Thursday 29 October 2015

Birmingham Cultural Strategy Response, October 2015

This blog is a response to the consultation documents for the Birmingham Cultural Strategy 2015-2019. While the consultation ends on the 30th October I thought I’d share my response with you.
Time line for consultation. The online consultation will close on 30 October 2015. It is proposed that the revised strategy is scheduled to be endorsed at Cabinet on 17 Nov 2015 prior to being presented at the City Council Meeting on 1st December. The documents are available though https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/birmingham-cultural-strategy-2015-2019/consult_view
The Cultural Strategy vision statement: is
Birmingham is a non-stop city of culture – a capital of imagination, innovation and enterprise.
My Response  
Q.   Have we got the overall strategy and theme vision right? Have we missed anything?
On your Doorstep I believe so much has been achieved by the District Arts Fora over the past few years that they should become a focus of cultural develop at a community level over the next 4/5 years. You continue to use the term We as a generic term for City, i.e. Council, leadership within this field and continue to talk about residents making a “positive contribution to the local arts fora”. Nowhere does it talk about residents taking leadership roles. “Planned progression, improved signposting and better use of social media”. The implication of these comments is that the City Council will lead, it is a top down approach to community arts engagement that does not acknowledge the skills talent or vision of local community participants or ‘assets’
Creative Futures / A Creative City  Who is the We in this element? Assuming it is the City how is it going to achieve some of the outcomes when it has no control over the process. There is no clarity of partnership or process development.
Culture Capital  Are you seriously telling everyone that the Jewellery Quarter is the only ‘ significant heritage site’ in Birmingham. The proposal continues to ignore significant cultural venues and events throughout the City, Vaisakhi, St Patrick’s Festival, Flat Pack, etc. which engage communities and attract visitors.
Is the Strategy right
No, There are huge gaps in your thinking, it is top down ignoring the asset in communities and the experience and potential for development of the major arts organisations in the City. Where is the link to Birmingham Arts Partnership, creative arts education and youth and community provision? You confuse arts development, audience participation and community development; three distinct elements that require separate thought and development. Somewhere there is a bit of audience development. the actions are not clear and the outcomes vague.
There is no discussion about partnership development with providers of services that can deliver some of the outcomes and no recognition of the role of community. The term co-production is used once but then ignored, preference being given to We [The City] as a lead in actions   

Q.  Are there any other actions / proposals that should be considered to deliver this themes outcomes?
There needs to be distinct clarification between the various cultural activities within the City and where this strategy supports each process.
The City’s diminishing budget will come to equal diminishing influence within the arts and cultural offer. As a body it, the City, needs to acknowledge this and plan accordingly.
The outcomes are too vague and often not within the City's realm of delivery. The term culture needs to encompass all 'cultural' activities and the City needs to stop distinguishing / demarcating between culture and 'events'
The platitudes about engagement and participation need to be removed and replaced with clear objectives for participation in defined arts activities (audience growth) and community activity and local forum.
The City needs to be specific in how it develops or facilitates partnerships. It needs to acknowledge that there may be greater experience and skills in other organisations and partners. It also needs to acknowledge that future council activity will be more akin to the initiation and facilitation of specific partnership and not everything being led by the Council.
Partnership and development should be (and probably already is) undertaken by specific arts or community organisations who are capable of developing and delivering activities, outputs and outcomes

Q.  What partnerships / networks are needed to help deliver the actions?
Throughout the documentation you refer to We [The City] as initiating actions to develop outcomes.
The development or facilitation of partnerships is not within any of your action points. There are current arts partnerships and developments, that are not mentioned within this strategy.
There is already a network of community arts fora [Arts Fora are mentioned but only in the context that more local people should be engaged].
The strategy MUST  acknowledge, and provide equal prominence to, the local arts forums,  Birmingham Arts Partnership etc. and not focus on how the City will deliver actions and outcomes.
How will you bring together current fora and partnerships to deliver an action, outcome and output orientated strategy acknowledging the skills and experiences of the partners.
You mention encouraging collaboration “ as a means to optimise the business model through driving out unnecessary cost and opening up opportunities for artists, audiences and income generation.”
Collaboration is not partnership and is this definition of collaboration to be forced upon organisations for budgetary purposes and not artistic or cultural development?

