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?