ARC Closures. BBC Radio News Interview about the Open Discussion with Council on Weds 16-Dec

The BBC interviewed a Dumfries & Galloway Public Protest Group representative yesterday morning so the local Dumfries and Galloway radio news can alert all service users, their families and carers to this meeting called by Dumfries and Galloway Council on Friday with only 2 days notice.  Bulletins were broadcast four times today because the DGPPG wish to ensure that all families, carers and service users in the six centres right across Dumfries and Galloway know of this meeting and have the opportunity to be represented.  These marvellous centres are based in: Annan, Dumfries, Castle Douglas, Kirkconnel, Newton Stewart and Stranraer.

This open discussion with the senoir managers responsible for the closure plan will take place in Castle Douglas Community Centre at 11am Weds 16-Dec and we all hope it will be the necessary restoration of effective participation.  See post of 5-Nov on this site.  The recent debacle must never be repeated and hopefully there will be an apology for the damage done to so many families.  We will report the meeting as soon as possible.    

If you have any questions please send then via this site or email to: dgppg@dumfries-galloway.org.uk.  .

Use this link to look up the details of the meeting on Wednesday 16 December with Mr Alexanderto discuss the ‘Alexander/Proctor ARC closure plan’.  It is very important that there are representatives from each of the six ARC areas across Dumfries and Galloway. For more information about this meeting please contact the Dumfries & Galloway Public Protest Group via email to:  dgppg@dumfries-galloway.org.uk.

Open discussion – meet Weds 16-Dec at 11am in Castle Douglas Community Centre Cotton St.

DGPPG wish to thank Mr Alexander for his message Friday afternoon 11-Dec confirming arrangements to meet in Room 1, Castle Douglas Community Centre, Cotton Street, Castle Douglas on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 at 11am, saying he would attend with Ms Heather Collington and a note taker.

We already have significant feedback expressing disappointment that Ms Judith Proctor, co-author of the ‘Alexander/Proctor ARC closure plan’, is not attending.  This is particularly disappointing in view of her comments on 30-Nov at Easterbrook Hall and what she said in the ‘workshop’ session about her intentions to close the ARCs.  So we have asked if it is possible that she rearranges her schedule in order to attend this very important first meeting, especially as she had time to be a keynote speaker on 30-Nov, but was not allowed by Mr Dunning to answer even one simple question from the floor, or prepared to do so herself.  As she knows, what she did say that day has further alarmed and upset carers, some were crying, so many wish to hear from her first hand and face to face at this joint Dumfries and Galloway Council & NHS D&G meeting and ask her questions in free and open discussion.  She really should be present and we question her absence.

For this is the first opportunity to discuss the ‘Alexander/Proctor ARC closure plan’ since it was published nearly 2 months ago.  So we are very pleased to confirm that as many families and carers as are able to shall attend.  This is despite the very short 2 day notice on a Friday afternoon to meet in the week before Christmas.  It can be anticipated that many who wish to do so may not be free, but it is essential all six ARCs are represented.  Mr Alexander asked that the meeting is conducted with mutual respect and of course it will be.  To facilitate this we shall submit a list of questions in advance on Tuesday so that these can focus and structure the discussion.  Most have already been tabled and not answered.

We have asked Mr Alexander if he would please confirm to all ARC managers, who have copies of this information by email messages, that they should post details of this meeting at all 6 ARCs and urgently publicise it locally, including all carers at their ARC, so that representatives of all six are encouraged to attend.  Also that ARCs should inform carers families and service users that they can read updated information or post their feedback & questions/comments at this site: www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk if they can’t attend and also reply about attending and advise their questions by email to: dgppg@dumfries-galloway.org.uk and .  That way their voice will be heard.  Also we assume Mr Alexander will encourage any service users who wish to attend to do so, because this directly affects their future.  We will collate numbers as he has requested from such responses.