Q. How do we know what success looks like (key measures / indicators)?
Within the current, proposed, strategy it will be easy.
You count the numbers visits, people engaged in arts fora, seats sold, participants in local events, people with qualifications or employed in arts, etc. There is no ambition in this strategy to go beyond simple bean counting.

Real indicators would begin to explore shared ticketing and marketing of the City’s major arts providers, possibly linked to hotel booking or other major events in the City, Vaisakhi, St Patrick’s Festival, other street and cultural events.
Acknowledging the major street and ethnic festivals within the cultural offer, and not categorising them as ‘events’ would also be progress.
Distinguishing between community arts and community development using arts is crucial as is acknowledging that using arts to deal with ‘issues’ is also a separate issue to arts engagement and the aesthetic development of people. Developing, with partners, criteria and potential funding avenues for these distinct areas would be a major step forward.
Acknowledging local experience and skills in developing arts activity and community engagement and not believing that all the expertise lies within the council measurement and indicator of success.
Details for the City Documents / Cultural Strategy 2019: Key Themes:
The Strategy’s vision will be realised through a series of actions relating to each of the following themes:
  1. Culture on Your Doorstep - locally relevant, and locally driven, cultural activities which develop increased engagement and participation, particularly from those less inclined to participate
  1. A Creative Future – activities for children and young people 0-25, within the “Creative Future” framework for progression as creators, participants, audiences and leaders
  1. A Creative City – actions to support the growth of creative SMES and micro-businesses through business support, skills and talent development and access to finance
  1. Our Cultural Capital – activities which cement Birmingham’s role as a centre of imagination, innovation and enterprise, with local roots and international reach

  1. Our Cultural Future – actions which support the development of new business models capable of sustaining and growing the sector into the future

Wednesday 28 October 2015

My Annual discourse on the history of Halloween

I know I can’t stop the commercialisation of the 31st October but I can remind people of its significance  

What is Halloween
Halloween or "All Hallow's Eve" is the night of October 31. It is now the eve of All Saint's Day, 1st November, in the Christian faith
Samhain – mid solstice (pronounced sah-win or sow-in)
is the first and most important of the four quarter days in the Celtic Calendar, the Celts believed to have measured time by nights rather than by days the nights are getting longer, the 'darker half' of the year, winter is beginning.
Samhain marks the end of the harvest, the brining in of food, the land is ready for winter. The year is over and a new one is beginning.  Samhain was the festival that marked the "New Year" for the Celtic peoples.
Links to the dead and other spirits
Samhain was seen as a liminal time, when the boundary between this world and the ‘otherworld’ thinned, it is therefore an important time in Celtic ‘spiritual’ time, the feast, or memorial, of the dead.  
As in many other cultures the Celts believed that the souls of the dead return home on one night of the year. Candles would be lit and places were set at the dinner table and by the fire to welcome them.
In some Celtic countries it was believed that the ‘wilder spirits’, fairies, elves etc. could more easily come into our world and were particularly active At Samhain, it was believed that the Aos Sí, as they were called in Ireland, (pronounced ees shee), needed to be appeased to ensure that livestock, and harvest survived the winter. Offerings of food and drink, or portions of the crops, were left outside and there is some belief that bonfires were lit to ward off the spirits.
Getting dressed up
From at least the 16th century mumming and guising became part of the activities in Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man and Wales; people going house-to-house in costume (or in disguise), usually reciting verses or songs in exchange for food.
This may have been a development of a tradition where people impersonated the Aos Sí, or the souls of the dead, and received offerings on their behalf. Impersonating these beings, or wearing a disguise, was also believed to protect oneself from them
Modern Halloween
So where does Dracula, Mummies, Frankenstein and Witches and others fit in?  - They don’t!

It’s not about evil, it is about ghosts, family ghosts, coming home to be with families for the evening and it is about mischief, elves and fairies and other mystical Celtic sprits being appeased so they don’t cause mischief. Trick or Treat anyone!   

With thanks to a variety of pages from Wikipedia as well as other sites and sources.

