Response to ECC Leisure Manager Email

 

These are Jim’s observations on the points raised by the ECC Leisure Manager in his email of 31st January 2007 and which have been sent to him as a response on 6th February.

Particularly significant amongst these observations is the explanation regarding the Club’s financial resources, as money seems to be the major focus for Local Government. Questions are posed which, if answered satisfactorily, might lead to a greater understanding of the Summerway situation.

 

Dear Ian,

I will continue to address you informally, unless you request that I do otherwise, because we have been on Christian name terms and I would prefer that to continue. Also, I would prefer that our acquaintanceship will eventually ripen into friendship rather than into something less pleasant.

I can’t say I was particularly thrilled to receive your email of 31st January, but thank you for it anyway.  It does flag up some issues regarding Local Government which are best tackled than left to fester.  On this score, I am composing this response on a website page, and the response would have been sent to you in email form before it is published on the web as a matter of courtesy.

Before I start responding to your email, I wish to make it abundantly clear that, while there are serious areas of disagreement in our opinions, nothing I am saying is aimed at you personally.  I am most anxious that no one should get hurt as we try to reach a proper conclusion to the issues at hand, so please do realise that it is only the opinions that I may be opposing, and not you as an individual.  Everybody matters.

In this response, I will show quotes from your email in blue, and the questions that I wish to pose in red.  I hope you will endeavour to answer the questions, as that is likely to improve understanding between us - perhaps even throwing a deeper light on Local Government attitudes.

The first point I wish to raise is your use of the word “ outburst ”.  When I consulted my favourite dictionary (Concise Oxford, 11th ed.) it confirmed what I understood to be the meaning of the word, viz. something which is the result of strong emotion. This raises a huge issue, because I know that my email was not driven by any strong emotion, but was simply a reasoned document.  In fact, the strongest emotion that the whole Summerway saga has induced in me is something between disapproval and disgust at the difference in treatment Local Government accords to those who can afford to buy their leisure and the provision made to ALL the community by bodies such as our registered Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC).  I think you would have gleaned the complete absence of excessive emotion on my part from the penultimate paragraph of my email, had you read it carefully.  I am beginning to believe that the seeming inability of some Councillors and Officers to read properly and understand the communications addressed to them is a significant cause underlying a great deal of the problems we are facing.  As it is, your inappropriate use of the word “ outburst ” may well have led Kerra to refer to my “emotional email” in her E&E report, which description I find offensive because it just isn’t true.  Pointing this out to Kerra may well have caused her some distress and harmed the relationship between the press and myself.  While this might gain your approval, it does nothing to help a just resolution between Local Government and the Club.  Hence, I ask you:

Q1.  Why didn’t you read my email sufficiently carefully in order to ascertain its true tone, and thereby avoid the use of an inappropriate and damaging expression?

Secondly, let’s examine “ the site is becoming a public open space ”.

Q2.  Who decided that the whole site not taken up by the housing development and the Club premises should become a public open space?

Presumably, it was the Exeter City Council, or some subgroup(s) of the Councillors and Officers.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.  I am unaware of any consultation on this matter.  The first the Club knew about it was when it was announced by you as a fait accompli.  The manner in which we were told did not help, either, as I remember.

Q3.  Why was a meeting with the Club not arranged to consider this matter before it became a fait accompli?

This question is particularly relevant in view of the development plans for the Club which were presented and widely distributed in May 1999.  It seems that these have just been totally ignored, and I do think that there is a debate that should have taken place.  I feel there are strong flaws in the proposals for the public open space.

Please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am against a public open space.  I believe that it is an excellent idea, and am completely in favour of a large proportion of the remaining former school playing field becoming a public park.  I would be even more pleased if it was under regular and frequent supervision, but I can imagine what the Council would think of that suggestion, given its track record.

Thirdly, your assertion that “ Change for the club is therefore inevitable ”.  One might imagine that ECC, having moved the goalposts, should feel under some obligation to provide adequate protection for the Club that became necessary because of their actions.  Consequently, I feel obliged to ask:

Q4.  Does ECC feel any moral obligation to protect the Club adequately from the increased threat posed by its change of use of the field, or are moral considerations not the Council’s forte?

Fourthly, “ ECC would like the club to remain at the site and to thrive ”.  Of course it would!  The heads of terms clearly indicate that they are hoping to make money out of the children.  It would be a grave mistake to take these words at their face value, as Local Government’s words and actions contradict so strongly.  Statements like this are politically obligatory, and I’m sure some will swallow them, but not anyone with a clear view of the facts.  Those who are knowledgeable will recognise the hypocrisy that gives some politicians, and even politics itself at times, such a bad name.

Q5.  If ECC is so keen to see the Club thrive, why is it trying to make the terms so onerous for this community facility?

Fifthly, “ the terms are being reviewed to bring them up to date and into line with other comparable leases ”.  This is probably so.  The Council’s earnest desire to control everything and its unwillingness to commit is denying volunteers the security they require in order to make their own commitment to the community.  I feel sorry for any other voluntary organisation that is being treated as we are.

