Westminster Unison: News: Open Letter to Mike Moore

Dear Mr Moore

I am writing to express our grave concern at the continued refusal of the Senior Executive Board to respond to UNISON's request for the detailed financial case which justifies the need for cutting nearly 16% posts in the WCC workforce where it is apparently accepted that there will be compulsory redundancies.

I really must stress that anger among staff at the vague, self congratulatory and patronising quality of the communications coming from the Corporate Centre is rapidly reaching boiling point; when letters putting staff on formal notice of risk of redundancy are less than three months away we really don't need to be told that Commissioning means 'I want the street to be clean', not 'I want the street to be swept three times a day'.

Our motion from the AGM made it clear that members do not accept the case for redundancies and called upon the Council to provide details of the case for redundancies; no response was forthcoming

At the TUCG on 12/3/2009 Graham White admitted that the Council did not in fact have detailed figures justifying the case for up to 400 job losses - an astounding admission at such a late stage. He also confirmed that no options had been considered which did not involve redundancies before this figure of 400 was plucked out of the ether. This does not demonstrate that the Council is taking seriously its statutory obligations to 'consult on ways of avoiding dismissals'. Certainly there is no reference to these obligations in the Legal Considerations section of the Budget report which is telling in itself.

In order to enter into the meaningful consultation you are required to by law we therefore once again put to you the demands of the AGM:

Westminster UNISON does not accept that the mismanagement of the economy and public sector finances should be paid for with our members’ jobs. The Annual General Meeting does not believe that a case has been made for compulsory redundancies and call upon Westminster City Council to do the following:

Use all legal means available to recover the £16.2 million in deposits and continue to lobby the UK and Icelandic Governments.

Offset any losses recouped against potential redundancies.

Provide details including costings of any options that were considered as alternatives to initial proposals to delete 100 posts.

Provide a full briefing on departmental proposals outlined at the management away day on Friday 30^th January 2009.

Consult with Westminster UNISON on departmental proposals as soon as they are known.

Ensure that Westminster UNISON are afforded regular up to date

information on the restructure and are meaningfully consulted.

We also ask that you furnish us with the answers to the following questions arising from the budget report in time for the first 'pre consultation meeting which shall take place no later than 1.4.09:

The main thrust of the Budget report recommendations does not support such drastic cuts. Para 9.4 states 'the Council's financial standing is currently very strong….the Council should therefore consider freezing Council Tax levels. There you have it - a political bribe taking precedence over services and jobs. While Band D Council Tax in the richest Council in the Country stays at 687.62, for three of the poorest boroughs in the Country the figures are as follows:

Newham 1255.45
Tower Hamlets 1195.34
Hackney 1308.27.

Was even an average rise in Council Tax considered and what additional resources would this produce?

The Director of Finance is under a legal duty to vouch for the 'robustness' of the budget figures, projected over three years. How is this reconciled with the statement that no sound calculations have been carried out making the case for up to 400 job cuts?

Para 2.2 states that 'the business plan from April 2009 is based on the new organisational model and yet there are no costings justifying the job losses. You can't have it both ways.

Para 2.2 states that £10m is 'earmarked to fund the change process over the next three years'. How is this made up and in particular what proportion relates to redundancy costs?

What proportion of the 30m additional savings referred to in para 3.2.1 are a result of the Icelandic Bank disaster? Please also confirm when these investments were made and who was advising the Council on making these investments, and what was the nature of the latest advice before the investments were made? Was the decision to invest based purely on ratings? Please would you also provide details of the Council's treasury management protocols.
What action did the City Council take based on warnings given in April 2008 around investment in Icelandic banks?
Were any investments made between April and Septemeber 2008?
Why is there no reference ion the Budget Planning process to the Statutory duty to avoid dismissals wherever possible?

Para 5.7 summarises a 'future lobbying programme' which will hopefully result in increased income to the Council. Have any estimates of likely success been built into the budget and if so how much? If not why not? If such monies are forthcoming will you give a commitment that the first call on these funds will be to reduce job cuts?

Para 13.2 makes reference to 'flexibility for action to be taken which may not be wholly in accordance with the approved budget; this appears to allow for 'supplementary estimates' to be approved by individual Cabinet members. Please would you clarify this flexibility. Does this place the responsibility for approving cuts to local cabinet members?