Wednesday 7 October 2015

Civic and community leadership in Birmingham

Following Cllr James McKay resignation from his Birmingham City Council Cabinet post and his criticism of the political leadership in the City I just wanted to add a few thoughts concerning civic leadership. While Sir Albert may be perceived to be one of the problems, he is not the only issue that stands in the way of civic engagement.
There is still a mentality amongst some Councillors and officers that they, and the City Council, are the most appropriate people, and body, to lead civic activity.
Kerslake criticised Councillors and officers for believing that if something is worth doing it should be lead by the Council. He also confused the matter by calling Councillors ‘community leaders’, which they are not.
There are many talented civic and community minded people in Birmingham who are eager to work in true partnership with Birmingham Council, and other public bodies. This passion can be  stifled by Officers and Councillors alike, and by Officers advising Councillors that the Council is best placed to lead, or has the best policies, or should develop the policy and then proceed and... and.... and ..... People give up and walk away.
True consultation is listening and sharing, identifying the issue and problem, identifying needs, sharing protocols and processes, identifying solutions and then identifying the best people/bodies to get the job done.
True co-production is recognising the strengths and abilities of all interested parties, developing processes and protocols that utilise such skills and engagement and develop services that reflect both professional and community/grassroots input.
True development is recognising that participants in the above activities may come from specific communities of class, culture, interest and geography within the city, and thus developing a process for all to engage; some will take longer than others but we shouldn’t stifle development using inclusion as an excuse. We should incorporate social inclusion and responsibility for incorporating all as part of our consultation and co-production methodology.
True leadership allows these civic processes to flow, enabling partnership, co-production and asset based community development to take place, at different rates and levels dependent on the skills, desires and opportunities in the communities. Leadership allows development of individuals and collectives of individuals to take responsibility for change. Leadership allows problems to be resolved without prescribing the solution and methodology and without imposing staff.
So where is the leadership in Birmingham? Who leads the civic and community sector? Who develops voice and influence of civic activists? And who facilitates the community actor’s access to co-production, partnership and delivery?  
For this to be answered we have to address the fundamental question: does the Council, as a governance and delivery structure, serve the community or does the community serve the Council? Does the Council share and partner with civic and community groups, or, does it ‘do unto the community’, providing the services and support it believes are needed?
The Council still has a major role in leadership through facilitating and encouraging civic and community activism, listening to and acting with those who want to and can work in partnership to resolve issues. Where is the leadership in the civic sector in developing such activity and partnership?

In the absence of a coherent and structured civic leadership and activity, does the LEP fill a gap? The business sector believes it is leading the economic recovery, and, through the LEP, with its powers to invest, providing some of the necessary leadership. This however is business development, employment and skills focused, so where does that leave civic and community engagement?

Sunday 19 July 2015

3 Field Asset Based Development - an abstract and link to full document

3 FIELD ABSTRACT

The Three Field Asset Based Development discussion document explores the potential reconfiguring of the relationship between the health sector with the complex but hugely resourceful voluntary and community sector (VCS).

The ‘Three Fields’ referred to in the title identifies distinct roles within health care provision.    
The paper outlines how the Three Fields, by being specific about the roles of identified organisations within the statutory and VCS sectors, can help health provision to benefit from working more strategically with VCS organisations, complementing and enhancing statutory provision.

The paper also identifies implementation and relationship issues.
For the process to succeed there is not only a need to be specific about the provision within the fields, but also a need to change the culture and attitude of statutory health organisations towards VCS organisations – attitudes to sharing information, acknowledging skills, commissioning appropriate organisations to achieve appropriate outcomes and services. The paper outlines changes that need to be made if such developments are to succeed related to a code of connection, reciprocal knowledge and financial relationships.

The paper concludes by identifying first steps and next actions. Having identified the process and the issues there is acknowledgement that the process will not happen without buy in and a change in culture in delivering health care.  

While a version of this document appears within this blog the full version with illustrations  can be found on the RnR Organisation web site  http://www.rnrorganisation.co.uk/blogs/three-field-asset-based-community-development/


Tuesday 7 July 2015

Letter to the Labour Party

I was canvassed last week about the Labour Party Deputy Leadership and read five statements as to the important attributes of the position holder. None of the statements resonated with me as essential skills or attributes for the current issues faced by the Labour Party. The question has, however, been with me over the week and Im still not sure of who I will support as none of the leadership candidates for leader or deputy leader had mentioned or discussed the issues I believe are fundamental to the partys revival in the coming years.

