In February (see New Deal controversy), we reported on allegations about Burngreave New Deal and posed four questions relating to the openness and transparency of decision-making.The issue related to the appointment of two men, who were found to have committed misconduct at another New Deal. The full Council debated the allegations and our four questions became part of the final decision to launch an investigation, due to report back in June.
More recently, New Deal delivered an eight-page rebuff, saying “we want to set the record straight.” A summary of their position is on the New Deal pages this issue – see “Setting the Record Straight”.
New Deal’s money has undoubtedly funded good things for Burngreave. However, their publication fails to distinguish between Burngreave and Burngreave New Deal.They are not the same thing. New Deal stresses that the Partnership Board has an elected “community majority”. It’s important to note there that the recent elections were cancelled due to lack of interest amongst potential candidates.
Perhaps the real concern is the “Executive Sub Group” which manages the “strategic direction” – and personnel issues.Who are they and how much power do they have? One thing is clear: New Deal’s claim that “the Sub Group reports back to the full Board” is not backed up by the minutes of the Board.
The Messenger has found out that the Executive Sub Group is made up of only the Chair and Vice-chair, along with Joanne Roney (executive director at the council) and Jane Brown (director of Sheffield First). Is the truth, then, that the community are excluded from the real decisions, which are made by these officers? That is something the investigation into governance arrangements will have to uncover if Burngreave is not to be tarnished by New Deal’s mistakes.
Logged in users of the website can add comments to this page.
Login to this site if you'd like to add a comment. Sign-up for an account if you are not currently a member.