Freedom of Information request: the ‘Personalisation Board’ spending £1.2Million of public money
Posted: December 18th, 2009 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: NewsComments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
The following FoI request was submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Council at 09:16 today. Given that on Weds 19-Dec Mr Alexander assured 25 carers that using FoI was not really necessary, because he would ensure full information was freely published, this is only a formal ‘backup’. We are confident Mr Alexander will circulate all the ‘personalisation’ records very quickly by email as attached files. This will also be a topic for full discussion at the wider meeting to be arranged later in January.
Today at 09:16 DGPPG wrote: Dear Mr Little.
You have a copy of the action points from the Castle Douglas meeting 16-Dec (sent 17/12 at 11:53) and will have noted our concerns about the failure to answer the first FoI 9822 properly and fully within 20 days. We discern a rather clever legalistic nit picking over semantics and titles, which is hardly in the spirit, if not outwith the legal intent, of FoI.
Please note this and the following is a further FoI request seeking everything relating to the Personalisation project, which must date from late 2008. This preamble is so there can be no doubt what it is we are seeking and why, in both the public interest and that of the ARC service users. All must be in electronic form within Council records and we request delivery by email in pdf or Word format please. All these records should be very easily accessible and require no copying or post or printing.
Unless we are reading the situation incorrectly then the ARC closures could appear to be an opportunistic, pre-emptive and some may say cynical move by D&G Council to take advantage of the Scottish Parliament ‘personalisation’ pilot cash and use the budget ‘cost saving options’ as a way to achieve closure of the ARCs. Is this also an ideological issue, since we know from the past there has been a fixation with an ideal of inclusion, enshrined in the meaningless mantra, “in the community”.
Or is it more prosaic and simply commercial/political ‘wheeling and dealing’, as we understand could have been mooted by someone who sits on the ‘Personalisation Change Programme Board’? Could it be that the intention is to sell off or hive off in some way the so far unidentified four ARCs that were scheduled to be closed and de facto privatise that element of care provision? We know that such divestment of assets was a Dumfries and Galloway Council underlying policy intent, as this was behind the intent to close Dunmuir Park and other facilities on the late 1990s. The proud boast of the then Social Work Director that Dumfries and Galloway would be the first Council in Scotland to only commission such services from others in the private or ‘not for profit’ sectors. Is there still a remaining hangover of that ideology and policy as well. Members may wish to comment on this from their knowledge of the highest level Council strategic policy making meetings?
We are forced to ask speculative questions like this and request full disclosure under FoI, because those actually and directly affected, both service users and front line staff, have been kept entirely in the dark about all of this. Is it correct that the ‘Board’ Members deciding these matters and who all presumably knew about and agreed with the ARC closures are:
John Alexander Chair
Pat Riley (Commissioning Officer (Direct Payments and Carer Issues)
Judith Proctor Head of Strategic Planning, Commissioning and Performance
Morven Campbell User and Carer Involvement (50% funded by D&G Council)
Melita Loaring Local Area Coordinator
Heather Collington Operations Manager Learning Disability
Alex Davidson Project Manager Scottish Government
Julie Sheehan Lead Officer
Janet Sutton Finance Officer
Gerry McCabe Team Manager
Harry Hay Acting Area Manager
Peter David Operations Manager Frontline Improvement Team
Dave Bleasdale Turning Point Scotland (Is he a close relative of Beth Bleasdale – manager Newton Stewart ARC?)
Geoff Dean Operations Manager Children & Families
John Lynch Operations Manager Housing
Geoff Mark Strategic Planning and Commissioning Manager
John Dowson Coalition of Disabled People (DGPPG has already stated publicly that he does not represent us)
Helen Drinkwater Benefits Maximisation Team
Sheila Clingan Commissioning Manager Children
Paul Garrett Operations Manager Accountancy
Marion Jackson PA to Director of Social Work (Minute and Note Taker)
How much is it costing us for this ‘Board’ to meet and all the other new bureaucracy created by the £1.2Million pilot, which was so heavily and severely criticised at the meeting on 16-Dec. Is it perhaps the case the structure may be a tad ‘top heavy’, with too many chiefs? Certainly no one is effectively representing the actual service users and families, those directly affected by the grand plans of this ‘board’, namely closing the ARCs.
