Doncaster Council Crisis: Bullying councillors accused in 'dysfunctional relationship'

None of them are directly identified in the report although it does state they "come principally, but not exclusively, from the Labour group."

A refusal to accept an elected mayoral system underpins much of the hostility and results in "a dysfunctional relationship" between mayor Peter Davies and the rest of the council.

The report says "the behaviour of a small but highly influential group of councillors plays an important role in creating the climate in which officers, and other councillors, operate".

It adds the inspection found "consistent evidence of behaviours from some key councillors that clearly amount to bullying and harassment.

"These include comments such as 'we have long memories' and 'we will get you' made to officers when, in the course of their professional duty, they have given advice which certain councillors are uncomfortable with or dislike."

The report says the power of this group of councillors "is a major factor in preventing the council from effectively improving its functions".

As a result of this climate, some officers have left the authority, some have remained but are "weakened", while others "persevere with trying to deliver better services in spite of the political environment in which they operate."

The disproportionate influence of councillors is exemplified by the power of the overview and scrutiny committee, according to the Audit Commission, which highlighted its role in setting an alternative budget to that proposed by the elected mayor.

The legitimate role of holding the mayor to account is acknowledged but the report says "it also operates as if it is a separate executive function within the council, developing its own policy and budget, with the aim of marginalising and weakening the democratically- elected mayor.

"We were given evidence that this is not a new phenomenon and that this separate function had been developing over a number of years."

The role of the committee is setting this year's council budget "went beyond the provision of assistance or the exercise of scrutiny" and "amounted to a separate process leading to the preparation of an alternative budget to the of the mayor".

In the event, the mayor's plan to cut council tax by three per cent was blocked with a three per cent increase instituted.

The report also says the dysfunctional relationship between the mayor and councillors is slowing down key decisions and ultimately putting funding for key services at risk. These include capital funding available through the Building Schools for the Future programme which is in danger of being "squandered" and delays in plans for a new health centre.

It adds: "It is, of course, proper that there should be political debate about this and other policies. But failure to make decisions hinders officers from developing budgets. Still more important, it risks depriving the people of Doncaster of investments that could be made in improving the services they receive."

Labour group leader Joe Blackham last night rebutted criticism of his group and said it was "very, very clear" that the blame for the council's problems lay at Mr Davies's door.

"The relationship cross-party in Doncaster has never been better than it is now, but the mayor and his cabinet want to make silly decisions and policies which we cannot agree with and isolate them."

OFFICERS

Senior council officers have struggled to provide leadership and some have allowed themselves to become embroiled in the "dysfunctional politics" of the authority, according to the Audit Commission.

The potential for political infighting has meant "some officers have stopped seeking political support for new strategic service plans and seek to deliver them without political discussion.

"Certain officers have suggested that, in part, frustrated at the slowness of decision making and the acrimony involved when any political direction or agreement is required they have begun to seek to avoid political input into policy development and delivery."

This 'go-it-alone' approach by officers is described as "understandable" in the context of the intense political infighting. But the report adds "it runs the risk of undermining trust in officers amongst councillors who remain impartial in the ongoing antagonism between the council and mayor."

In addition, officers' "acquiesence" in the dysfunctional political situation "means that certain councillors remain able to act inappropriately, exercising executive functions in policy development where they should not.

"This acquiesence on the part of officers may be connected to instances reported to the inspection team of bullying by councillors, and in one instance by another chief officer colleague".

A high turnover rate of senior officers is also highlighted which "creates confusion, inevitably leads to new ways of working and new strategic approaches from each chief officer and prevents the forming of a stable and effective corporate team."

The high turnover has necessitated the large-scale use of interim appointments who "inevitably come with their own ideas of how to 'fix' things and in some cases have exhibited an unwillingness to learn from chief officer colleagues..."

CHILDREN

THE tragic failings in Doncaster's children's services were one of the key factors triggering the emergency inspection of the authority and the findings point to a "worrying" lack of significant progress.

The Audit Commission cited the "threat to public confidence" following the Edlington child torture case when sending inspectors into Doncaster but despite some attempts to improve children's services there has been little change so far.