Leaders come in many guises the leader of the party should set the tone but, at a local level, Council Leaders and councillors need to adjust their view of leadership and partnership.
Historically the Labour Party recruited from working class people, working in partnership with Trade Unions to improve circumstances and conditions. The definition of Labour's core vote is now more difficult and, at the last election, the Conservatives won the vote from working people by preceding that term with a number of judgemental adjectives eg honest, hard etc. This, together with UKIP's fear mongering statements, led to large numbers of traditional labour voters believing, and subsequently voting for, other parties. 

With the core vote abandoning the Labour Party how should leaders reinvigorate the party?
Do we continue to discuss inequalities and the austerity environment created by the last Coalition Government and to be continued by the current Government?The party was brandied as bad managers of the economy, soft on immigration and supporters of welfare and malingerers. The hard working families, tax payers, etc. pulled up the Im alright jack ladder and voted Tory.  How do we begin to win back the voters lost at the last election?

Some of the current candidates for either leader or deputy are adopting the rhetoric of the victors   the 'sensible economic management creates an environment where welfare can flourish' mantra.

Its not a matter of whether the Labour party should be left, centre left or any other variety of left - for me its how Labour regains credibility in the communities it was born from and purports to represent. Labour's traditional working class supporters have become the PR categorised hard working families. How does Labour define and represent its traditional community? What is Labours community?How does the party win back a core vote in an environment where its core values and beliefs have been vanquished in a soundbite and a PR election campaign that continues into the current administration and, more importantly, who is the core group or community it is trying to win back?How is Labour to regain the belief of those it was established to represent, those that have been charmed away by sales of council houses, shares in nationalised industries and the decimation of the trade unions?

The economy and working environment that existed when Labour was created has gone. More people have become home owners with mortgages, more are self-employed or sub contracted relying on agency or zero hour contracts. It is these people who have listened to and been taken in by the PR hype and rhetoric of Cameron and the Tories. 

Does Labour attempt to win back its political position through singular political argument, or does it explore another route, embedding itself in communities that are in need, not just campaigning for change, but undertaking activities that bring about change - community activity, and campaigning that supports peoples lives and affects their environments, a doing politics to add to and augment the verbal and cerebral politics of which we are so fond?
Im not just talking about Ward or community meetings, listening events. I mean community focused activity litter picks, community clean ups, safety campaigns and local events, as well as exploring service development in a new economic structure. I mean encouraging their activists not just to turn up but to offer their skills in developing and managing activities; in other words good old fashioned community development. Not shoving the Labour Party down peoples throats but being a part of a community, as a Labour Party supporter, listening to, working with, gaining the trust of, and ultimately representing, communities.

Groups in the community run their own campaigns to develop their own services, they develop representation to increase support. The leadership within the Labour Party, at a variety of levels, has to accept that sometimes community activism may come into conflict with the political and administrative duties of the Party when it is in power. 

We now have a Conservative government that will slash and burn the public sector, cut public expenditure in order to cut taxes, cuts that will have an impact on those who voted Conservative as well as those who didnt. There is a need for a dual role approach, with Labour arguing and campaigning against those cuts, raising awareness of the impact as well as working constructively to save some services by exploring new funding packages, developing new economic partnerships between Councils and Voluntary and Community Sector groups. We may not save all services but we may re-coordinate some.  

So this brings me back to leadership, leadership across the party and not just at Leader and Deputy leader status. Leadership that recognises that the public sector does not have to do everything, acknowledging that some communities have become disempowered by public sector led projects, politicians engaging staff to deliver services, and in return the politician gets the recognition and applause. 

Many councillors see themselves as community leaders - they are not. Councillors are governance managers and scrutinisers for local services and administration. Councillors can campaign for services in their Ward and make representation on behalf of groups and individuals in need. While they may come from, or belong to, groups in the community, as a Councillor, they do not lead the community or even the Ward.

Leadership is about recognising purpose and product, harnessing skills and experiences in a multi levelled process, working with a variety of individuals with skills to deliver processes that lead to identifiable outcomes, not just at a political governance level, but at a community and service delivery level as well.

Leadership is acknowledging that the political environment has changed forever. Labour had the idea of the Welfare State and over the years there have been additions e.g. equal pay, gender inequality etc. but we have lost this ground and we need to regain the communities most affected by its decline, communities that did not vote for Labour in 2015.

Leadership is recognising that things need to change, not just be tweaked. If all parliamentary and assembly politicians, Councillors, Councils, and the incoming Labour Leadership are sincere in focusing on change, it has to be real, wide ranging change that includes all facets of community engagement and development. Building support from the grass roots with purpose, engagement and a belief in shared skills, true empowerment and development.

