Customers count not just ones that aren’t yours. This is the case and the message firmly put to utility provider Scottish Water this month (Nov 09). Independent checks on the repairs to the roads they dug through in the Scottish highlands to lay pipes found that in 10 out of 14 cases the water supplier had failed to to re-lay the roads to the neccessary standard once work was complete. As a result they attracted the highest ever number of fixed penalties (some 273 or £33,000!) in a six month period April – September 2009. Poor workmanship effects ALL people in this way and that means YOU the tax payer who has to put up with shoddyness akin to this.

Highland councillors are now in the process of meeting Scottish Water to get them to explain these results with one councillor calling it “scandalous”. Very true, and it’s up to all of us to draw attention to such lax standards. If you see similiar get onto your councillor or council or even local newspaper and DO NOT ACCEPT BEING FOBBED OFF. Councils represent us and the standards of life but need our concerted help to be shown where those standards fail.

Fight Back Tip: Don’t moan to yourself if you witness poor standards like the above. Get writing, get calling, get motivated and get others to notice what’s going on. Talk to the powers that be and get them to take action. Together we are better and we can improve things.

When purchasing a crossword dictioney (yes I use them, whatever), look for hints on how to solve cryptic crosswords. What I’ve learned so far is to deconstruct the clue and concentrate on seperate parts. So tried that for the following:

Dough’s aim: cure Somali population (9)

sterilisation: > 9
cake < 9

So far no progress, will keep trying.

As this is the first post, I think it prudent to explain the title a little. I’m currently studying PR and it’s mind-boggling how intricate the area can be. We’re learning some of the tricks of the trade, but I’m learning a lot outside the classroom as well.

Position papers are nifty little things that help present an organisation or individual’s opinion on an issue. They can also to incite open dialogue regarding an issue, and counter another organisation’s opinion. The idea behind them is to convince the audience that the opinion is worth listening to.

I found that it’s handy to include in the position paper:

Factual Knowledge – to gain credibility
Statistical Inferences – interpretation and examples of an accumulation of facts to back up the argument
Informed Opinion – opinion developed through research and/or expertise of the claim; to appeal to the intellectual lot
Personal Testimony – personal experience related by a knowledgeable party; to appeal to everyone else
The position paper should be targeted at an audience (more of that later) as people process information differently.

Demir Dokic is like the wog* father I never had; disciplining his daughter when deemed necessary, able to protect himself, colourful language, thinks the whole world’s out to get him, threatening to blow up the Australian Embassy in Serbia, you know the way.

For those of you who don’t know him, Demir Dokic is the estranged father of Australian tennis player Jelena Dokic. Jelena returned to professional tennis is great form at this year’s Australian Open (good on you!). Her old man’s something of a non compos, to put it fairly.

What goes on in his head has confused Australians for a while now. He’s like that American dad who forced his 9 year old son to start bodybuilding and claims that he’d be “nothing’ without his father’s help.

I think Demir would be great on television in something like “Expel my Family,” or “Aussie Towers.”

Poor Steve Brumby. His constituents are really up ‘that kind of’ creek in the west right now. Veteran Labour MP George Leitz, was found to have “extremely close” links with the council majority while Theo Theophanos exercised some political muscle over the relocation of Cairnlea Park.

Premier Brumby has said that the behaviour of the offending Brimbank Council members was “an affront to democratic processes,” but hasn’t so far given any of the the boot.

Position papers, Premier Brumby?

- ends -

* this term is used affectionately, as blogger’s origin is mixed European, aka ‘white wog’

Men and women in North Yorkshire are preparing to be caught short this winter. This follows news that the local District Council has to save on spending a penny, well actually £6000 on convenience comforts. The Council has announced that public toilets in villages popular with walkers and tourists may have to be closed from November to February unless volunteers can be found to keep them open.

A spokesman said:- “This is something that will happen every year from now on – there is no choice.”