In the list of Background documents there is no reference to the 'Transition Proposals'. This is surely a serious omission, see also again comment above on para 2.2

In Appendix 2 the question of moving grant funded expenditure from one area to another was raised and a further review was agreed to investigate this. What were the results of this review?

UNISON completely concurs with Cllr Dimoldenburg's statement that in the current economic climate, the priority for expenditure should be 'preserving services to local residents, particularly the vulnerable'. He makes reference to 9 environmental projects in the West End which 'should be viewed as luxuries' What is the combined expenditure on these projects?

Appendix 2 makes reference to 11m of savings in Central Services over 3 years. Please may we have details of these.

What is the position with the 'proposed Worksmart 2 savings?

What is the total projected spending on 'One City Proposals, broken down under different headings? There is a reference in 4.33 to £6m One City projects in Environment and Leisure 'tailing off over three years'. Please specify.

Has the Council considered the financial case for bringing City West Homes back in house, please give details?

Para 4.45 refers to schemes in Covent Garden, Leicester Square, and the Cathedral Piazza which 'had more than doubled in cost'. It suggests these may not now be 'appropriate'. Please give details of these schemes, total costs and whether a decision has been taken as to their future

Please give the percentage breakdown of savings by department, set against targets requested at the meeting of 10th February 2009.

Please provide a breakdown of the 3.2m Communications budget. In particularly how much is spent on publicity campaigns, Westwords and other publications. How much income is generated by the Comms Trading Arm and what happens to this income?

This information is required for UNISON to undertake it's statutory consultation role in order to protect our members and we take this very seriously. We ask that this information is provided as a matter of urgency. Council Finance Officers should be briefed to attend Consultation meetings as required to make sure information is clearly and fairly made available to the Union side.

I look forward to an early response on the matters raised in this letter.

Regards

Stephen Higgins

Branch Secretary

Westminster UNISON

A lot of the questions raised in this letter come out of the Councils annual budget report which can be read here, it's appendices are here. Also a few questions arise from the Audit Commissions report which can be accessed here.