Given the list of candidates however none of this answers who I should consider voting for in the forthcoming elections.

Centralised funding, diminishing local authority, Combined Authorities and the role of the VCS

LOCAL AUTHORITY: A HISTORICAL VIEW
Do we have a rose tinted view of Local Authority power that is influenced by the ‘great’ civic leaders of bygone days?  Days when social and public programmes benefited  business and councils, controlled by the ‘great and the good’. Business leaders with a conscience developed centres of administration, Council Houses (Civic Centres) and Town Halls, to celebrate and remind people of the growing power and influence of local administrators and ‘benefactors’.
These benefactors however, were becoming more dependent on central funding for their growing projects, a dependency that would ultimately curtailing their ability to act ‘locally’. 
Over the past 30 years the role of Local Authority as a ‘delivery’ vehicle for national programmes has increased, while its role as local benefactor and innovator has all but disappeared. Local Authorities are now highly dependent on National Government funding through grant settlements and specific project / programme funding.
The provision of gas and electric were the first major services to be removed, long time ago, followed, over the years, by water, busses and post 16 education (FE Colleges). Social care, for children and adults have been eroded, as has the Council's role in statutory education.
It could be argued that the Housing Finance Act 1972 was one of the first national acts that impacted on local delivery / services. Municipal housing was no longer just a local issue - it was now governed by national legislation. Local Authorities were ‘forced’ to raise rents to fund their new, nationally imposed, responsibilities. While rent strikes followed as well as Councillors being disbarred for not complying with legislation (Cley Cross), the principle had been set. Not only were Local Authorities dependent on Central Government for major infrastructure developments, they also had to ‘do as they were told’ in what were seen as local services and provision.

LOCAL INITIATIVES, CENTRAL CONTROL BYPASSING LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Moving forward to the coalition government, over the last 5 years the centralisation of government initiatives has increased, exacerbating, and in some cases undermining,  Local Authority initiatives. Localism become the  mantra of the coalition government - central government pilots, vanguard projects and initiatives all but eroded local authority initiated activities, if not completely to the point of irrelevance, then very close to it. 
There is, however, a dichotomy in the methodology of the coalition and in the current administration. How do you reduce the services delivered through the public realm, especially Local Authority, while increasing local engagement and involvement within the decision making and localisation of services, actively engaging residents in planning services for their community?
The variety of initiatives developed that promoted the ‘locally led’ ethos of the Government continued to undermine the role of democratically accountable local authorities in strategic planning and development. From small neighbourhood management pilots to the development of academies, these were promoted as methods of developing delivery that are ‘managed’ locally. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), have been created and given the responsibility of economic growth and are led by local businesses. Health and Social care are growing increasingly closer together, potentially dominated by Health trusts, locally managed, with some delivery in the private sector. These are all funded through central programmes, removing a layer of accountability, and management. How will the creation of the West Midlands Combined Authority sit with these developments? Will it be any different to the current structure, will it have to work across LEP areas and remain totally dependent on national government funding for major infrastructure projects.  
While there has been no overt statement concerning the reduction /removal / demise in the role of current Local Authorities, the fiscal reduction of budgets managed by Councils, and the subsequent reduction in staff, together with the centralised focus on regeneration initiatives and competitive element introduced to infrastructure programmes, does not bode well.

WHERE IS THE ROLE OF THE TRADITIONAL VCS IN ALL THIS?
If we accept that, in the future, large, local infrastructure projects could be undertaken without recourse to raising the finance locality, business led, by-passing traditional local democratically accountable processes, then we have to ask what is the future for Voluntary and Community Organisations (VCS), community focused and infrastructure?

If national programmes are to be developed and delivered, with a local focus, by financially and ‘democratically’ accountable bodies, with established and accepted governance procedures, who is going to deliver them? Local VCS organisations, small community groups that have some accountability to local process and members  or larger Academies and Housing Associations that are neither responsible nor accountable to local democratic bodies but are more than capable of applying, developing and delivering centralised government projects – on a local basis? 

