Anonymous Report On BA

[Vaughan]

At lunchtime there was an article on the EDP website about an anonymous report which had criticised the BA for what it said was misleading of local councils with regard to the status of national park. There were one or two quotes from local councillors who had been upset about the new road signs in particular.

I see the article has now disappeared from the website, and wondered if anyone knew anything about it?

[unclemike]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norfolk-broads-authority-accused-of-misleading-stakeholders-in-secret-report-1-6566661

[marshman]

Could almost be a thread on its own trying to guess who distributed an anonymous report - not for me to say really but one would have thought that  people had better hings to think about in the current circumstances!!

[Cockatoo]

Is this the letter they are talking about?

 

Quote

To: Broads Authority Chairman Mr William Ballast
Broads Authority Members Norfolk and Suffolk
Broads 16th March 2020
Cc: Local media, MP’s, Stakeholders
Dear Chairman and Members
The thorny question of who runs the Broads Authority.
Please find attached report entitled “Broads National Park – Friend or Foe.* Please also find
a copy of the covering letter sent yesterday to all stakeholder parishes, district, town and
city councillors, with copies to stakeholder MP’s and organisations, press and media. A total
of 291 recipients. The purpose of the communication is explained within.
I totally appreciate the timing of this communication is not optimal. However, as you will
read below, there are pressing matters requiring your urgent attention.
I can report that there has been a very positive response from stakeholders to the formation
of an umbrella group, both before and after this communication. This emanates from a
rapidly increasing level of dissatisfaction with the conduct of the BA. People are running out
of energy to carry on fighting their own battles and want a louder voice to do it on their
behalf. It saddens me to report that almost all of them regard the Authority as an adversary,
although mostly not at an operational level.
A great deal of work has been carried out to uncover the documented evidence behind the
single issue in the report. To re-iterate the covering letter, this communication is not about
BNP signs, nor indeed is it about the entire BNP issue. There are many others which, if
researched to this extent, would equally reveal incongruities of some sort or another.
Ultimately, it is about who runs the Broads Authority.
I’m open to be corrected, but my understanding of the 1988 Act is that you, the Board, are
in ultimate control. The Executive is then delegated extensive powers to carry out the
essential running of the organisation and to present the Board with advice and
recommendations on policy and strategy. Put simply, in law, you are the bosses.
Extracting from the report, your decisions as Members will affect:
 Around 13,000 jobs and myriad businesses providing them
 93 Parishes
 Around 100,000 people using the Broads in any one year (excluding visitors)
 £648M contribution to the local economy
 7 stakeholder MP’s
 7.6 million visitors
 Around 12,000 toll-paying craft, of which ~10,500 are privately owned
 The complex business infrastructure required to support those craft
* Please note, to avoid getting trapped in spam filters, this version of the report has the links disabled. The
full version can be accessed per the instructions on the title page.