For our time to be meaningful it is important that as many as possible attend.  So we have also assumed Mr Alexander will confirm that incremental care hours and cover shall be provided for those who need this and that the ARC community buses can be used to help with transport, especially given the distance of the other ARCs at: Annan, Stranraer, Newton Stewart, Kirkconnel and Dumfries.  Such transport assistance was provided on 30-Nov for the Easterbrook Hall event, so we presume it will be available next Weds.  We are now waiting for Mr Alexander or Ms Collington to confirm all this first thing Monday morning and so permit the ARC managers and staff to facilitate attendance and exchange of information, as they of course did for the Enable Scotland event on 30-Nov, but this was all agree a shambles.

This include the first hand opinion of the Chair of the independent local Enable Wigtown and District Branch.  He also questioned Ms Proctor on 30-Nov being extremely disatisfied by her answers and the set up of the Wigtown pilot.  He asked her why of the 21 very worthy people involved in spending £1.2Million of public money over three years, none of it on front line services, not one is a Wigtown family, carer or service user.  Only one is actually from Wigtown and he is from Turning Point, one of those benefitting from the funding.  Given current austerity and budgets cuts all the families see this as a gross and needless waste of public money paying for more managers, whilst they planned to sack front line carers.  You could not make this up and Ms Proctor had no meaningful answers for this wholly unnacceptable situation of awateful ‘pilot’ bereft  of local and front line representation and designed to promote individual budgets and direct payements.  None of this is new and it is not ‘personalisation’ as first promoted mire than 10 years ago in the Same as You and earlier strategic papers.  It’s another ‘jolly’ at our expense whilst front line services are cut because we lack money.  This pilot should be scrapped and the £1.2 Million of cash put to a proper front line use by competent people, like in the ARCs.

We will advise numbers and reconfirm the questions next Tuesday.  However note there is stil no meaningful response under FoI, which is now overdue.  We shall have no hesitation complaining to the Data Commissioner if the requested information is not forthcoming in writing by return.  What are they hiding and why?

ARC Shambles – Enable Scotland on defensive but still misleading the public. Is this a proper role for a national charity?

On page three of the Galloway News yesterday 10-Dec “ARC Shambles” Stuart Gillespie reports the Care Commission complaint.  There was no disruption.  That is an invention by Enable Scotland to cover up an appallingly badly organised event that was a failure at all levels, just adding to the general upset and uncertainty.  Mr Dunning  has been described as a zealot and carers are considering a complaint to the Enable Scotland Trustees and OSCR as it appears he is bringing the charity into disrepute by making untrue claims to the press that carers describe as a malicious slur defaming dedicated people caring for loved ones that Enable should be supporting.  The following Readers’ letter is being submitted:

Ten or more carers, nearly a fifth of those who attended the Enable Scotland event on 30-Nov, chaired by Norman Dunning, say that what he has written to the Galloway News is simply not true.  There was no “unacceptable behaviour of a small minority who seemed intent on disrupting the event”.  Why is a national charity who solicit donations and large funding from the public to support the learning disabled, now defaming their carers in this way?  Just  because two of them tried very politely to ask important questions at the end of the morning session, before lunch.  Ms Proctor, joint author of the deeply flawed ARC closure plan, had just addressed the conference as a “keynote” D&G Council speaker, yet she did not mention the ARC closures once.  Why?  That is the question that was suppressed, despite the huge ‘elephant in the room’! There was highly misleading and scaremongering text in the Enable Scotland marketing literature, which we were told that day the D&G Council Personalisation manager had apparently asked Enable to “change months ago, but they didn’t”.  We politely suggest that it ill behoves a charity to slur those they are set up to support in order to cover up for their mistakes and their obvious support for the hugely unpopular closure of the Dumfries and Galloway ARCs.  Why is a national charity for the learning disabled supporting the Council to close the ARCs?  Mr Dunning refuses to answer that question.  What is he doing and why is he wasting your generous donations?   DGPPG

Effective participation and consultation – why are families excluded?

On 5-Nov  fhe families suggested a positive way forward not confrontation.  We want to restore ”Effective Participation”  not exclusion.  Copies were sent to SWIA, other senior managers and senior Councillors:  Leader, Convener & Chair SW Committee.    At a positive meeting on 23-Nov with Mr Stevenson he confirmed his committment to participation, but to date of this posting there has been no reply from his senior managers to our questions or many requests to meet as a group of families.  There has been no help or even replies from the Senior Coucillors.  Are they really interested in representing us and properly holding the Officers to account?  It seems not. 