So I have a few ideas that may help. In the affected areas perhaps a ‘Pee Free’ scheme could be set up. A bit like neighbourhood watch in so much as participating households can display a toilet symbol in their windows to welcome complete strangers into their bathrooms to use the facilities. Who knows what friendships may be formed. Alternatively, disposable plastic potties and urinal pans could be made available for collection from the Council Offices for people wanting to visit these inconvenienced zones. Botty wipes in the form of recycled newspaper could also be provided. Sorry, but you would have to take the receptacles home with you once full, as the emptying stations or toilets would still be locked. For the more adventurous there is a good range of toilet pants to fit all sizes available at participating Council Offices. I am sure a suitable information leaflet will be provided.

Personally I am going to go for the exercise and fitness option. I have ordered a set of bladder expanders……excuse me, there’s the doorbell now!

The government has commissioned a review into what is meant by “suitable” and “efficient” home education.

The Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls, has said that a definition of what is meant by “suitable” will help local authorities to “reasonably determine whether home educated young people are making progress”.

Although most of us send our children to school, the law does not insist that children are sent to school. But those who are not, must be provided with education at home, and it must be “suitable” and “efficient”.

The government is planning a new registration scheme to register all home educated children. There will be annual inspections, and parents who home educate will have to convince the inspectors that they are providing a good education.

The registration scheme will be administered by local councils.

That would be the same local councils that run our State schools then, of which 56 are admitted by the government to be failing and are in “special measures”, and which see 1 in 6 children leaving school unable to read, write and add up.

Schools Minister Diana Johnson was quoted as saying that the government has a commitment to balance parents’ rights to home educate with the need for “checks and balances … so we can be confident every child is safe and learning”.

Ms Johnson, we actually know that many children in your State education system are not safe or learning. So I wonder why you think the people charged with running that system are the best people to inspect home educators?

Maybe you should be asking them instead why they are failing so badly in running our schools?

Saturday, 5 September 2009, 8:54 am
Article: Christopher Adams

Auckland City Council Tightens Taxi Permit Noose

By Christopher Adams – AUT University Journalism Student

Taxi drivers who want to use council-owned ranks will soon require permits if the Auckland City Council has its way.Transport committee chairperson Ken Baguley said the permits would address bad driver behaviour, such as queue-jumping, and ensure a quality service operates at council-owned ranks.

The Audit Commission has published the report Is there something I should know? (PDF, 1.28mb) looking at the way local councils use information to make decisions.

The report’s purpose is to encourage senior members of local councils to be more demanding about the information they seek, and use, during the decision making process.

The report highlighted that:

• 9 out of 10 councils believe good quality information is a top priority
• However, less than 5% of councils have excellent quality data
• 65% of councils face problems sharing data externally
• 80% of councils say a lack of in-depth analysis is a major problem
• Two thirds of councils say members struggle to understand information, but half of all councils provide no formal training in the area and almost a quarter provide no support at all

The report contains suggestions on how information can be utilised more effectively in the decision making process and is supported by a number of practical tools including:

• Self assessment framework
• Resources for elected members
• Analyst diary
• Resource mapping tool
• Decision making guides
• Links to training and support

For more information, visit the Audit Commission website where you can access the full report and practical tools.

PETALING JAYA, 6 July 2009: A coalition of civil society organisations is calling for Selangor to take the first step towards reinstating local council elections by allowing citizens to select councillors next June.

Maria Chin Abdullah “It’s doable. Civil society is all ready to help them with the election, free of charge,” said Maria Chin Abdullah, chairperson of the Coalition for Good Governance (CGG).

Maria said the CGG presented a report to the Selangor government last week with recommendations for short and long-term actions the state could take towards reinstating local council elections nationwide.

The CGG is pushing for Selangor to immediately start work on a form of local elections that would bypass the Election Commission and the Local Government Act. The coalition called this the people-oriented selection process.

The system is meant to allow Selangor to hold local elections without having to pass any laws that could be vetoed at the federal level. States have to consult the National Council for Local Government, which is provided for in the constitution, before passing laws related to municipal councils.

In the proposed system, eligible voters who live in Selangor would nominate and vote for candidates in their constituency.

A selection commission made up of state government staff, non-partisan activists and academics would oversee the elections. The state government would then appoint the winning candidates as councillors.

Noel Dass, a member of the CGG, said he was optimistic the recommendations would be taken seriously despite the widespread view that there was no political will to reinstate local elections.

Noel Dass The group was simply asking for Selangor’s Pakatan Rakyat-led government to uphold its election campaign promises, he noted.