Those numbers dwarf the BA’s budgetary, administrative and operational responsibilities
and shed a totally different light on the size of the responsibility you carry. On that basis,
with all due respect, I must say that if I were a BA Member with ultimate responsibility, I
would feel deeply embarrassed about the discrepancies between the facts in the report and
the information being disseminated by the Executive on my behalf.
In almost any other part of our democracy, an organisation with such onerous public
responsibilities would be answerable to an electorate. It is therefore doubly incumbent
upon you to listen to, and interpret, the representations of stakeholders, to ensure those
responsibilities are being efficiently carried out.
I attended the Board meeting in December 2018 (immediately after the Glover submission)
and was expecting such levels of dissatisfaction that the so-called ‘Chairs Group’ (which has
no standing in law and, demonstrably, is taking executive decisions way outside the
Executive’s delegated powers) would be disbanded; the Executive told never to do anything
like it again and withdraw the sections of the Glover submission which had not been
authorised by the Board. Instead, to my utter shock, only one Member spoke up, and that
was totally ignored by the then chair. I really cannot put into words my utter disbelief that
such behaviour by the Chairs Group was being tolerated. Why on earth are Board meetings
even being held if it is making decisions of this magnitude?
Since that debacle, particularly when researching the report, I have increasingly been
hearing rumours of various groups developing campaigns for changes in BA governance. Just
imagine what could be achieved if that amount of effort and resource were directed at
something positive instead of ‘fighting’ with the BA. I put it to you those changes will either
be brought about voluntarily, under the Board’s instigation, or under duress from
stakeholders and whatever resources they are able to muster.
That was also the meeting when a fait-accompli scheme to install the BNP signs was
presented to the Board, who approved it. It doesn’t take a maths degree to calculate those
signs cost around £700 each. I’m sure most of you have seen them. Do they really look like a
£700 sign to you? I have carried out a sign exercise myself recently and I can categorically
say the material costs should have been well below £50 each. But it was you who authorised
them and you are responsible for that. You may wish, at some stage, to investigate why that
cost was so high.
I’m given to understand a number of BA committee meetings have been cancelled, with a
plan to exercise ‘delegated powers’ in their stead. The covering letter details the
excruciating outcome of such arrangements, just over a year ago. I suppose it’s hardly
necessary, but I remind you that the consequences were a total furore from a great number
of stakeholders, including MP’s, bad press, a lot of enemies made in local government, the
Chairman being effectively sacked by Norfolk County Council (just a year after being
appointed) and the already abysmal levels of trust in the BA deteriorating even further. If
nothing else, that should shout out to you that conduct is not acceptable to stakeholders, on
whose behalf you should be acting. They are not ‘little people’; they are not your enemies;
they are your raison d’etre. They should be highly influential in your decision-making. Yet

they are constantly and repeatedly ignored, antagonised and inconvenienced. I also remind
you again that, as a governing Board, that is ultimately your collective responsibility.
Bearing in mind the weight of your responsibility, the Board meetings should be the driving
force behind everything which happens at the BA. To cancel them is like abandoning the
bridge of a large ship and hiding in your cabin.
In our age of technology, there is absolutely no reason why meetings should be cancelled.
My wife works for a large company and spends much of her time holding national and
international meetings from her desk, via Skype for Business. It can now accommodate up
to 50 attendees. There are many other such solutions out there and the technology has
been in routine use globally for many, many years.
On the basis of this letter and the accompanying material, I ask you this: Can you put your
hand on your heart and say you are doing the job you were appointed / elected to do?
Having asked that same question of a significant number of stakeholders, the answer has
consistently come back a resounding ‘no’. I therefore implore you, as a board, to:
 Quickly implement a solution, so that Board meetings can be conducted remotely.
That can be easily done, I’ve done so myself.
 Abolish the unlawful Chairs Group, which illegally undermines the authority you
need to exercise your considerable responsibilities.
 Review the powers delegated to the Executive, so that you can put control of the
Authority back where it is required by statute: Around the Board table.
I fear that, if you do not do so voluntarily, you will soon be forced to. I anticipate that would
be a very messy exercise indeed.
“William Ballast” (pseudonym)
17/3/2020

 

[JennyMorgan]

Inevitably I do know Bill Ballast and no, it's no one that we know on this forum. I can assure folk that the letter is extremely well researched and substantiated in some depth, it is well worth taking at its face value.

I'm sure that there will be those who will try to devalue it or even attempt to divert attention away from it, suggesting that there are far more important topics to consider at this time but facts are facts.  

I recommend it to you all. 

Consider that at this time BA committees and the Authority itself are not convening, due to Corona Virus, that various powers have been delegated to the Executive. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Having read through the edp article and sub articles including the comments from readers even with my limited knowledge it is clear that a lot of people just don`t understand the subject and there are some that would simply like all boats to go somewhere else.

[ChrisB]

If the gentleman has something to say and is sure of his facts, then say it and put his name to it. Anonymity has a ring of the "Poison Pen" as far as I am concerned. 

It all has a very snide and nasty smell to it.

And I agree with MM, there are more worthy things to think about and actions to take at present.

[JennyMorgan]

20 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

If the gentleman has something to say and is sure of his facts, then say it and put his name to it.

There is a sound reason for not divulging the writer's name, trust me. In any case the name would be meaningless to the vast majority of readers. If we go back to James Knight (BA member), he chose to reveal himself and in doing so became the subject of repeated, petulant and vindictive attacks from on high. 

The gentleman is sure of his facts, and with good reason.

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, Cockatoo said:

Is this the letter they are talking about?