Note also another mother has directly called John Alexander and asked him to meet her and her daughter at the Castle Douglas ARC to see first hand the ground breaking transition work of the ARCs in providing support for the profoundly disabled.  This being praised by an expert outwith D&G as the best practice he has seen in Scotland and should be copied as a model.  But this is what the Alexander/Proctor plan intended to destroy, presumably out of ignorance of what the ARCs actually achieve? 

We will inform you when there are any real answers to our questions, any news of a general & public meeting, which should involve families and service users from all six ARC areas and any response to our proposal of a month ago to a positive way forward.  It is the lack of any honesty & transparency and proper engagement by this Council that has caused this www site to be created to expose the continuing management culture and failures.

Here is the positive proposal to Gavin Stevenson & following that relevant correspondence with John  Alexander:

Email sent to Gavin Stevenson 5-Nov    Dear Sir.  Around 2002 we and other families/carers first attended as public observers at the then joint NHS & D&G Council Board concerned with learning disability.  The then excellent NHS chairman, who later retired, actively involved us such that we joined the meeting becoming respected participants, regularly contributing and receiving all papers.   That ‘joint board’ metamorphosed into the Learning Disability Management Group – LDMG and active participation continued.  We and others with detailed front line knowledge and other skills were told that we made a positive and constructive contribution in the strategic development and scrutiny of ideas.  

In 2006/7 post SWIA and the DP fiasco, meetings of the LDMG were first suspended and then we were told that it was, “no longer fit for purpose” and would cease to exist.  In truth there was nothing ‘unfit’ with the meeting or concept, only many agreed the then D&G Chair, someone who left the Council shortly after.  However, despite the past positive contributions, and seemingly as a deliberate reprisal for our participation in the DP issue and exposure of failures to SWIA, we and others were excluded from any further participation at the strategic management level and the SWIA follow up.  This despite all we had to offer.  

We suggest that, in the light of recent events and the ARC debacle, such exclusion of community expertise in such complex areas is more than regrettable.  There is no doubt that had the LDMG or some equivalent been in existence with effective participation then the ARC ‘report’ would never have been put forward in that form.  Effective participation means those who ask challenging and awkward questions, those who are prepared to say the ‘Emperor has no clothes’.  But isn’t that preferable to the debacle we have just witnessed?  What has replaced the LDMG and why is effective participation now excluded, contrary as we understand it to long established council policy and the SWIA report?   We look forward to your reply and comments on these issues and questions.  Thank you.   CJ & J Green + other involved & knowledgeable families who used to actively participate.      

Reply to John Alexander sent 3-Dec at 16:47:  Dear John.  Thanks again.  We are more than happy to have everything, including “tone” discussed in the open for all to hear, indeed we would prefer it.  We don’t mind being publicly criticised or apologising in public if we have said or written something wrong or have made a mistake.  Please will you explain what you mean by “tone”.  Is there anything factually wrong with what we have written, because it’s all on the record?  As you may have gathered many of the families don’t care for the “tone” of the report dated 12 Oct and what was said on Monday last at Easterbrook Hall and we are all very angry and frustrated, which may explain any angry “tone”, because we are!  It’s far better we feel to have all this out in the open.  Transparency and honesty is what is required.  Given what has been done there is no longer any trust.   

On Thurs 3/12 at 16:30 John Alexander wrote:    Chris,  I would of course be happy to have a wider meeting as you suggest and cover the points you mention in that forum. However, I do need to meet with you privately as a first step, as indicated in my earlier response (27 November 2009@ 13.13hrs, as embedded above), as I have concerns about the tone and content of the recent e-mails sent by you/JG and I think that those aspects of our discussion would be better dealt with between us rather than in a wider forum.

