Over the early part of 2018, the Centre for Public Scrutiny, working with the Democratic Society, led an independent study of governance for Kensington & Chelsea RLBC
After the Grenfell fire, councillors wanted to understand how the council might need to change and modernise. Our work aimed to take a fundamental look at decision-making, transparency, public involvement and other issues relating to democratic and corporate governance. All of this would take place in the context of the people, community, borough and council continuing to respond to the tragedy.
In this context, it could be argued that it was not a good time to carry out a review of governance. It could have been seen as a technical response at a time when empathy, caring and humility were rightly being demanded on all fronts.
However, good governance is about staying effective, relevant and valid. There is no point attempting to rebuild trust, transform services or create new partnerships if this is not reflected in how policies are devised, decisions are made and scrutinised and those responsible are held to account. These are the rules of engagement which matter most and act as the foundation stone to creating great places, with the communities we serve.
For a democratic organisation seeking to stay relevant – understanding how it can better engage to make more informed decisions and build a new way forward based on trust, it is a brave and necessary step.
In our report to Kensington & Chelsea RLBC, we were keen to support the council in finding practical ways it could involve its vibrant, engaged communities and residents in decision-making.
One area we focused on was bringing local people into a borough-wide conversation about the strategic direction of the authority. The approach we suggested was the establishment of a citizens’ assembly to act as the focus for this conversation. Citizens’ assemblies have been in the news recently – it was such a body that acted as one of the catalysts for the recent referendum on abortion in the Republic of Ireland.
An assembly is comprised of a group of local people, randomly selected (but, as far as possible, to closely reflect the demographics of the area in question). This group, which might comprise 30 or 40 people, is supported by a team of professionals to dig into a specific issue or topic. They can take evidence from experts and have time and space to debate, consider and refine a consensus on that topic.
Using such an assembly to help to define the future of a ‘place’ is slightly different to how it has been used in other contexts, but here we made the suggestion because we thought that it demonstrated a clear attempt to ensure that local people and their needs are central to the change that the council makes.
The final decisions on how that vision and direction translate into council policy and decision-making will need to be made by the council themselves. But having the process led by an independent assembly sends a powerful message.
A borough-wide conversation is not, for us, confined to an assembly. It is about the work of that assembly being used to inform debate and discussion across the whole community, individual-to-individual, within and between political parties and within and between local resident, amenity and advocacy groups and, among professionals. Listening to and learning from these conversations and using them to frame a vision for the future will be a tough challenge for the council. We noted in our report that trust in the authority among certain sections of the community is very low. But this kind of open dialogue is, we feel, the only way to start to effect real change.
We have made other recommendations for change too – around formal governance (borough wide and area by area) – and around the way the council uses its formal structures to listen to the community and its needs. We are looking forward to learning how the council plans to take those forward, alongside other changes that are currently being made to how the authority works.
In our work, we regularly hear that residents are not interested in getting involved in decision-making, despite the best efforts. And who would be, when the process can appear impenetrable, archaic and taking place in stuffy committee rooms by people who don’t look like me. To be relevant, valid and effective, we need to be creative, accessible and willing to get out there and listen. This change will not happen without us letting go and working hard to find ways to create new relationships with our communities and citizens.
Jacqui McKinlay is chief executive of the Centre for Public Scrutiny