To: Chief Executive, Kate Josephs and General Counsel (Monitoring Officer) David Hollis
Dear Kate and David
We hope this finds you well.
We are writing with serious concerns arising from the political events of the last two weeks. There are likely to be other issues and further implications emerging as events move on and we are sure you, likewise, are noticing , and concerned about, various impacts and with what is being revealed.
We are raising two issues here we see as very urgent, and asking for immediate actions to be taken.
The use of inaccurate language; information and communications misleading residents in Sheffield
The national (political discourse and) media reporting involves the widespread use of terms and phrases, and references to: “dissolving the coalition”, “breaking power-sharing arrangements”, “dissolving administrations”, “forcing councillors into opposition”, “stripping councillors of executive roles” and “sacking Cabinet members”.
All these phrases (and more) have quite clear meanings and connotations in our national political context (and at a local level in other English councils). They are very commonly understood in that context and have deep cultural resonance. The language (and concepts that underpin them) directly reflects dominant ‘Westminster-model’ thinking and ‘strong leader’ and ‘executive’ structures, thinking and practices.
They (or any hint of them) are, of course, entirely redundant and inapplicable in Sheffield. They do not (in any way) accurately reflect anything about our council governance and the local democratic or constitutional reality.
This is not semantics, it actually means there is serious misinformation being spread, and major misunderstanding introduced and exacerbated, about political actions and options and what these mean, and about how our council works. Nor is it about having (also) to “live with the realities of real-life party politics”; whilst politicians might always be drawn to exploiting things for perceived party advantage, this cannot step into obvious (in this case legal and constitutional) inaccuracies. Sheffield residents are being misled with confusing, distorted and inaccurate ‘explanations’, and being given a distorted understanding of how our council works. This does harm and has a whole range of implications at the individual and community level e.g. for how people understand what’s going on, how they engage with local councillors and understand accountability relationships (and don’t), and for any trust at all in local ‘democracy’. Overall, and not least, it also projects a heightened ‘political soap-opera’ quality to our local governance arrangements which simply does not exist in Sheffield’s (far more stable, actually) governing arrangements.
National media (and political) narratives are one thing, and some of us have, indeed, been ‘out there’ trying to do something to counter and explain how what is being said does not apply in the same way in Sheffield.
We should also say some of us have, anyway, been concerned for some time now, perhaps especially since the May local elections, about the council’s own creeping language in this respect. We have certainly seen senior officers using (e.g. in emails) phrases that, likewise, do not appear precisely aligned constitutionally. Again, this is not about the use of ‘shorthand’ terms, they are actually inaccurate, and they ‘jump out’. The present crisis has, at least, brought some of this into sharp focus – and the change to a committee system was never just a major legal and technical change, but with major cultural implications too.
And so then we went to check SCC main corporate communications in this respect. We discover that the council’s own press output is actively validating and embedding the exact same executive-style, ‘Westminster model’ illusions.
Just one example, when looking back at the official council news release following the May local elections, our corporate media headlined the post by stating that the “Labour and Green Groups have formed a joint administration to lead Sheffield City Council… with the Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, and Sheffield Community Councillors forming opposition groups.”
This is where real damage to local people and communities happens. The use of language – given all the connotations and wider general understanding with this kind of terminology – really matters. When SheffNews and official council channels adopt these ‘Westminster-model’ descriptions (and with their connotations), it completely distorts how residents view local accountability. It tells the public a false story—making it sound like an exclusive executive block holds all the cards while other councillors get to sit on the sidelines as an “opposition.” It is simply and utterly constitutionally inaccurate (regardless of how political groupings might seek to shape things for their own purposes outside of council business), and even more so under NOC. And what is being put out via official communication sources is demonstrably out of alignment with the council’s own explanation of the committee system elsewhere on its website.
The structural reality of our No Overall Control (NOC) committee system is completely different. Every single councillor is accountable to their electorate for their own inputs, efforts to influence decisions, and – in a NOC council – their working with others to achieve their particular local political aspirations. They are all inside council decision-making in some way, explicitly not locked out. Giving voters the impression that councillors can somehow simply “opt out” and thereby occupy an ‘opposition group’ (with no decision-making voice or influence) is a severe misrepresentation of democratic roles and duties, committee voices and votes – and our constitution. And extraordinarily, one report to us even stated that attempts were made to call the Labour and Green Chairs a “coalition” (‘running the council’).
In trying to do something to counter misleading information and explanations we should at least be able to point to our own council’s communications to provide clear and accurate, and constitutionally aligned information. Because of what is the misleading slant being put out in council comms we have been unable to. This also goes some way towards explaining the difficulties we have had in trying to persuade local media reporting to be more accurate in the language, concepts and terminology they are using and in order not to mislead (and to properly and accurately inform). In part they are – obviously – following your lead (why would they not?).