I hope we can meet at the earliest available opportunity to deal with these matters but I am mindful of the other demands on your time which have taken you down south for the time being.   With best wishes.    John       John Alexander  Director of Social Work  Dumfries and Galloway Council    Office Tel: 01387 260451 (internal 66451)  Fax: 01387 260453 (internal 64453)  Mobile Tel: 07824 708132  Woodbank, 30 Edinburgh Road, Dumfries DG1 1NW  Drop Point: 214  E-mail: John.Alexander@dumgal.gov.uk     http://www.dumgal.gov.uk

Reply fao John Alexander sent 3-Dec at 16:02:   Dear Ms Jackson.  Many thanks for your note just received whilst we are away with our daughter, but in contact with events by email.  As indicated to Mr Alexander before any meeting we, and indeed all the concerned families and carers, would like to have full and definitive answers to all the questions we have raised concerning the ARCs.  Especially after the further debacle with Enable Scotland last Monday.  That has to happen before any meeting can be meaningful and fruitful.  

Secondly, in discussion with other families we all feel that an open meeting with whoever wishes to attend is the correct and only way forward.  There is nothing particular about us or our position that requires a private meeting.  Also we know that Mrs M has invited JA to meet her and her daughter at the CD ARC.  This is to see the reality of a family situation and the excellent highly creative and groundbreaking transition work the manager and staff have achieved there on the most ‘personalised’ and individual service possible, but which also requires a suitable, safe & secure building!  So may we suggest that an open meeting is scheduled with JA coincident with that ARC visit and the DGPPG will endeavour to arrange for as many families as possible to be present.  Because of care commitments this is best late morning and over the lunch period for most, but all our questions must be answered first.  Because of the DP meeting already scheduled on 8/12 that date is not possible for us, but the other dates & times are. 

As you know the DGPPG has been formed and a www site is presently being created to facilitate communication with all the concerned families across D&G.  This emphasises that a very wide group is involved.  Thank you.  CJ&JG + DGPPG . 

On Thurs 3/12 at 15:14 Marion Jackson wrote:    Dear Mr & Mrs Green   I am writing in response to the e-mail from Mr John Alexander to yourselves dated 27 November 2009.  Mr Alexander asked me to arrange for him to meet with you in the near future.  I have noted below some dates that Mr Alexander would be available to meet.  I would be grateful if you could let me know if any of the dates would be suitable for you to meet with Mr Alexander in his office in Dumfries.  

8 Dec – 3.30pm    Not possible – clashes with DP mtg;      10 Dec – anytime between 10am and 1pm;  11 Dec – 1pm;    14 Dec – 2pm;  16 Dec – anytime between 10am and 12.30pm.    I look forward to hearing from you.  Many thanks.  Marion Jackson  PA to Director of Social Work

No Transparency & Honesty – No real answers to simple questions or FoI. What are they hiding?

Email reply 27-Nov Re FOI 9822 & 9823     Dear Mr Little.  Very many thanks for your two messages today and attachments, all safely rec’d.   A quick scan with others reveals that certain questions may not have been fully understood or expressed clearly enough by us, in that the answer does not actually address the question asked.  We will come back to those issues and seek clarity.  

However, one of the most salient of these and addressed now, is the lack of any information whatsoever concerning the genesis and development of the ARC ‘redesign’ option.  That is: who, how, when & why?  There is only passing mention that it was part of the “social work scrutiny process” for which, despite our all embracing request, no information has been provided.  What is the “social work scrutiny process”, and what information exists concerning this and the origins and development of the ARC closure option?  Despite our explicit request the matter of “achievability and sustainability”, the essential tests, seems to have been wholly ignored?  

Please can this be considered ahead of any further clarification from us on other matters.  It is rather difficult to accept there is no record of such an important strategic decision involving sacking 30 staff, closing 4 unidentified ARCs and realising £660K of ‘savings’.  Especially as Appendix 1 implied this was part of a wider “ambition to drive forward modernisation of Social Work services in line with…”.   Surely this must be documented and the particular ARCs identified as part of the necessary financial appraisal and costing?  We look forward to hearing further on this very quickly please.  Thank you.   