We understand this ‘Board’ met on 9-Sep in Dumfries and before that on 4-Aug and there was a “Scottish Government Update Meeting” at the end of September attended by Ms Proctor & Ms Sheehan. Who did they meet and where are the minutes of all those meetings?
Also that this ‘Board’ was to meet again on 4-Nov 2009 and 13-Jan 2910 at Woodbank. Minutes please of the 4-Nov meeting and an invitation please to 13-Jan at least as observers. Note that neither Mr Dowson nor UCI have a mandate to represent the interests of the families and service users in the matter of the ARC closures and future.
Also we note with concern the date coincidence of 4-Nov with what we were told by the Chief Executive was a LDMT meeting held on 4-Nov for a “stock take”. We understand this took place at Castle Douglas ARC. Under Freedom of Information we were told there were no notes or records taken at that meeting. We now ask again for transparency and honesty for any notes minutes and records whatsoever relating to the ‘Board’ on 4-Nov and all previous meetings under whatever precise title that relate to the ‘Personalisation’ project, plus answers to the above.
Hopefully the media may have some pertinent questions about all this as well, since it involves £1.2Million pounds of public money that those directly affected are saying publicly is being mismanaged and wasted. See comments on DGPPG www site.
We look forward to hearing. Thank you. DGPPG www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
We are parent carers and wish to comment on this FoI request and the earlier “unintended consequences”. As suggested in the 30-Nov Easterbrook Hall presentations, we also understand the ‘personalisation’ drive is a Westminster backed UK wide initiative with which the Scottish Government may be required to participate, based on central UK funding. The TUC is working with government on this issue and there are some real concerns among disabled campaigners about the way this latest version of personalisation, or individual budgets, is being characterised and rolled out; even though they support the concept of people having ‘more options’ and better control over benefit monies they are entitled to. Once again the problem is what exactly does ‘personalisation’ mean? And specifically, how do they imagine it works for people with learning disability issues who cannot make their own decisions? It is all very worrying.
Here in Dumfries and Galloway, who is really representing the interests of the learning disabled in this complex matter? I have read the letter in the press some weeks ago from Mr Dowson about the wonderful benefits of ‘personalisation’ and understand that as ‘Regional Coordinator for Disabled People’ he sits on a Council Board presently spending £1.2Million to persuade us all that ‘personalisation’ is the future of social care being the Brave New World. We have also heard his public comments, reported on your site, about ARCs needing to close because their building-based programmes are an outdated Victorian model’ that is no longer ‘fit for purpose’, which is more bureaucratic speak. We have also heard it suggested, with what is perceived to be inside knowledge, that there are private and/or third sector groups waiting in the wings to buy the ARC buildings for a ’song’ from the Council and continue running the service. But if true there is of course no guarantee it would happen that way or what kind of transition process might be utilised or what the service would look like in that form. Presumably it is not a ‘Victorian model’ if private/third sector groups are running it? This was the same twisted logic we heard in 2006 over Dunmuir Park. But Mr Dowson has no mandate from us to promote these opinions and represent us in that way. Why is he appointed to this board, because he is keen to promote and agree with the desired ‘party line’? This needs looking into urgently. Whilst writing, what is user and carer involvement or UCI? No one has involved us in any of this.
The DGPPG are absolutely right in pursuing this. These secret discussions have been going on for some time behind closed doors known only to a select few. Once again, decisions are being made for us, but not with us on board and in participation. Anything this group comes up with will be presented to councillors as the bold new future of the model of Social Care. Unfortunately, we find councillors rarely have the time or inclination to look very deeply into complex things like this, when they are being presented by the so-called ‘experts’ such as this ‘board’ represents. They often just accept what they have been told by officers as being the best and most desirable outcome, or ‘necessary’ due to budget constraints. What is lacking is the voice and will of the people who are ultimately affected by these decisions; that is why the protest group now formed is so critical and we support it wholeheartedly. We commend you for shining a light in the dark corners to bring this out into the open. Thanks. Worried parent carers.