Gosling (Con, Banstead South) also had a dig at the Lib Dems, implying that while the Cabinet were busy working on the budget, the Lib Dems must have all been “lazing around in bed as usual”! I might have been outraged if it hadn’t been such a fatuous insult.

Hazel summed up asking the Council to accept the motion in the spirit intended, pointed out that the Lib Dems had regularly criticized the process in the past, and gave evidence that other County Councils prepare their budgets much earlier and more effectively.

Unsurprisingly the motion was defeated although unusually the RA’s voted with the Lib Dems, adding strength to the argument. I am told that the Conservatives hate it when this happens!

Short and Sweet

As these meetings apparently tend to drag on, everybody in the chamber was noticably surprised that today’s meeting finished early. My more experienced colleagues are of the view that the Conservatives have, in the past, been quite divided and therefore there had previously been more questioning and challenging of the Executive by this “internal” opposition. There was no evidence of this today.

Either they are giving the new Leadership a chance, they are more united, or maybe new members are simply sitting on the sidelines in the early stages of the new Council. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

Lunch

There was no formal lunch today but we retired to the Mess to discuss the events of the morning. There had been plans for a “Council of 2009” photo session in the afternoon but these were scrapped due to the use of County Hall as a film set which is apparently a fairly regular occurrence.

This is the first formal meeting of the Local Commitee since induction and is open to the public.

I have talked about the role of these committees before so please look at my earlier article if you need a reminder of what they do. I would recommend anyone who is interested in the workings of Local Government or what is happening locally to attend these or any other public Council meetings, it can be quite educational.

There is a full agenda today with a lot to cover in just 2.5 hours. I have heard of past overruns of 2 hours or so, but I will give credit to the chair, Cllr Dorothy Ross-Tomlin for running the meeting pretty efficiently and keeping to time.

After today, I realise the words “I will be brief Madam Chairman” do not bear much relation to how much the speaker has to say!

Petitions

Local residents are able to present petitions to the local committee and these are predominately related to highways improvements.

There are 2 petitions today, 1 for a change in road layout near Kingswood Primary School, and the other for enhanced security installations in the Horley rail underpass.

Petitioners are allowed 3 minutes to speak and the highways department have prepared reports and recommendations for discussion by the committee.

These petitions are a good way for the public to get their issues on the agenda and gauge the level of public support for a particular proposal but are just one factor in deciding what improvements are made from the limited pot of money available.

There may be equally compelling arguments from other residents against the petitioners’ proposals and all these views and those of the experts have to be balanced.

Question Time

There is also a slot for the public to ask formal questions they wish but none are forthcoming today, neither are there any from Members during Members question time.

5 Year Plan

Of particular importance to me today was the “Integrated Transport Plan”, a 5 year plan for highways improvement schemes over which the committee has some delegated authority, and which included proposals for a crossing facility on Pendleton Road near the junction of Abinger Drive which was promised some years ago under the “Safer routes to school” initiative as one of four crossings for this route. These have been constructed incrementally and this is the final stage which has not yet been funded.

A petition was presented at the last meeting regarding this crossing and the highways officer’s report in response accepts the need for improvements. 2 feasible options are presented (a) a full signal crossing or (b) a traffic island.

My view, supported by the police and the highways officer, is that a signal crossing is the best option but the response noted that this was more expensive and would involve incursion into the common land at Earlswood Common with anticipated objections from commons conservators.

The second option was the one included on the plan and as this decision was likely made in conjunction with previous Councillor for Reigate Central, it was not entirely clear what factors were considered. The Highways report had not quantified the cost differentials or impact on the common so I requested this information.

There was no instant response but I can expect clarification from the officers shortly. Fortunately the plan is only agreed “in principle” so no options are ruled out yet.

Not just highways

I should stress that the Local Committees do not just consider highway issues. There are also reports presented by the Local Education Officer and the participant organisations in the CDRP (Crime and Disorder Parnership) including the police, Raven Housing Trust, Fire Service and Trading Standards who can be questioned by members (and many do).

Local Allocations

Finally, the committee votes on individual members proposals for Local Committee funding which today include £1000 for a Carers day trip, £1000 for a community garden at Banstead Junior School and £2000 for new speed limits at Tattenham Corner.

I haven’t yet allocated any of my budget but have been talking to a number of organisations who are looking for funding. The money must be spent on projects which need one off expenditure and which promote the social, environmental or economic well being of the local community, so please contact me if an organisation you are involved with might benefit.

The Schools and Learning Select Commitee is responsible for scrutinising Schools and Learning and Young Peoples services.

Its remit extends beyond schools to Early Years and Childcare (including Sure Start), the Youth Development Service, Connexions and the Inclusion Service.

The majority of the members have experience in the education system as school governors, former teachers or other education professionals. As vice chair of governors at Brooklands School in Reigate, I am the only governor of a school solely for children with special needs and hope that I will be able to represent the needs of this section of the community in particular.

The morning session consisted of presentations from the Head of Service, Cabinet Members for Children and Learning and Community Safety, and senior officers responsible for different parts of the service.

In the afternoon we paid a visit to High Ashurst which is one of four outdoor learning facilities operated by SOLD (Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development) who offer courses and experiences to all sorts of groups of young people. There are specific courses for young people not in education, employment or training, at risk of exclusion or with special needs for whom activities are tailored to help them gain life skills not specifically related to the activities themselves.

It is a fabulous facility run by dedicated staff in a beautiful setting and the visit almost made me wish I was younger and allowed to enjoy it for myself!

Having spent the last few years talking about and being photographed next to those dreaded potholes, as a Councillor my job is to do something about them. I have arranged a “walkabout” with Terry, one of the Local Highways Officers, to discuss issues that have been raised by residents, and to find out about the ongoing maintenance and improvement program.

Councillors are often the first port of call for residents and we often know about problems before the Highways department is aware of them, so this is a great opportunity not only to visit the sites of any problems I know about, but also to learn of other issues, with the added benefit of instant feedback and professional opinion.

This is a very productive morning and I now have much better understanding of how works are prioritised, from which of the various available pots of money different types of works are funded, and of the considerable budgetary constraints under which the department operates.

Although lack of finance is not the only reason for the poor state of our roads, it is clear that a substantial increase in funding is needed to bring them up to scratch.

Please feel free to let me know of any problems either using the “Report a Problem” link on this site or by phone.

Alternatively you can use the Council’s online reporting website to report issues directly.

As a substitute member on Health Scrutiny I won’t be attending all meetings of this committee but I was invited to the induction day and will be keeping up to date with developments in the event I am called to attend in future.

As the Council is not the provider of healthcare per se, unlike other select committees the Health Scrutiny committee does not scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet but has the power to review health services in the Surrey area and acts as a consultee to NHS Bodies.

NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts have duty to consult on “substantial development or variation” to health service provision although what constitutes “substantial” is not defined by legislation and is open to interpretation.

The structure and relationships between the various providers and partnerships is quite complex and if you are interested there is loads of information on the SCC website