It’s also very interesting that for the meeting of particular interest on 4/11, where there was disagreement as to what took place, no notes or records were apparently taken at all.  We understand this meeting was convened at CD ARC and the Chief Executive then used the term LDMT meeting, which we copied.  Obviously 4 weeks later this will remain an unknown, now overtaken by time and events.  Perhaps Mr John Alexander will confirm in due course if it is usual to have no record of meetings that consider such important strategic issues, like the closure of four unidentified ARCs and £660K, or those convened urgently to “stock take” such matters.  Or are there details within this “process” that it is wished we do not have access to for any reason? 

Freedom of Information Request 9822 submitted 14-Nov.     Attn:  Mr Alex Little 

Dear Sir.  Disclosure of information has been asked for informally by Friday 13/11.  Please see attached.  It has not been forthcoming.  It is therefore now requested formally.  This information is recent and easily located, being stored in electronic format as either MS Word or PDF files.   Delivery to us in either format by email is requested, as this can be immediate within 48hrs, at zero marginal cost.  The information is defined, current and of a limited nature.  This means no printing or postage or data searching is required and a very prompt response is therefore possible and no marginal cost for provision will be incurred.  Hence it is assumed no charge will be suggested, as such will be challenged. 

We also assume that minimal if any redaction will be required.  Only if any specific client or service user name has been included in the original or any very specific commercial detail relevant to an identified third party, which is unlikely.  We expect to see all D&G & NHS staff names without redaction and that there shall be no prior alteration or editing of any papers, reports or notes by providing a later version, such is the level of distrust in view of the highly misleading documents and information published by D&G Council.  There will be an IT audit record of any earlier files and if relevant this request includes all such earlier versions or a record that such existed and were amended.

The information required relates to the Learning Disability Management Team (LDMT) and its last 4 meetings, expressly including that held on Weds 4th Nov 2009 at the Castle Douglas ARC.  We request all notes, reports, minutes papers, briefing notes, agenda, working papers, spreadsheets and budget assumptions relating to those last 4 meetings.  In short all relevant and supporting documents however they may be described or titled internally.  We also request confirmation of: 

• The standing members of the LDMT and who chairs it.
• Who is consulted by the LDMT?
• Who was consulted by the LDMT concerning the ARC ‘Redesign’ proposal
• The reporting route of the LDMT and who or what committee approves its decisions particularly strategic and budget decisions/recommendations, like the ARC and other ‘options’? 
• What is the role of the NHS in the LDMT?  We assume this is a ‘Joint Futures’ D&G Council + NHS D&G management body.  Is that correct?
• Is the LDMT the successor to the LDMG?
• Any other reports or analysis etc relating to or concerning the ARC ‘redesign’ proposal that have been considered or approved by another other senior management group/committee within the Council and/or NHS, such as determining financial achievability and sustainability.  This is to understand the full decision making process before such a report is published in the public domain without any prior warning to or consultation with those immediately and directly affected.

We look forward to receiving this information by email within the next few days.  Thank you.

Freedom of Information Request 9823 submitted 16-Nov.    Attn:  Mr Alex Little and NHS D&G    Dear Sirs.  Further to email requests on Sat 14/11 at 11:03 and 14:25 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 we now wish to add further questions relating to the LDMT and the ARC closure plan.  This is to ensure no relevant material is omitted.  

NHS D&G are also addressed since Learning Disability, including the ARCs, is a ‘Joint Futures’ service run jointlyby NHS D&G and D&G Council.  We therefore ask what part has the NHS and its staff played in the ARC closure debacle and what information has the NHS on its files concerning the following questions and the LDMT FoI request as above?  We shall FW that to you. 

It is now noted by many families and service users that strangely coincident with the publication of the ARC closure plan, which misleadingly implied there is a new Scottish Government Policy of “Personalisation”, Enable Scotland is also suddenly promoting “A Brave New World for Social Care”.  Please see attached scanned copies.  Letters from both Alex Russell and Margaret Munro dated 5/11 with a ‘marketing’ flyer have been distributed via the Castle Douglas ARC directlyto service users.  Have these been distributed from other ARCs?  

