21 July 2005

Dear Max

CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

I am writing in response to the letter sent to UNISON on 27 June 2005 setting out details of the consultation exercise being undertaken by the Council in connection with the development of a Change Management Plan for the Council. The Branch Executive Committee has now had the opportunity to consider the contents of the proposed Plan and there have also been a number of meetings with UNISON members in a variety of Council workplaces. The matter has also been discussed at a recent meeting of the Environment Services Joint Consultative Board and will also be raised at the forthcoming meeting between trade union representatives and Directors.

As I have already explained to you during recent informal discussions, there is widespread and deep-seated concern and unease about a number of aspects of the proposed Plan. I should like to stress that the level of anxiety being expressed is exceptionally high and that, at present, there appears to be a mistrust of, and frustration with, both Councillors and senior managers in almost equal measure. This is plainly a very worrying and undesirable state of affairs and UNISON is keen to play its part in terms of attempting to promote a more positive environment in which discussion can take place. I hope, therefore, that the comments set out below will be seen as an attempt to be constructive. However, I believe it is essential that everyone involved in the change process should fully recognise and take into account the frustration being expressed by staff about a number of the proposals which are seen to be potentially not only a threat to jobs and conditions of service (including pensions) but also negative in terms of future service delivery.

The main issues being raised are as follows:

1. Some 10 years ago, the IWCC, Medina BC and South Wight BC went through a major re-organisation to form the current Unitary Authority. The changes involved in this process were underpinned by a promise that all staff would be offered a post in the new Authority commensurate with their skills and current salary. UNISON strongly believes that if this Authority is at all serious about caring for staff, and in valuing their contribution to public service, then it will repeat this “no compulsory redundancy” commitment to support the current negotiations around change.

2. So far there appears to have been a somewhat mixed pattern in terms of the way in which Directors and senior managers have consulted with, and engaged with, employees on this issue. Some Directors and Section Heads have met with individual staff groups in order to discuss the proposals and implications. However, in other instances, staff have merely had the document e-mailed to them without comment or attended meetings at which their manager read the document to them without having been given a copy.

This inconsistent approach seems very unsatisfactory and UNISON has received a number of comments that many staff feel that they have not been given enough time to properly consider the document. Several representations have described the exercise as a “shambles” which has caused disquiet and rumour-mongering – as well as conveying a lack of respect and courtesy to staff in some parts of the organisation.

There is clearly a widespread feeling that the current approach does not bode well for future consultation and, at a number of meetings, staff have expressed strong views that the Authority is entirely undeserving of IIP status.

It needs to be borne in mind that a significant number of the Authority’s staff are not on e-mail and have not had any opportunity whatever to respond to the Council’s draft Plan.

3. The above concerns have been exacerbated by suspicions engendered by the fact that there is now no formal mechanism by means of which UNISON, along with other recognised trade unions, can meet with Elected Members to directly raise the concerns of employees. Clearly there are mechanisms by which trade union representatives can meet with Directors and senior managers to consider key issues. However, numerous people have made the point that it is also essential that there should also be the opportunity to engage in direct dialogue with senior Councillors on a regular basis in order to discuss and develop a better understanding of the overall strategy being proposed. In these circumstances, UNISON wishes to propose the establishment of a tripartite forum involving Councillor, Directors and trade union representatives to allow free and open dialogue to develop and, hopefully, build a greater sense of trust.

4. Unfortunately, there appears to be a fairly widespread sense of scepticism and cynicism about the whole consultation process. This may in part be due to a weariness with the seemingly never-ending change process of recent years and a perhaps inevitable feeling that staff have been presented with numerous false dawns in the past. However, in addition to this, there is a more worrying development that employees do not really believe that their views will be accorded much attention and that proposals are being presented as a “fait accompli”. There has been much angry comment at meetings that only lip-service is being given to genuine consultation in order to ensure that this particular “box is ticked” in relation to relevant review processes in terms of the Council’s performance.

5. There are very widespread worries amongst staff that a number of Councillors and senior managers may have only a quite limited understanding of the implications of some changes for service delivery. In particular, there is still strong opposition to proposals to move away from the situation in which call centre staff have generally been embedded within individual sections and thus developed a detailed and intimate understanding of the operation and needs of a particular service. There is an almost universal view that a move to a generic call centre, combined with moves away from a direct dial service, will lead to a significant reduction in the quality of service delivery.

Similarly, proposals to move to a generic inspection and enforcement service in fields such as Trading Standards and Environmental Health are also seen as very counter-productive to the development of an effective service.

6. The above points should not be interpreted as indicating that staff are opposed to change. In fact, many of them are clear that they are willing to embrace sensible, pragmatic changes and express pride in what they believe they have already accomplished in this regard, highlighting best value and other reports which confirm this. However, they consider that it is essential that a genuine two-way dialogue is established to ensure that their views on the practical implications of proposals on professional service delivery are given proper weight.

7. Clearly, no-one doubts the need to provide high quality services for local people and this aspiration is applauded. However, there is a virtually universal view that the contracting out of Council departments is not the way to achieve this. Many representations have been received to the effect that such an approach will lead to higher Council costs over the short-term and only reduce costs in the longer term by means of a reduction in staff and/or erosions in pay and conditions. Such approaches are seen as certain to bring about both reductions in the quality of service, as well as being potentially highly damaging to the Island economy as a whole. The point has repeatedly been made that if external companies, with a primary responsibility to their shareholders, are faced with a choice between profit or high quality standards of service delivery, the latter will inevitably suffer. By contracting out services the Council will be achieving the opposite of what it intends – a point illustrated by the many examples in which many Authorities have been compelled to return services to being provided on an “in-house” basis.