Q6.  Are there any other community facilities that have been lost to those they serve “after they failed to agree terms of a new lease”?

Sixthly, “ The overall proposal is: ” does not need elaboration here, as it is stated clearly in the Draft Heads of Terms, and the significance for the Club in The Burden. The burden on the Club has been increased by a further £150 since those pages were added, the further sum being required by the Council for increased insurance of the clubhouse.  Your estimation of the cost of insurance given at the November 2006 meeting of “probably less than a hundred pounds” was somewhat low.

Point Seven: “ Jim Harle condemns local government ”.  How untrue.  Jim Harle does nothing of the sort!  He might condemn Local Government’s actions, attitudes, procrastination, ignorance of consequences, and so on, but not Local Government itself.  He is a firm believer in Local Government, and is fully supportive.

Point Eight: “ but of course he only tells the tale from his own perspective ”.  I can’t imagine what ‘my own perspective’ is.  My association with Summerway has been purely altruistic since 1991, the year after my daughter left the Club, being no longer a junior.  There seems to be an implication that I have some sort of personal agenda or motivation, so I am obliged to ask:

Q7.  What do you consider Jim Harle’s ‘own perspective’ to be?

Point Nine: “ with many of his statements misleading at best ”.  I view this as really serious, and your assertion gives rise to two very important questions:

Q8.  Are you able to list my many statements which are misleading and explain why they are so, or is this libellous?

Q9.  What are you implying is true of my statements ‘at worst’ if they are ‘misleading at best’?  I don’t like what you seem to be suggesting, and think you owe me an explanation of what is in your mind.

Point Ten: “ The club has apparently accumulated some £10,000-12,000 in its bank account ”.  It is true that the Club has modest financial resources, and as I am chiefly responsible for that situation, I am quite happy to give an explanation.

The Club owes its existence to a remarkable lady with vision.  Mrs Rowsell saw the courts at Summerway, saw Junior Tennis, and put the two together with the approval and cooperation of the ECC, which at that time was also the City’s Local Education Authority.  As one would expect, some of the youngsters learnt their tennis at Summerway for later social use, while others were more competitive and serious about the game.  Think of subjects taught in schools and their relevance in later life, and then don’t disparage the work carried out at Summerway.

I can’t claim to have a vision equal to that of Mrs Rowsell, because mine was far simpler to make.  Nevertheless, it was and remains a vision.  What I saw was a hugely successful community facility for children, bursting at the seams with a long waiting list and desperately in need of expansion and development.  All at Summerway were aware of the need, but I was the person who drew up the vision that was very widely distributed in 1999, and is now a page on this website, and available as a PDF document from the Club website.

My daughter joined the Club in November 1981, and I was elected Vice Chair (and Trustee) a month later.  In 1984, I accepted the office of Membership Secretary on the retirement of the previous office-bearer, and have since been responsible for much of the ongoing administration of the Club.  There is a sense in which I have been acting as a Club manager, but always subject to the wishes of the Management Committee.  Over the years, a number of people have made significant improvements to the Club at their own expense, while other items have been funded from the Club accounts.  The various duties I performed for the Club naturally incurred expenses, but having the vision for development, rather than claim those expenses, I claimed and was reimbursed for only a token amount of their value.  Thus, funds were gradually accumulated over more than two decades.  Those who know my contribution to the Club and its LTA Open Tournaments will readily back me up when I say that if I had claimed my just expenses, the Club would not have those financial reserves.  I am not laying any claim to the Club’s funds - they belong absolutely to the Club.  However, by not claiming my rightful expenses, I was building up the Club funds for a specific purpose.  Those at Summerway have known and acknowledged that the funds are morally ring-fenced for enhancing the possibility of making the 1999 vision a reality.  To spend them otherwise would be morally reprehensible, and I would certainly regard such action as a breach of trust.

So, the Club has money which is morally ring-fenced.  I ask my next question with a twinge of trepidation, knowing Local Government’s recent track record on matters involving morality. After all, one would imagine that Local Government had a moral obligation to consult the Club over the change of ownership and change of use of the field in view of the Club’s profound and registered interest in the matter.  However, the Councils appear to have it all wrapped up between them, and have presented the Club with a fait accompli.  That doesn’t appear morally correct to me.

Q10.  Local Government has the legal power to do more or less as it pleases. Does it really wish to be the instrument which misappropriates the Club’s funds, in view of the fact that they are morally ring-fenced?

Point Eleven: “ That is not a sustainable situation ”. This violates all my understanding of the purposes of Local Government, and is very indicative of what is, in my opinion, a very grave situation.  Local Government is giving the impression nowadays that no organisation should exist which cannot stand on its own feet financially. Hence, I ask,

Q11.  For what do we pay Council Tax, if not for the support of public facilities which benefit the communities in which they are situated?

The Club, as a registered CASC, is indisputably a public facility.  By providing and maintaining the Club premises, Local Government has been effectively buying annually thousands of pounds worth of services for the community with hundreds of pounds worth of taxpayers money.  One can hardly find fault with that, as it has to represent best value.  I can see that a hidden agenda of the capital variety might be more attractive to Local Government, but that would be a one-off, whereas the benefit of the Club is ongoing.  In my view, the Club is entirely sustainable using a relatively small amount of public money which is assuredly levied for such purposes.