States that are led by the Barisan Nasional (BN) could also use the reinstatement of local elections to show they are serious about governing in the people’s interest, he said. “It’s a matter of holding them accountable. Prove what you mean when you say, ‘We are for the rakyat.’”

The CGG estimates it would cost about RM4 million if the modified elections took place over 12 weeks, and RM5 million if they took place over four weeks.

Lobby needed

State governments should lead a lobbying effort for nationwide local council elections, Maria said.

She said state governments could push the issue into the agenda of the National Council for Local Government, and lobby for a Royal Commission on Local Government.

“We’re not saying the permanent solution will happen overnight. We are realistic. It could take years,” she added.

In the meantime, the CGG will continue to monitor appointed councillors through task forces, Maria said.

The Selangor government is expected to release the names of this term’s appointed local councillors today.

Local council elections, which were held after independence, were abolished in 1965 by the BN following the Confrontation with Indonesia in the 1960s. This was achieved through the Emergency (Suspension of Local Government Elections) Regulations 1965.

Some have argued that the real reason behind the suspension of the “third vote” was because the Alliance then feared the opposition taking over major Malaysian towns.

The Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) full board meeting today (29 June 2009) agreed that all documents related to development planning should be made available to the public, except for the building design, which can be made available with the consent of the building owner.

At its meeting today, councillor Cynthia Gabriel said they should make a decision on the public access to information in the case of development planning.

Councillor Derek Fernandez cited the court decisions in the case of Petaling Jaya, where the Town and Country Planning Act provides for the public to have access to all information about a development project to facilitate their participation in the decision making.

As the executive director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, I welcome the decision, but feel that local councils should have a policy on public right to information to cover all information and not just those related to development planning. In the long run, councils should adopt a right to information law to make the local governments more transparent and accountable to its constituents.

See previous stories on the topic in The Star here and The Nut Graph here.

Gayathry V.

Liz Azyan has updated her list of UK local councils on Twitter. On April 11th 2009 there were 101 with Newcastle City Council having the most followers (1050). She has also started lists of US, Canadian and Australian local government on Twitter.

It’s the Biggest Brother instrusion into privacy in history. From tomorrow across the European Union every email will be stored, details of every website visited by every person will be stored, even information about every internet phone call will be stored, initially for a year.   But then all it takes is another directive to extend the storage indefinitely. These will be available to the Government, police and security services, as well as hundred of local government agencies and even what we call “quangos” in this country – quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations – of which there are no end.

Just like the anti-terrorism laws that have now allowed local councils to stalk people and invade their privacy in many different ways on suspicion of having the wrong rubbish bins or living across the street from a local school catchment area, the same jobsworths with now be able to know everything about you while they go on fishing expeditions to find anything else you might be doing wrong.

Britain has not be an unwilling participant in all of this. It has, in fact, led the way. It makes the Home Office’s Intercept Modernisation Programme much easier to implement. Under the European directive, internet service providers will have to store the information. Under the Home Office plan, the Government itself will have one giant database of their own, through which everything will be monitored and which will gather far more information.

Of course the Home Office won’t reveal the full extent of its plans, just like the European Union would not reveal what it was doing until it was in place. We certainly have no guarantee that either Brussells or Whitehall have told us anything near what they have actually done or what they actually intend to do with it. That what they have told us is so disturbing makes it all the more worrying.

As we have seen over and over and over, every bit of private information the Government has collected manages to go missing, whether it is the bank details of every family with children or top secret military data on laptops or the confidential details of every prisoner in the UK and of 5,000 employees of the justice system, and the list goes on and on.

All this electronic surveillance is on top of every bit of information held by any part of central or local government, and with socialised medicine this includes all medical records, being available to any bureaucrat at any level. Even I called that the end of privacy. That was in January and it was only the beginning of the end.

Only a few years ago, this would have been the stuff of science fiction – a paranoid all-controlling state actively engaged in monitoring every move, every conversation, every communication instantly and at every level. This would have been the fantasy of communist police states, but only realised in what for some silly reason we call the free world.