Monday 6 July 2015

Literary prologue to Wednesday’s budget

In ‘His Final Bow’, Sherlock Holmes last story Conan-Doyle provides Holmes with a patriotic speech to Watson.  
"There's an east wind coming, Watson."
"I think not, Holmes. It is very warm."
"Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age. There's an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared."
While the story was based in 1914, prior to the war it was written in 1917. Conan-Doyle had the benefit of hindsight as he knew the consequences of the 1914 -18 war. Watson therefore becomes a foil for Holmes, who is obviously aware of what is to come.
Perhaps using a comparison between the First World War and the potential devastation to our civic organisations and services about to be ‘let loose’ by the Conservative Government may be a bit perverse and over the top.
As a Voluntary and Community Sector we are preparing for the ‘east wind’. Let us not be a “Good old Watson” a “fixed point in a changing age”. The devastation will not be the physical devastation of war but the cold and bitter change to the funding and structure we have become used to will continue and increase in impact.
Many groups may wither, many individuals will suffer, and we can but hope that a stronger and better service will emerge when the storm has cleared.
For that to happen the VCS should not be Dr Watson and miss the ‘signs’ of change that Holmes has outlined to him throughout the story.
We need to focus on all the changes taking place, Combined Authorities, Budget cuts, Public sector commissioning and the potential to co produce/ design services etc.
We need to recognise that we, as a sector, have little chance of preventing the changes. We do however need to read the signs, put our foot in the door, even when we aren't invited, and snatch the opportunity to shape and influence the changes.    

Tuesday 17 February 2015

Kerslake is wrong

This is the first in a series of blogposts concerning the reframing of Local Authorities and the impact it will have on Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) ecosystem.
Subsequent blogs will address the history of local governance and our potential ‘romantic view’ of Councils capability to deliver local services as well as exploring the future of the VCS within combined authorities.