We note Enable are directly informing service users, presumably with permission of the Social Work Director that:    “Things are changing …. Find out what it means for you”.  “Why are there cutbacks – and why now?”  “Personalisation is now a key government policy.”   Therefore we request our FoI enquiry includes any and all notes / documents concerning correspondence and meetings and discussions with Enable about this sudden promotion of “personalisation” and that answers are in any event provided by the Chief Executive and/or Director of Social Work to the following questions:

• Has the Director of Social Work agreed and planned that Enable are to announce D&G Council “cutbacks” and changes for people with learning disabilities?  If so why?
• With what authority is Enable announcing “cutbacks” directlyto vulnerable service users, apparently bypassing established Care Managers, families and legally appointed attorneys for vulnerable adults or children in transition preparation at ARCs?  What risk assessment has been applied to this and by whom?
• What are these “cutbacks”, since we are not aware that any “cutbacks” have been agreed by Elected Members and there has been no consultation?  Please will Elected Members advise and comment on this? 
• What information on “cutbacks” has been supplied to Enable that is apparently unknown to Elected Members, the service users, carers and their families?
• At what Social Work Committee were all these changes and “cutbacks” presented and agreed?
• Has the LDMT and/or any other management committee agreed that information on “cutbacks” shall be supplied to Enable for direct promulgation in this way to service users? 
• The flyer is scaremongering and has upset service users who ask what is happening, what is being cut?
• Who has permitted this flyer to be directly distributed to vulnerable persons directly via the ARCs without any warning or consultation with carers or families or advocates or attorneys?
• What officer(s) have supplied information to Enable about “why” there are these “cut backs”, when all service users have individually agreed, personalised care packages and are unaware of these “cutbacks” and changes?
• Since packages are confidential, individual & highly personalised for each service user, being agreed with care managers, families and attorneys and subject to statutory review, why are such changes disclosed to Enable and why are Enable apparently explaining this, as their flyer claims?  Is this in fact highly misleading hype?
• What “senior staff from your local authority” are keynote speakers at 10:30 on Monday 30/11 and what are they presenting?  Has this been agreed with the LDMT and if so when? 
• Is this part of a coordinated plan to announce and justify ARC “cutbacks”, given it is now reliably believed ARC Managers have been instructed to find savings and make the now published “cutbacks” after the Members’ decision on Tuesday 3/11?
• When was all of the above agreed and set up by D&G Council and NHS Officers, all apparently without any warning or consultation with those directly affected? 
• What is in the LDMT notes about this collaboration with Enable and disclosure of “cutbacks”?
• What is the role, if any, of the Newton Stewart ARC and the ‘Wigtown Turning Point Pilot’ as part of this Enable presentation of “cutbacks” and changes? 
• Was the Newton Stewart ARC Manager or staff aware of these plans and the intended four ARC closures in advance of any other ARC? 

No doubt other questions and issues will arise in due course, but if there is any other information that is obviously relevant please can it be disclosed by email as a matter of great urgency.   We look forward to receiving all the requested information by email within the next few days.  Thank you.

ITV Border News Interview re. Care Commission Complaint

A Dumfries & Galloway Public Protest Group representative, had part of his house temporarily turned into a TV studio earlier today in preperation for an interview with ITV Border News regarding the Care Commission formal complaint we wrote about .

The interview should broadcast Weds 09-Dec or Thurs 10-Dec, on ITV Border News after 6pm and later in the evening around 10:25pm.

BBC Radio Solway interview Re. Care Commission Complaint

Following on from our post regarding an ARC service user’s formal complaint to the Care Commission, a Dumfries & Galloway Public Protest Group representative is to be interviewed on BBC Radio Solway today at 12:56.

You can listen to the broadcast online on the BBC Radio Solway website.

Read news report updated 7-Dec on the Scotland BBC News site

Complaint to the Care Commission about lack of consultation and failure to answer questions

The representatives of an ARC service user submitted the following formal complaint on Thurs 03-Dec   Note section (iv) as these are some of the simple questions that Dumfries and Galloway Council managers still refuse to answer honestly.  The progress of this complaint will be posted on this site.

Dear Mrs Reid.