Point Twelve: “ the club was asked to provide its accounts ....    Those accounts have not yet been provided ”.  The reason for this is extremely simple.  There is very strong opinion amongst the Committee that the Club Accounts are none of Local Government’s business.  For my part, I can appreciate the arguments on both sides. On balance, I am firmly of the Committee’s opinion.  From 1972-2006, the Club has been a partnership.  If the request for the Club accounts arose because the Club was applying for a grant, or something of that nature, the request would be quite proper. But the request has not arisen for such a reason.  It is born out of the Councils’ wish to alter the partnership terms to decrease Local Government’s minor contribution. To attempt to reduce its share of the running costs of the partnership when it is already contributing less than 10% of the value strikes me as stingy in the extreme.  As I have explained above, the Club funds are morally ring-fenced, and “ in order to assess how much the club could afford ” is not a justifiable motive for the request.  For Local Government to do anything less than to continue to maintain its historical contribution towards the partnership is highly damaging to both Club and the Community.  I consider this to be a dereliction of duty towards all Council Tax payers, to whom Local Government has an obligation to provide best value.

Point Thirteen: “ The club has been granted all of the access to the courts that it asked for ”.  Here, I feel I need to explain one or two things to you.  Local Government was imposing severe restrictions on the Club’s use of the courts, to which they had had virtually unlimited access for over three decades.  The Club had been trying to come to terms with Local Government’s impositions, which it had no alternative but to accept, and had submitted times for exclusive use of the courts without which it could not accommodate even its most basic functions.  The granted requested access, which sounds so magnanimous on the part of Local Government, would not allow the Club to pursue a large number of its general activities, which would have to fall by the wayside.  The court time allocated to the Club is inadequate for it to maintain the provision of its traditional services.  Personally, I cannot see how the Club could possibly flourish, as it has in the past, on so meagre an allocation.

Then there is the issue of the quality of the courts to which access was being granted at such a cost.  You say, “ The only concern expressed by the club, at the meeting in the club’s pavilion on the evening of 23 November 2006, was about the financial arrangements ”.  That may be true, but didn’t you sense the stunned silence as you rolled out your dictates.  The Summerway Junior Lawn Tennis Club has played and promoted serious tennis over the years, and hosted LTA officially sanctioned junior age group tournaments from the Club.  You may think that maintaining the courts to ‘parks standard’ is adequate for children, but try convincing the Club coach.  No wonder he seems so dispirited and discouraged that he is considering calling it a day.

Please don’t give the impression that Local Government has been offering the Club all it wants or needs.  That would be so far from the truth.

Point Fourteen: “ we are clearly never going to be able to reach agreement with Jim ”.  This, to me, is a clear statement of Local Government intransigence, and proof positive that Local Government has made up its own mind what it is going to do irrespective of what anyone out in the community might suggest.  I know myself to be open, ready to listen and reasonable.  If Local Government is clear that we can never reach agreement, it can only indicate a total inflexibility on its side, and a determination to be totalitarian.  The points postulated in my email to the Councillors are given substantial backing by this statement.  Any moderately intelligent person will readily understand from this why I have serious concerns regarding some of the policies and the modus operandi of Local Government.

Q11.  What makes you so certain that we can never reach agreement?

Point Fifteen: “ Local Government is happy to work sensibly with the other members of the club’s committee ”.  What a pity Local Government wasn’t happy to work sensibly with me!  There is a clear implication inherent in this stated intention that some sort of gulf exists between the Summerway Management Committee and myself. When the resolutions passed by the Club’s membership, including the Committee, at our recent Special General Meeting become public knowledge, you might find yourself in for a bit of a surprise.

In conclusion, I find it almost unbelievable that the City’s Leisure Manager is not standing up for the Club for all he is worth.  I recognise the difficulty of having a boss whose judgement is hampered by the delusion that a CASC is a private club, but surely you could have taken him quietly aside and respectfully corrected him.  I think it is time for you to re-evaluate your stance with respect to the Club, and hope that you will do so forthwith.  In that same spirit of disbelief, I ask my final question :

Q12.  Do you really value an extra bit of public open space above a structured and supervised Community facility affordable to all which exists specifically for the instruction of children in a major sport?

I think you must agree that my queries are founded on real concerns, and are not of a spurious or facetious nature.  Others, besides myself, will be eagerly awaiting your replies to the questions posed in this letter.  I remind you that it would be wrong to take anything in it as an attack on you personally.  It is the need for you to re-examine your views, opinions and understanding of the facts which I am highlighting.

The ball is in your court.

Yours sincerely,

Jim.

 

View Ian’s Email

 

Site Navigator

 

 

Top of Page

 

A spate of days where Jim has been working through until the early hours has clearly taken its toll.  Morning after the night before reveals that this document has two question elevens.

To cope with this error, please distinguish between them by making reference to “the first Q.11” and “the second Q.11”.