	Subscribe Get the latest news by email Get news via an RSS feed » More info > Home > About Westminster Unison > Your workplace/employer > Issues > News > Documents Have your say Currently there is no opinion poll available... Check back soon for another poll... view results		Printer friendly version Open Letter to Mike Moore 26 March 2009, 6:18am Westminster UNISON demands answers from the Chief Executive. Dear Mr Moore I am writing to express our grave concern at the continued refusal of the Senior Executive Board to respond to UNISON's request for the detailed financial case which justifies the need for cutting nearly 16% posts in the WCC workforce where it is apparently accepted that there will be compulsory redundancies. I really must stress that anger among staff at the vague, self congratulatory and patronising quality of the communications coming from the Corporate Centre is rapidly reaching boiling point; when letters putting staff on formal notice of risk of redundancy are less than three months away we really don't need to be told that Commissioning means 'I want the street to be clean', not 'I want the street to be swept three times a day'. Our motion from the AGM made it clear that members do not accept the case for redundancies and called upon the Council to provide details of the case for redundancies; no response was forthcoming At the TUCG on 12/3/2009 Graham White admitted that the Council did not in fact have detailed figures justifying the case for up to 400 job losses - an astounding admission at such a late stage. He also confirmed that no options had been considered which did not involve redundancies before this figure of 400 was plucked out of the ether. This does not demonstrate that the Council is taking seriously its statutory obligations to 'consult on ways of avoiding dismissals'. Certainly there is no reference to these obligations in the Legal Considerations section of the Budget report which is telling in itself. In order to enter into the meaningful consultation you are required to by law we therefore once again put to you the demands of the AGM: Westminster UNISON does not accept that the mismanagement of the economy and public sector finances should be paid for with our members’ jobs. The Annual General Meeting does not believe that a case has been made for compulsory redundancies and call upon Westminster City Council to do the following: Use all legal means available to recover the £16.2 million in deposits and continue to lobby the UK and Icelandic Governments. Offset any losses recouped against potential redundancies. Provide details including costings of any options that were considered as alternatives to initial proposals to delete 100 posts. Provide a full briefing on departmental proposals outlined at the management away day on Friday 30^th January 2009. Consult with Westminster UNISON on departmental proposals as soon as they are known. Ensure that Westminster UNISON are afforded regular up to date information on the restructure and are meaningfully consulted. We also ask that you furnish us with the answers to the following questions arising from the budget report in time for the first 'pre consultation meeting which shall take place no later than 1.4.09: The main thrust of the Budget report recommendations does not support such drastic cuts. Para 9.4 states 'the Council's financial standing is currently very strong….the Council should therefore consider freezing Council Tax levels. There you have it - a political bribe taking precedence over services and jobs. While Band D Council Tax in the richest Council in the Country stays at 687.62, for three of the poorest boroughs in the Country the figures are as follows: Newham 1255.45 Tower Hamlets 1195.34 Hackney 1308.27. Was even an average rise in Council Tax considered and what additional resources would this produce? The Director of Finance is under a legal duty to vouch for the 'robustness' of the budget figures, projected over three years. How is this reconciled with the statement that no sound calculations have been carried out making the case for up to 400 job cuts? Para 2.2 states that 'the business plan from April 2009 is based on the new organisational model and yet there are no costings justifying the job losses. You can't have it both ways. Para 2.2 states that £10m is 'earmarked to fund the change process over the next three years'. How is this made up and in particular what proportion relates to redundancy costs? What proportion of the 30m additional savings referred to in para 3.2.1 are a result of the Icelandic Bank disaster? Please also confirm when these investments were made and who was advising the Council on making these investments, and what was the nature of the latest advice before the investments were made? Was the decision to invest based purely on ratings? Please would you also provide details of the Council's treasury management protocols. What action did the City Council take based on warnings given in April 2008 around investment in Icelandic banks? Were any investments made between April and Septemeber 2008? Why is there no reference ion the Budget Planning process to the Statutory duty to avoid dismissals wherever possible? Para 5.7 summarises a 'future lobbying programme' which will hopefully result in increased income to the Council. Have any estimates of likely success been built into the budget and if so how much? If not why not? If such monies are forthcoming will you give a commitment that the first call on these funds will be to reduce job cuts? Para 13.2 makes reference to 'flexibility for action to be taken which may not be wholly in accordance with the approved budget; this appears to allow for 'supplementary estimates' to be approved by individual Cabinet members. Please would you clarify this flexibility. Does this place the responsibility for approving cuts to local cabinet members? In the list of Background documents there is no reference to the 'Transition Proposals'. This is surely a serious omission, see also again comment above on para 2.2 In Appendix 2 the question of moving grant funded expenditure from one area to another was raised and a further review was agreed to investigate this. What were the results of this review? UNISON completely concurs with Cllr Dimoldenburg's statement that in the current economic climate, the priority for expenditure should be 'preserving services to local residents, particularly the vulnerable'. He makes reference to 9 environmental projects in the West End which 'should be viewed as luxuries' What is the combined expenditure on these projects? Appendix 2 makes reference to 11m of savings in Central Services over 3 years. Please may we have details of these. What is the position with the 'proposed Worksmart 2 savings? What is the total projected spending on 'One City Proposals, broken down under different headings? There is a reference in 4.33 to £6m One City projects in Environment and Leisure 'tailing off over three years'. Please specify. Has the Council considered the financial case for bringing City West Homes back in house, please give details? Para 4.45 refers to schemes in Covent Garden, Leicester Square, and the Cathedral Piazza which 'had more than doubled in cost'. It suggests these may not now be 'appropriate'. Please give details of these schemes, total costs and whether a decision has been taken as to their future Please give the percentage breakdown of savings by department, set against targets requested at the meeting of 10th February 2009. Please provide a breakdown of the 3.2m Communications budget. In particularly how much is spent on publicity campaigns, Westwords and other publications. How much income is generated by the Comms Trading Arm and what happens to this income? This information is required for UNISON to undertake it's statutory consultation role in order to protect our members and we take this very seriously. We ask that this information is provided as a matter of urgency. Council Finance Officers should be briefed to attend Consultation meetings as required to make sure information is clearly and fairly made available to the Union side. I look forward to an early response on the matters raised in this letter. Regards Stephen Higgins Branch Secretary Westminster UNISON A lot of the questions raised in this letter come out of the Councils annual budget report which can be read here, it's appendices are here. Also a few questions arise from the Audit Commissions report which can be accessed here.