The Government has already intervened in the service through the creation of an independent board, last year, to oversee its management.

But the report says the board "has struggled to radically improve children's services so far, in part because of the ongoing political antagonisms within the council and the failure of the council to see the issues as relating to all council services, not just children's services".

The authority has been the subject of severe criticism after the deaths of seven vulnerable children but the Audit Commission found the high turnover of staff had contributed to continuing problems.

Its report says: "At the point the Secretary of State intervened in children's services, the council acknowledged its lack of capacity to manage children's services but the series of interim directors and continued use of interim and temporary staff in key functions, such as contact, referral and assessment has hindered safeguarding of children".

It does acknowledge some indications of progress, including the permanent appointment of a director and two assistant directors which "signals an opportunity for stability and coherence that has been lacking for years".

But it says the council's management needs to adopt a more corporate approach and highlights a recent meeting of senior officers as an example of continued failings.

The report says the conclusion from the corporate leadership team that an improvement plan for children's services be brought back in 'two or three months' for further consideration showed "a worrying inability to seize and drive corporately the most important issue the council faces."

INTERIM EXECUTIVE

THE appointment of Doncaster's former interim chief executive is the subject of severe criticism from the Audit Commission which described it as "a prime example of poor governance processes at work".

Tim Leader left the authority earlier this month with a 60,000 pay-off after less than three months in office and the report's criticisms suggest it would have been extremely difficult for him to remain in office any longer.

It says the process of making Mr Leader the most senior official "exemplifies the inability of a key officer and some councillors involved... to see above their own self interest and act for the greater good of the people of Doncaster."

The report also says Mr Leader "failed to behave in a way that lives up to the required standards of behaviour" and that he "undermined perceptions of the role of chief executive as an impartial servant of the mayor and the council". In addition: "The council failed to live up to minimum governance standards and persevered with an appointment process they were advised by external legal experts was flawed."

The controversy surrounding Mr Leader's appointment in January became immediately clear when a leaked letter he sent to Peter Davies revealed the mayor could not work with him and wanted his speedy removal.

The Audit Commission criticises councillors for being willing to appoint Mr Leader despite the mayor's personal antipathy towards him but also attacks Mr Leader, formerly monitoring officer, for playing a role in the appointment process.

The report says: "The evidence we have received makes it clear that Mr Leader continued to advise the council on the process it should follow to appoint an interim chief executive even after it became clear that he was a leading candidate for that position."

Mr Leader could not be contacted for comment.

Key reasons why outside intervention is necessary

The Audit Commission concludes that Doncaster Council is "failing" and the authority cannot recover without outside intervention.

It found three main issues which were consistently undermining the authority:

The way the council operates to frustrate what the mayor and cabinet seek to do

The lack of effective leadership shown by the mayor and cabinet

The lack of leadership shown by some chief officers and the way they have all been unable to work effectively together to improve services

Inspectors looked at six key areas and found the authority failed to reach even the minimum standard in all six.

Their report also concluded that the council did not have the ability to improve sufficiently in any of the areas without external support. It found:

Purpose and outcomes of the council are confused, key decisions are being delayed with a result that outcomes for local people are not being delivered, and value for money is not being delivered.

Functions and roles are unclear, responsibilities are not understood and not respected, and the council's leaders do not work effectively together. The overview and scrutiny process is operating as a separate source of executive policy making.

Values and behaviours do not meet minimum requirements. Some councillors and a few staff are not working within the ethical framework, are behaving in ways which do not exemplify good governance, and the council is not learning adequately from issues and complaints that arise.

Decision making is not rigorous or transparent. Key decisions relating to schools, housing and economic development have been delayed due to political antagonism within the authority. Good quality information and advice is not consistently used to make decisions and risk management is inconsistent and does not adequately cover partnership objectives.

Capacity and capability within the council is insufficient to deal with the problems it faces. Skills and knowledge are available but do not make a difference to the way key individuals behave. The council has shown itself unable to respond to previous attempts to help it because behaviours are entrenched.

Engagement by the council is inadequate, both internally with staff, and externally with partners and the people of Doncaster. Key groups of people within Doncaster find it hard to get their voices heard.