In this blogpost I explore why I believe Sir Bob Kerslake is wrong in his recommendations concerning Birmingham City Council. While he may have addressed some fundamental issues of service failure, identifying capacity and operational issues for members and officers, I believe that his inappropriate use of the term ‘community leader’ as well as mixing the terminology ‘civic / community / resident’ has the potential to undermine the importance of VCS organisations in the future.
The Kerslake report is having a fundamental impact on local governance and democracy in Birmingham. Whilst having to deliver some of the most ruthless public sector cuts, the City has to deal with national government insisting that how Councillors represent and make decisions concerning services is not working and that it needs a significant overhaul.
The proposal to reduce the Council from 120 to 100 Councillors will, Kerslake argues, enable Councillors to provide greater representation to those they serve. (ref1)
Kerslake makes a number of references to engaging and representing communities. He argues that Wards are too big (15 of them being the largest in the country(ref2)). Increasing the number of wards and decreasing the number of Councillors would increase representation from 13,413 to 10,730 per Councillor.  This he argues will enable Councillors to concentrate on regular, direct engagement with the people and organisations in their wards and role as community leaders (ref3)
Kerslake believes that this change will enable the council to fulfil one of its principal functions, “to represent the views of citizens and enable them to participate in the decisions that affect them and their local communities. Their democratic mandate gives councillors and councils the opportunity to act as community leaders.” (ref4).
Additionally, Kerslake questions the format of devolution in Birmingham, stating it doesn’t work, and that “It urgently needs a new model of devolution that enables services to be delivered within the resources available and provides more powerful community engagement.”(ref5)
While I may agree with some of Kerslake’s arguments, especially the part about the Council believing that if something should be done, it (the Council), should do it. I’m not too sure that his belief that the changes and the ‘shake up’ of devolution will enable councillors and the Council to represent the views of citizens and enable them to participate in the decisions that affect them and their local communities. I believe that Kerslake’s belief that “their [Councillors] democratic mandate gives councillors and councils the opportunity to act as community leaders” to be wrong and seriously flawed.  
Councillors are civically elected leaders of Birmingham. The mandate that the democratic process gives them is to make decisions on how to run, and deliver, services that legislation requires and expects, and services that are devolved to a Local Authority.  This mandate and the legislative role do not make them Community Leaders. 
The terms ‘civic’ and ‘community’ accompanied by the term ‘leadership’, together with the terms ‘resident’,’ VCS’ and ‘communities’ seem to used as interchangeable terms, with no accompanying glossary of definitions by Kerslake, within the document.
I would question the use of the term ‘community leader’, used to describe the relationship between councillor and ‘constituent’ / ward residents, and how a councillor represents those needs within a democratic structure - this is not community / civic leadership.
There is however a significant difference between Councillors as democratically mandated representatives, and as community leaders. Councillors represent ALL people within a geographic area, a ward. Community leaders represent groups that have a common bond - of geography, interest, culture (including in this definition, ethnicity, disability, gender etc. ) and/or of faith. Such groups make up communities within and across wards, and will have leaders who speak for them and their needs.
These community leaders may have a different mandate and a different remit to Councillors. Community needs are fluid, and representation will respond to that fluidity. Communities within a geographic area change, and therefore the leadership may change.  A Councillor’s duty of representation, together with their duty of governance, is different to community representation.
Duty of governance is a responsibility, dictated by legislation and enacted by national government. Community leader are not restrained by such legislation - the restrictions outlined through charity and company legislation only relates to operational activity. Therefore, community leaders can represent their constituents / members in any way they feel appropriate, something not available to Councillors.
Clarity is required as to what Kerslake means by Councillors being ‘community leaders’ as well as his use of the terms ‘civic leadership’ and ‘community representatives’. Where, in the whole process of partnership, leadership and delivery does he see the role for the rag bag of groups that form the Civic, Community, Voluntary and Third Sector?  
The wide range of VCS organisations within the City represents their ‘constituent communities’. Surely it is the role of Councillors not to act as ‘leaders’ of these communities, but to corporately represent their voice to develop and deliver services appropriate to need, advised and supported by officers, within budget and legislative governance?
Much of the document focuses on the Council’s inability to act strategically, manage its structures of delivery and work in partnership. Kerslake criticises the council for its belief that “if it’s worth doing, the Council should do it.” (ref6)  While he offers guidance on how the relationship between officers and members should be developed, he restricts the development of how strategic decisions are taken with partners  to the public realm. Having promoted Councillors to ‘Community Leaders’, he makes passing reference to ‘residents’ and ‘communities’ as an interchangeable concept.     
While I may agree with him that the Council should produce, with their partners, a clear statement of partnership values, such as openness, transparency, learning and collaborating (ref7), the creation of an environment for safe and constructive challenges will not be brought about if Councillors see themselves as ‘Community Leaders’ in the way Kerslake seems to be advocating.
VCS organisations should be able to lobby and argue for services within a ‘safe and constructive’ environment, engaging Councillors, and subsequently officers, in developing projects, programmes and services to address identified and agreed needs. Parameters for discussion and lobbying need to be clear from the start. Single community groups need to be aware of the strategic picture as much as they are aware of their own needs.
These discussions can be undertaken at a variety of levels - community, interest, cultural and/or faith and can be developed within a ‘whole city’ strategic framework. Councillors can make their decisions, as Civic Leaders, within legislative boundaries, based on this consultation.
While Kerslake is intent on restructuring the Council, he is too vague in how residents, communities and civic leaders will participate in this change, aside from voting for a whole council every four years. He acknowledges that the Council, officers and members, need to recognise that there may be other ways of delivering activities other than the Council ‘doing everything’, but at that point he stops.
I would support Kerslake in his assertion that   “the Council need to clarify its roles (ref8), responsibilities, behaviours and ways of working of the Leader, Cabinet, councillors, Chief Executive and officers”  but I would add that VCS organisations need to play a full and active role in that clarification.
In developing a new structure and clarity, the Council needs to recognise the breadth of representation for civic/voluntary /community organisations, and identify ordered and appropriate methods for engaging and harnessing such enthusiasm. From a VCS perspective, the Council cannot adopt a whole city approach and focus partnership development on one single organisation which, in a city the size of Birmingham, cannot hope to fully represent the diverse breadth of organisations.

So, is Kerslake wrong?
Yes, in two aspects and omissions
  1. identifying Councillors as ‘Community leaders’ without fully clarifying the definition of those terms
  2. not being specific about VCS consultation as a partner in developing services

These two omissions can, and probably will, cause hours of debate and discussion which could have been avoided had Bob Kerslake been a little more precise in his submission and recommendations.  


References
1 The way forward: an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of Birmingham City   Council, Sir Bob Kerslake, 2014,  page 15
2 Ibid. Page 26
3 Ibid. Recommendation (7e) Page 12
4 Ibid. Page 16
5 Ibid. Page 15
6 Ibid. Recommendation (8), page 12
7 Ibid. Recommendation (9), page 12

8 Ibid. Point 15, page 35