The other thing that councils really don't like to do is acknowledge the depth of experience and expertise that might exist within their own communites.
Some of that expertise is very expensive stuff - when charged - and that makes their unwillingness to make use of it even more bizarre.
When I am employed as a consultant (as opposed to eking my way as jobbing journalist) I am paid at rates not dissimilar to those that the Council no doubt shell out on their commercial consultancies.
I am recognised as an expert on data law, on statistical research - and a few more areas besides. So, if I stick my hand up and offer to help, it always strikes me as strange when councils say no - and prefer instead to spend their money on external consultants.
Oddly, this refusal to capitalise on expertise available is likely to be against the advice that some of the cutting edge consultancies are probably giving them.
Sad. Also, at times, something that makes me very cross indeed, since at the end of the day, their refusal to listen means I end up paying more as a ratepayer anyway.
Showing posts with label arrogance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arrogance. Show all posts
Saturday, 21 November 2009
The most depressing thing... (part I)
...about local authority bureaucrats is their inability to hear anything that isn't said by "approved people".
The list of approved people is, of course, pretty short, and is restricted mainly to other bureaucrats, their political masters in London and County Hall - and any assortment of consultants currently relieving them of large quantities of money at £1,000+ per day.
That can be the only explanation for the pretty pisspoor reaction to ANY public criticism. After all, this week I reported on how Lincolnshire Community Health Services were piloting a survey for parents of five-year-olds that appeared to be excessive, intrusive and possibly not even wholly legal.
It was duly taken up by the Mail. The BBC reported on it. So did the local press. And whilst, in the interests of balance, some supportive voices were published, the general reaction was pretty universally hostile.
People really do object to local authorities asking question about whether their children lie, cheat or steal.
So what is the Health authority doing? Is it openly talking about possibly having got things wrong.
Nah!
They are pressing on as before. They will take into account parents views "as appropriate": and as for suggestions that the suervey might be flawed, either legally or in pure data-gathering terms - they really aren't interested.
Is anyone even remotely surprised. After all, sticking fingers in ears and loudly repeating "not listening" is the culture of government we now have after a decade of nanny state knows best.
The list of approved people is, of course, pretty short, and is restricted mainly to other bureaucrats, their political masters in London and County Hall - and any assortment of consultants currently relieving them of large quantities of money at £1,000+ per day.
That can be the only explanation for the pretty pisspoor reaction to ANY public criticism. After all, this week I reported on how Lincolnshire Community Health Services were piloting a survey for parents of five-year-olds that appeared to be excessive, intrusive and possibly not even wholly legal.
It was duly taken up by the Mail. The BBC reported on it. So did the local press. And whilst, in the interests of balance, some supportive voices were published, the general reaction was pretty universally hostile.
People really do object to local authorities asking question about whether their children lie, cheat or steal.
So what is the Health authority doing? Is it openly talking about possibly having got things wrong.
Nah!
They are pressing on as before. They will take into account parents views "as appropriate": and as for suggestions that the suervey might be flawed, either legally or in pure data-gathering terms - they really aren't interested.
Is anyone even remotely surprised. After all, sticking fingers in ears and loudly repeating "not listening" is the culture of government we now have after a decade of nanny state knows best.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Bin there (haven't done that)
I know. I really should get back to my local Council (South Kesteven).
About a year ago I asked them whether micro-chipping bins was not a matter covered by the Data Protection Act (2001).
Their legal department responded in three stages. First: they had only been in post for a couple of days - so couldn't possibly comment. Then, a day or so later, they grew more confident and categorically stated that this was not a matter to which the DPA applied. But they'd consider it further.
Finally, they told me to go away. Or, in council-speak: "we have addressed this question in our previous e-mails and there is nothing more to add".
Oh dear. The only problem with this response is that the DPA is something I know a lot about. So does the Information Commissioner - whose Office wrote back to me wondering why the Council should think this was NOT a matter covered by the DPA.
So I really need to follow up.
Of course, this illustrates a sad trend in modern Councildom. Were I acting as a consultant on their behalf, I would have given much the same advice. (I would, of course, have taken a suitable fee for same!).
I would have identified chipping as an "active risk". The amber lights would have started flashing. They might have had the chance to avert a possible future derailment of their scheme.
But mere ratepayers are of no consequence. So the Council carries on regardless.
And if their scheme turns to ashes, it will be I, as ratepayer, who picks up the tab.
About a year ago I asked them whether micro-chipping bins was not a matter covered by the Data Protection Act (2001).
Their legal department responded in three stages. First: they had only been in post for a couple of days - so couldn't possibly comment. Then, a day or so later, they grew more confident and categorically stated that this was not a matter to which the DPA applied. But they'd consider it further.
Finally, they told me to go away. Or, in council-speak: "we have addressed this question in our previous e-mails and there is nothing more to add".
Oh dear. The only problem with this response is that the DPA is something I know a lot about. So does the Information Commissioner - whose Office wrote back to me wondering why the Council should think this was NOT a matter covered by the DPA.
So I really need to follow up.
Of course, this illustrates a sad trend in modern Councildom. Were I acting as a consultant on their behalf, I would have given much the same advice. (I would, of course, have taken a suitable fee for same!).
I would have identified chipping as an "active risk". The amber lights would have started flashing. They might have had the chance to avert a possible future derailment of their scheme.
But mere ratepayers are of no consequence. So the Council carries on regardless.
And if their scheme turns to ashes, it will be I, as ratepayer, who picks up the tab.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)