London Councils this week warned that London’s boroughs must be given greater flexibility if they are to eliminate child poverty in the capital. The organisation’s response to the Child Poverty Bill consultation argues that the government’s proposed new statutory duties for local authorities and their partners to tackle child poverty will only be successful if boroughs are provided with sufficient freedoms to respond. It also warns that in the current economic climate, extra effort will be required to keep child poverty at the top of the policy agenda. 
 
The organisation is calling for boroughs to be given greater freedoms from government control around housing benefit, tackling worklessness and childcare to respond to their residents’ specific needs and thus tackle child poverty at a local level. It also supports the London Child Poverty Commission’s proposal to extend the housing benefit payment period once an individual moves into employment from four weeks to six months – which would increase the likelihood of them staying in work. Increased training opportunities should also be made available to those in receipt of housing benefit.
 
London Councils also wants to see successful pilots from the government’s Childcare Affordability Programme rolled out on a large scale in partnership with the boroughs to help more parents into work, and for councils to have greater control over back to work programmes. Child poverty is reflected in the National Indicator Set (Indicator 116—Numbers of children in households dependent on out of work benefits). Local authorities can choose to select child poverty as a target in their local area agreement and 45 have already done so. Kitty Usher, Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that the Government is committed to refining this indicator to ensure that low income families are included in this measure.  However she also said ‘we need to do more to ensure that all delivery partners prioritise child poverty and take action.’

Despite advances in tackling child poverty nationally, London’s child poverty rate remains high. 41 per cent of London children live in households with an income below 60 per cent of the national median income after housing costs (compared to 30 per cent nationally). However, London local authorities have a long track record of successfully delivering a range of services to tackle the causes and impact of child poverty. This activity has increased in recent years and includes:

• Nine boroughs (Croydon, Enfield, Harrow, Islington, Kingston, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Westminster) signing up to the London Child Poverty Pledge, with another eight London boroughs (Barking and Dagenham, Hackney, Haringey, Merton, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth) making a commitment to doing so
• 11 London boroughs (Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Westminster) have committed to include the child poverty indicator (NI 116) as a priority in their Local Area Agreements (LAAs)
• A number of London boroughs are now working more pro-actively and effectively across departments to develop coordinated corporate responses to reduce child poverty, including Enfield, Islington and Waltham Forest
• Four London boroughs (Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Waltham Forest and Westminster) have also been selected to run government funded Local Authority Innovation pilots (out of a total of 10 nationally), demonstrating the enthusiasm, knowledge and expertise that exists amongst London boroughs.

The London Councils’ response to the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ (DCSF) consultation on the Child Poverty Bill can be found at:
 
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/children/childpoverty/briefings/2009childpovertyconsultation.htm

I know the LGA’s list of banned council jargon has been about for a few days, but this is a story that deserves to run and run.

You know you’re in trouble when you can recognise every single word on there, and you believe it makes perfect sense. I and my colleagues have become fluent talkers of policy wonk, and it’s rather like joining a cult. You start to suspend your reservations and inhibitions, your judgement begins to become distorted, things that two years ago seemed outrageous, perverse even, start to seem utterly normal.

Take these, all used in anger in documents I have recently written:

• innovative capacity
• potentialities
• situational
• transparency
• synergies

The LGA have helpfully provided an alternative where an alternative exists. Much of the time, they’ve merely commented ‘Why use at all?’. They attach this to most things to do with networks and innovation, I note with interest.

And that’s surely got to be the acid test – if you had to explain a phrase to someone in words of one syllable, could you do it? And if not, what the hell are you doing saying it? Most of the words I have a sort of tacit understanding of, but I struggle to explain them convincingly.

There is a point to some of this jargon, to be fair. Words do matter, precision counts, especially when it comes to doing research that will shape public policy. Some of the banned words are actually hugely important to social scientists and really do mean a very particular thing which doesn’t have any other name – indicators aren’t just measurements as the list suggests, they’ve got a much more complicated hinterland than that. But whether that word should ever be on a leaflet that comes through your front door is another matter.

Surely part of any policy person’s work is to make what they do as accessible to as many people as possible, without making it simplistic? It’s lovely to create a little clique who share a secret language, but the job of these people is to serve the public interest at the end of the day. This is really the thrust of that list – you lose people’s attention and trust pretty quickly if you use words that, frankly, sound like they’re from David Brent’s inbox. That, and the matter of personal pride that one shouldn’t be caught talking bollocks in a public place.

