« "Outrageous, illogical, counterproductive and wrong" | Main | Central Buying Consortium »
July 19, 2007
MLA in chaos again
The reason I couldn't find a copy of the proposed document about a search for The strategic Partner to operate the library service on behalf of the MLA was because the MLA were trying to keep it a secret!!
They thought they had sent it out only to their friends -- and not to councillors etc who are the people actually responsible for operating our libraries.
It was yet another attempt by Andrew Stevens etc to try and decide how public money shall be wasted, without telling everybody who needs to know.
But they have been found out. Why does the Minister put up with these bungling hoodlums? What will the Admiral do? Get out the short plank and the shark tank.
What the MLA and the DCMS seem either to ignore or not understand is that if the public library service is to improve, it is local councillors who have to take responsibility and the bring about the appropriate actions.
It is no good for ever passing plans and expensive consultancy documents around professional and chief librarians; they are not in a position to and do not have the means or authority to make changes. Improvements need to involve indiviodual and a concensus of councillors-- the actions need to be made at their behest of councillors- not officials of the MLA
It's not hard to understand - but no one seems to.
Posted by Tim Coates at July 19, 2007 1:45 PM
Comments
What we need is a reform of the Act, to allowe for a mixture of staff, councillor and user administration of services.Handing power 'back' to local councillors alone is no guarantee of success; there's enough evidence of elected official idiocy to show that.
Posted by: Pete at July 19, 2007 2:52 PM
Sorry I don't agree that we need to change the Act. I have always believed that the Act defines a set of accountabilities and responsibilities that should work - it just depends on whether people act responsibly. Changing the Act will distract people for a long time and only reshuffle the roles of existing people. "Who's in Charge" discusses this at length; so does my evidence to the Select Committee hearings in December 2004
My view is that the new role of portfolio holding councillor has created a mechanism that should work well. However, so far, too little time and effort has been spent helping these people to grasp the subject properly and thus give the direction that is needed. Moreover officers in councils continue to evade and misinform these councillors which makes it virtually improssible for them to do the job.
For example, in Hampshire, the extent to which officers have misled the councillors over many years is almost beyond belief. That is one of the main reasons that the service there is in such a terrible state. Councillors simply don't know one tenth of what they need to provide common sense guidance on behalf of their electorate.
Posted by: Tim Coates at July 19, 2007 7:27 PM
No need to apologise; reasoned disagreement is of the essence of democracy after all :)
Whilst what you say has some force, I am afraid that I have little confidence that even with all the facts at hand a cabinet based council system is the guaranteed cure; as you say it depends on responsible behaviour and it is naive at the least to expect that local councillors will always act responsibly. As I said on my very first comment here, the state (here councillors) is just people, and no more free from foibles than anyone else.
Leaving things totally in the hands of councillors merely replaces what you see as civil servant partisanship with party politics; see the Library of Birmingham for a prime example.
Perhaps if there were more of a direct link between councillors, users and library staff that would be a good thing; this could be what some sort of local library board would allow for, and no reform of the Act would be necessary.
Posted by: Pete at July 20, 2007 9:10 AM