8. UNISON is extremely concerned about the lack of clarity so far about how a number of proposed changes fit together. Plainly developments such as the Health and Social Care Organisation; the development of a strategic partnership; Highways PFI; other privatisations and the reorganisation of Directorates all have an impact on each other, but there seems to be little sense of co-ordination or direction in this regard.

The suggestion that further consultants may be engaged at high cost to drive and guide this process has inevitably attracted a large amount of very cynical and sceptical comment.

9. The scope of any proposed Strategic Partnership is not clear from the proposals and this is engendering considerable confusion and uncertainty. UNISON’s view is that as many services as possible should remain “in-house” and this view is fully shared by staff. Whilst there are claims that Strategic Partnerships have been successful in some places, there are numerous examples of expensive disasters – the most recent local example being West Berkshire’s partnership with Amey which has now collapsed.

10. The advantages of Strategic Partnerships have not been explained beyond vague references to “creating capacity”, “facilitating investment” and “encouraging creativity”. There are no reasons why such advantages could not be achieved in-house with the right encouragement and opportunities.

11. There are inevitable risks with any Strategic Partnership. Claims that risks associated with service delivery can be transferred to a Strategic Partner are unfounded since the responsibility will remain with the Local Authority even after transfer. Indeed, such risks actually increase because of the loss of democratic control.

12. Some time ago, the local Healthcare Trust entered into a Strategic Partnership with Capita (Chalice) for support services. This also failed and the services had to be brought back in-house. In their evaluation of the possible advantages for the Island, Price Waterhouse Cooper failed to address the reasons why Chalice did not succeed on the Island. Ironically, both Amey and Capita are amongst the firms saying the Isle of Wight Council should develop a Strategic Partnership – despite their own spectacular failures!

13. The other Island experience of Strategic Partner consultants is with PA Consultants at Medina Borough Council some fifteen years ago. This was a traumatic experience for those involved and the memories of this are still very much in the forefront of the minds of many staff. A subsequent proposal to bring them into the Isle of Wight Council was soon dropped.

14. The fundamental principle of a Strategic Partnership in an Isle of Wight context is flawed. There are no local firms big enough/skilled enough to fulfil the role, so inevitably a mainland firm would be engaged, leading to profits made from the Council Tax being paid by Island residents going to mainland shareholders. Eventually such a partnership would centralise the provision of support services which could be provided remotely, inevitably at a mainland location, resulting in the loss of Island jobs.

15. Island staff transferred to a Strategic Partnership would come under increasing pressure to transfer to mainland locations – eventually leading to an exodus of the trained workforce to the mainland. This would further increase the current imbalance of the Island population, resulting in a still greater proportion of elderly residents.

16. Price Waterhouse Cooper’s report appeared to conclude that there were advantages to a Strategic Partnership based on grand claims of staff savings and a subjective analysis of service improvements. It did not consider any options other than either “in-house” or “Strategic Partnership” and did not consider a range of internal improvements that could be made.

17. UNISON believes that a potentially more sensible option might be to temporarily engage external consultants to assist the Council in examining its internal processes with a view to achieving value for money rather than considering wholesale externalisation. In particular, further advice could be given on means of achieving improvements in procurement strategies and specialist training.

18. The Audit Commission’s recent guidance on achieving Value for Money acknowledges that there will be local circumstances where it is necessary to spend more on particular services in order to achieve VFM, (eg the elderly on the Isle of Wight). The effectiveness/quality element of VFM should not be ignored. Access to services by all is also essential and this appears far less certain with a “remote” Strategic Partnership. In addition, the Audit Commission’s wider definition of VFM also refers to securing “community benefits”, social enterprises, achieving regeneration and building the local “mixed” economy. A Strategic Partnership would result in putting all our eggs into one risky private sector basket and an inevitable draining of resources from the Island to the mainland.

19. Finally, the decision to unilaterally amend a number of provisions in terms of possible pension enhancements and redundancy payments, without any prior consultation with staff and their accredited trade union representatives, has been greeted with both fury and dismay in equal measure. Everyone acknowledges the need for proper economy but these measures are seen to be both draconian and vindictive at a time when the goodwill of staff is essential. They are also being seen as a signal of the Council’s intention to use wholesale redundancies as a major weapon in its stated aim of becoming “the most frugal Council in the country”.

I obviously regret the somewhat lengthy nature of this response. However I can assure you that a considerably expanded document could have been produced if all representations received by UNSION over recent weeks had been comprehensively included! I hope that UNISON’S comments can be seen as constructive and that there will be a positive response by both Councillors and senior managers of the Authority.

UNISON believes it is essential that effective and meaningful dialogue involving Councillors, management and trade unions should be established and that it is only by means of this that the current potentially disastrous low level of staff morale can begin to be raised.

Branch representatives look forward to discussing these matters further with Council Directors next week.

Yours sincerely

Mark Chiverton

Branch Secretary

Mr M Burton

Head of Human Resources

Isle of Wight Council

County Hall

NEWPORT

Isle of Wight PO30 1UD

cc: Cllr A Sutton, Leader of the Council

Cllr R Mazillius, Chairman of Scrutiny Committee

All Directors

Mr D Price

Mr J Metcalfe

All Unison Members