The Care Commission is rightly very concerned about consultation with clients or service users and their families/carers.  This is a formal complaint to you about the actions of both Dumfries and Galloway Council + NHS D&G, and in particular the Social Work Director – Mr J Alexander and the Head of Strategic Planning – Ms Judith Proctor, by their deliberate failure to consult or advise in any way over a planned major strategic change designed to save £660,000, but which was promoted in a misleading and deceitful way under the false guise of a “redesign and personalisation”. 

They are co-authors of a report dated 12^th October 2009 “Acceleration of Personalised Services:  Redesign of Day Services for People with Learning Disabilities”, which together with Appendix 1 and other papers, was presented to the Council Corporate Services Committee for its meeting on 03-Nov.  These papers are not yet on the Council www site.  Please see: http://rpu.dumgal.gov.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/committee_reports/021088.pdf  

(i)              As you may know we all woke up on 20-Oct and first heard this closure of 4 unidentified ARCs by 1^st April 2010 announced on the radio news.

(ii)            The authors had not consulted or warned anyone, not even their dedicated ARC managers and care staff, let alone the service users or their families.  It has caused an incredible amount of stress, uncertainty, upset, anger, frustration and tears.

(iii)            Although on 03-Nov the flawed plan was withdrawn by instruction of the elected Members, this was for 2010 only and the authors and Council Social Work staff still refuse to answer simple questions or meaningfully consult.

(iv)              The authors and social work department are continuing to make everyone suffer by refusing to say a) that it is closing the ARCs – or b) that it is keeping them open or c) that it has not decided yet – that is to say that they are not only not consulting with people but they are refusing point blank to answer a simple question – even c as an answer would be more helpful than to simply ignore so many across D&G who are up in arms about this torture of uncertainty about a key aspect of their lives.

(v)            Finally they compounded matters, apparently in collusion with Enable Scotland, when Ms Proctor spoke on Monday 30-Nov at Easterbrook Hall Dumfries.  There are spontaneous responses and reports about this on the DGPPG www site: www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk  and a public letter from a carer was published in the Galloway News on 03-Dec.  To verify the strength of feeling you may wish to contact some families of service users.  

We look forward to a robust Care Commission investigation, given the 6 excellent Inspection Reports you published only 6 months ago and which are also included on the DGPPG site for reference.  

Thank you.     

End of complaint.

Letter published in Galloway News Thurs 3/12 and Galloway Gazette Fri 4/12

Sir.  The ARCs will be closed.  Along with Margaret Dodds, Isabel Millar, Irene Walford, a couple from Wigtown and many others, I have just wasted nearly 6 precious care hours being patronised today (Monday) at the awful shambles Enable Scotland described as a ‘conference’, which was meant to “inform” me.  After sitting through 2 hrs of self indulgent waffle we then heard Judith Proctor, representing D&G Council, talking grandly of choice, participation and involvement.  She was the last speaker before we had a sandwich.  As she ended two people politely tried to ask questions but were rudely prevented from doing so by Norman Dunning, the Chief Executive who said “no questions”.  It was like a dictatorship, such that several people left in disgust.  What sort of conference is it where people are spoken at, listen politely for so long and then are not allowed any questions to a “keynote” speaker in the open session at the end of the morning?  But after ‘lunch’ it just got worse.  Several people were in tears of frustration and anger when later asking Ms Proctor in a small ‘workshop’ about the ARC closures, she being the co-author of that closure report as D&G Head of Strategic Planning.  Many times she refused deny that it was her intention to close the ARCs and so left us in no doubt that is what she wants to do and will do, whatever we think.  But she did say that in Castle Douglas the ARC Print Shop will not close “because that is not a building”.  You couldn’t make this up if you tried.  But that means the main Castle Douglas and the other ARCs will be closed, when she has her way.  By then several more people were also in tears.  For all their fine words neither the council or Enable were listening to us at all, they just don’t care about what we say or what we want, yet all day they just went on and on and on about individual choice, consultation, personalisation and person centred involvement.  What absolute hypocrisy, especially from a learning disabled charity taking donations from the public who believe they are doing good.  Mr Alex Russell National Chair of Enable was no where to be seen, no doubt because he knew what we all thought of the situation and hadn’t the courage to show his face, yet in his recent letter was telling everyone else to attend.  Doesn’t that just say it all? 