Today, the Local Government Association published a list of 200 words which, it says, should not be used by Local Councils.  You can view the full list at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7949077.stm.

The LGA’s intention is perfectly understandable; they want to promote clear communication through the use of plain English.  After all, I don’t think there are many people who want phrases such as “Predictors of Beaconicity” trotted out, and less still who would have the vaguest clue what it actually means.

But from my company’s perspective (Company Net), as a supplier of software services to organisations which include Local Councils, the LGA’s latest mandate presents more than a few problems.   For a start, phrases such as “functionality”, “scoping”, “protocols”, “transactional”, “parameter” and “toolkit” are all outlawed, all of which are common parlance within the software development fraternity. 

In an operational sense (an area close to my heart), other phrases are on the hit-list.  I’m not allowed to talk about “resource allocation” any longer; the word “framework” is also banished.  But why stop there?  Why not ban methodologies as well?  “Outputs” are forbidden, but somewhat bizarrely, “inputs” are not.  Perhaps this suggests that that there was no “outcome” (another word for the scrap-heap), because the inputs were never “actioned” (and another).  No doubt the participants were too busy playing ‘buzzword bingo’ instead of getting on with the task in hand.

Buzzword Bingo

Perhaps we should be keeping such ‘geek-speak’ words and phrases to ourselves, and not unleashing them on the customer.  Personally, I have no problem with this.

However, where it becomes particularly problematic is in the conventional language of software delivery projects which is required in the “interface” (whoops, there’s another word on the hit-list) between the software consultancy and customer.  “Single point of contact” is now forbidden.  Show me a customer who doesn’t want a single point of contact?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Company Net likes to establish “partnerships” with its customers.  We strive to work through “collaboration”, to have “dialogue” with our customers.  All these words are forbidden.  In working through the “engagement” (another no-no), we have discussions about “priorities”, and we often seek to develop the software by “iterations”.  Well, not any more we don’t; not when we’re working with Local Government.

And heaven forbid, what happens when we may (very occasionally) deviate from plan?  The word “slippage” has been banned; its suggested replacement being “delay”.  Slippage is a far more evocative word.  It implies a significant element of the accidental or unintended, which in a project delivery sense is usually the case.  No-one intends to be late; whereas delays can be intentional.

Finally, there’s the issue of what we call our Local Government customers.  “Customers” is no longer an option; and “Clients” is a no-go area too.  Perhaps we should refer to our customers as “they who pay the bill” – in an effort to follow the Germanic model of concatenating several words within a single word to convey a precise and very definite meaning.  The often-referenced example of this method is the German word for ‘matchbox’ – ‘Streichholzschaechtelchen’.  This is derived from ‘Streich’ meaning rubbing, ‘holz’ meaning wood, ‘Schaechtel’ meaning box, and ‘chen’ meaning little.  But, on second thoughts, given that most non-German speakers struggle to even voice this word, perhaps this isn’t such a great idea.  Language needs to be communicable as well as understandable.

Aside from the linguistic considerations, there is also the matter of freedom of speech.  Who are the LGA to tell us what we can and can’t say? 

No-one wants to be stuck in a meeting where gobbledegook is the (dare I say it?) linguafranca.   But at the end of the day, it all comes down to semantics; the purpose of language is to make yourself understood.  If you are not understood, your language has failed you. 

With a few exceptions (does anyone know what “coterminosity” actually means, and why use “promulgate” when declare will suffice?), there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using most of the words on LGA’s banned list.  The proviso is that these should be used appropriately, and used to convey meaning and understanding with the bare minimum of extraneous explanation.  A “Level Playing Field” is a fantastic, evocative phrase which should be celebrated, not outlawed.  In three short words, it promotes instant understanding.  So, why use a paragraph when 3 words will suffice?  It’s all about the speaker and the listener being on the same wavelength.  And, for now, “wavelength” is a word which we are all free to use.

Another useful listing from LizAzyan Research on what UK local councils are doing with respect to social media. As well as detailing which local councils are doing what on Facebook there is a nice table showing the difference between Facebook Fan Pages and Facebook Groups.