A Creeping Erosion of Committee Power
Secondly we are increasingly being fed information and views about actual practices in relation to Committee chairs. We do not know for sure, of course, the realities of behind closed doors meetings in pre-briefings and the like, but statements being increasingly fed to us as ‘the reality on the ground’ are alarming. Some information and comments are coming to us directly via social media (i.e. in public places). We do note the clear constitutional protections in place that frame and regulate what is a horizontal, not vertical, distribution of local political power. However, we all know (not least in light of the current crisis) how pervasive and powerful the dominant language and cultural assumptions of ‘Westminster-model’ top-down thinking is (and, not least, the ‘muscle-memory’ and ‘party political instincts’ that go with that – primed – more or less – to seek power or to pull political opponents down).
We are not suggesting or implying that any officer is, or would want to, do anything beyond the bounds of their role and remit (and as aligned with constitutional arrangements) and we recognise that much thought and skill goes into managing these relationships. However, were anyone inadvertently be moving towards, or falling into possible traps, of treating chairs of committees as, in any way, executive ‘gatekeepers’, or even hinting at them somehow as ‘portfolio holders’ with any real or formal authority, or any unilateral executive powers over information, policy directions of travel and the like, we would consider this quite serious, and outside the governance and constitutional settlement mandated by the people of Sheffield. Of course it is also about impressions (and again the use of language might well be important here). There is, and can be, no hidden ‘mini-Cabinet’-thinking slippage.
On the above areas of urgent and serious concern, we note the clear and highly relevant requirements of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity and its explanatory memorandum which at 7.1 explicitly states “For a community to be a healthy local democracy, local understanding of the operation of the democratic process is important, and effective communication is key to developing that understanding.”
But we also believe this brings into play the wider statutory responsibilities of ‘safeguarding the constitution’ that lie with the Monitoring Officer.
Our main concerns are both protecting the committee system and constitutional settlement mandated by Sheffield voters, and the misleading information that is being ‘delivered’ to Sheffield residents. There are real harms being done here and exacerbated through this crisis period.
We also wish to explicitly highlight the (many) barriers to effective public scrutiny through this crisis period and in an area where – as you know – there is serious public interest and investment. This, however, we believe, involves a wider set of concerns, that also pre-exist the current crisis, and are evident beyond this immediate issue. However, this issue will not be forgotten and here we simply note that it was seriously in play over the last couple of weeks.
Moving Forward: immediate actions requested
We will make this letter public. Please do not take this as somehow unnecessarily ‘upping the stakes’ or seeking to create any further problems. It is simply a measure of how seriously and urgently we take these concerns and the real damage we believe is being done to Sheffield residents and voters. It might be difficult to counter national media and political narratives but there are certainly things that can and should be done locally not only to not reinforce misleading narratives but to actively promote accurate public understanding (and, always, to try to not increase cynicism and plummeting trust). The crisis is, in part, demonstrating that we cannot always rely on the ‘good intentions’ of political parties (or the media) to safeguard Sheffield’s democratic arrangements, and the council itself must actively enforce, and be seen to be enforcing, its own rules.
You (Kate) will also recall a previous set of quite challenging discussions we (It’s our City!) had with you in this broad space in the lead up to the referendum. This, as now, involved the arguable political ‘contamination’ and inherent inaccuracies in council language and information. At that time you very helpfully recognised the need to, and suggested, seeking external advice from the LGA (and CfGS). This led to significant and substantial shifts in council information to residents. In that light, we feel positive about you again getting all the back up information and advice you might want, and if you feel it’s necessary. But we believe this does also need rapid and clear action regardless of whether you decide to pursue this.
We are asking that you both take immediate, practical steps to insulate our council’s culture from any further top-down, ‘executive-thinking’ contamination, but we are not requesting these as necessarily the limit of potential actions. We request that you:
Issue clear, immediate guidance to all council departments and political groups mandating the strict use of constitutionally accurate, horizontal terminology for all council business.
Review the editorial policy of SheffNews so that public-facing council media reflects collective committee ownership and stops propagating the “administration vs. opposition” myth.
Enforce strict, transparent protocols around officer-chair briefings (and for any other relevant meetings) protecting the constitutional horizontal (work programme, agenda setting, decision-making etc) supremacy of council and cross-party committee meetings.
Finally, a number of us are discussing what else we might need, and are able, to do. At a minimum and as, quite simply, a democratic necessity born out of the confusion and misinformation of the last two weeks, a number of us are certainly likely to be bringing public questions and statements in this area in coming weeks and months to help reinforce constitutional (and constitutional-cultural) understanding – and to make sure this is on the public record.
As ever, we are entirely open to further discussion on all these issues (and any others arising), to help to try to mitigate damage done and in the interests of better, clear and shared understanding of democratic and constitutional arrangements.
Best wishes and yours sincerely
Ruth Hubbard, Anne Barr, Joy Bullivant, Nicole Jewitt, Woll Newall
(for It’s Our City!)