Yours in disgust.    Mrs Jackie McKie and for other concerned families.

Care Commission Inspection Reports 2009

See what the Care Commission thinks of your excellent ARC services.  Read reports of their Inspections in April and May this year.  Note the very positive comments about the innovative and caring staff constantly striving to create ever more imaginative activities, both within the ARC building and outwith wherever possible.

Some ARC service users with profound and complex disabilities require the safety and security of familiar and calming surroundings.  Note however that already in early 2009 there is evidence of incremental stealth cuts with negative comments about staffing ratios, with basic repairs, decorating and maintenance not done.  It has been noticed that job ads are often “temporary”, indicating the long standing planned intention to close ARCs and sack 30 dedicated, thoughtful and very professional front line staff.

The ARCs are crucial for transition planning, which SWIA said in their damning 2006 report was one of the many D&G Social Work strategic failures.  The Castle Douglas ARC has been praised by an external expert on autism  for successfully implementing an original ground breaking programme that was “the best in Scotland and should be a model for the whole country”.  The family involved have been invited to submit a more detailed report concerning the excellent work that was done.  This has improved the quality of life for their daughter immensely, for which they are very grateful.  So they would like the the general public and the elected Councillors to know this and understand the work and results that the ARCs achieve.

Look at the 4 Star Visit Scotland award earned by the Merrick Café at Newton Stewart as reported on 04-Dec, a project which started around five years ago and would not exist but for the imagination of the ARC staff and the existence of the ARC itself.  Note the reports highlights that it still relies on the support of the “Activity and Resource Centre (ARC) as the training and catering base” now being independently described by inspectors as “a truly excellent feature with very good range of high quality produce”.  The Café  is a partnership project between Dumfries and Galloway Council’s social work services and leisure and sport, and training is provided through Dumfries and Galloway College.  So if the Head of Strategic Planning and the Social Work Director are allowed to implement their badly flawed and fallacious ideas then none of this would exist.  How can that possibly be accurately described as ’Strategic Planning and Leadership’, the competences and capability that SWIA so heavily criticised for their absence in 2006.  Has anything changed you may ask, despite the obvious lessons of Dunmuir Park described in earlier 2006 posts on this site’?

As another example of what would be lost under the Alexander/Proctor closure plan, consider the mental health nurse training that is carried out within the ARCs in collaboration with local colleges.  Presumably that too is not a ’strategic activity’ and can somehow be performed in a local street cafe or swimming pool?

Please note that all the Care Commission Inspection Reports for the six Dumfries & Galloway ARCs are available as pdf files on the Care Commission www site.  Direct links to the latest six 2009 pdf reports are below, these links will open in a new window and require Adobe PDF Reader:

• Annan ARC (DG12 6EF) Report – 28 April 2009
• Castle Douglas ARC (DG7 1TH) Report – 13 May 2009
• Dumfries ARC (DG1 2PS) Report – 07 May 2009
• Kirkconnel ARC (DG4 6NE) Report – 15 May 2009
• Newton Stewart ARC (DG8 6DQ) Report – 01 May 2009
• Stranraer ARC (DG9 7JJ) Report – 20 May 2009

Read these independent reports by strict Inspectors and judge for yourself the quality and range of the activities being supplied and ask why would anyone suggest they be closed down, when there are no available alternatives.  Closure is a cut, nothing more and nothing less.  Not only that, but posted within this site is the financial evidence that not only would there be no saving of £660,000 with the closures if the service was not reduced, as the plan falsely claims, but an additional net cost or budget increase of around £1.2Million.  That’s after the £660,000 ’saving’ from sacking 30 front line staff  is netted off.  This is the main reason why the plan was struck down, it failed the necessary test of achievability.  That it fell to a member of the public to produce the elementary financial sensitivity analysis to discover and demonstrate this, surely begs the question why we all foot the large salary bill for managers apparently incapable of doing their job.   Is this something your local councillor should be asking, because these managers are only accountable to the elected Members?