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?

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.