No, I don't think so. That is just the covering letter. The one the BA doesn't like is the one entitled “Broads National Park – Friend or Foe". If I can get the author's permission, I'll publish it on here.

[Paladin]

45 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

If the gentleman has something to say and is sure of his facts, then say it and put his name to it. Anonymity has a ring of the "Poison Pen" as far as I am concerned. 

It all has a very snide and nasty smell to it.

And I agree with MM, there are more worthy things to think about and actions to take at present.

I don't understand the preoccupation with the author's wish to remain anonymous for the time being. Their report(s) should be judged on their content. If I revealed their name, you would be none wiser.

Nearly all the correspondents on here, and on other forums I frequent, are anonymous to me. So what? Does that mean their posts should be regarded as snide or smelly?

In the comments section of the EDP article, I also noted that all the people criticising the author for using a pseudonym used a pseudonym of their own. You couldn't make it up.

 

[marshman]

Argue the toss all you like, but I am personally much more concerned about those dying all over the world, those health professionals in Italy who are in tears because they can do nothing to help, and those people in the community who do not know how they are going to get by, and indeed those in the community who are alive today but will not see the year out.

Please don't expect me to contribute to a "debate" over something so inconsequential, you should all be ashamed. ALL companies locally and organisations throughout the UK will have appointed smaller groups to make decisions, and I myself am part of a very, in overall terms, inconsequential one ,but to me thats GOOD management and not bad.

I shall leave you, on this topic, to your eternal prattling!

[Paladin]

Having now received the author's express permission, I have attached the three documents they published. I have included the one already posted, to keep them all together.

In the EDP article, the (anonymous!) BA spokesman is reported as saying the report was “produced by an anonymous individual and not from a credible source”.

If the source is unknown, how can the credibility of that source be judged? Perhaps that judgement can be better made by looking at the information provided and the arguments made, which, I suggest, are very credible.

“The author has selectively used information to suit the campaign aims of discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks."

Poppycock! The only reference in the 'Broads National Park - Friend or Foe' document to the National Broads Family is made on page 9, where it is written "2002/3: Requests to call itself a NP submitted to Government by the BA, were rejected. As a compromise, it could call the Broads “a member of the NP family”."

So far from "discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks", the author is highlighting why the Broads should be referred to as a member of the National Parks family. The copy of the document with active links provides a link to the John Kilner letter of 2006, which I have also attached. The links were disabled to prevent problems with spam filters.

Broads National Park-Friend or Foe (disabled links)120320 .pdf Councillor letter 150320.pdf Kilner 2006.pdf

[Paladin]

Whoops! I forgot this one.

BA Members and Chairman Letter 170320.docx

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Please don't expect me to contribute to a "debate" over something so inconsequential, you should all be ashamed.

Perhaps you find that the truth is hard to swallow.

Do what you will to devalue Mr Ballast's research, if you must, but you won't alter reality. Time to take your head out of the sand!!

 

. 

[marshman]

Don't flatter yourself  - even were it the truth which I very much doubt, I am STILL much more concerned with reality than fantasy power games!

Now its down to you and your protagonists to get excited over - my concerns are elsewhere.

[JennyMorgan]

I note that the BA's response is based on devaluing the writer rather than addressing the facts that he has presented. 

[D46]

48 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I note that the BA's response is based on devaluing the writer rather than addressing the facts that he has presented. 

Exactly they consider him not credible , funny that alot of people think they are exactly that ie not credible , how many times of late has the phrase "wrong choice of words" been used to cover for what wasn't true to begin with ? .

If BA want public trust they will seriously have to up their game and be a dam site more accurate , it's all well and good having a go at people for credibility but it shouldn't be done by an organization that sadly lacking in it to begin with .

[MauriceMynah]

Marshman, whilst I applaud your obvious concern for the more serious problems facing this country and the world in general, I can't help feel that you are offering the "Daddy or chips" syndrome to the forum.

I too wish the Arabs and the Jews could come to a peaceful solution to their differences. I worry about the starving people in war torn African countries just as you appear to do. The effects of mankind's actions on the climate occupies much of my conscious thoughts along with how will this country handle the interim Brexit period. What with all that lot and the Corona virus to boot it's amazing that I can get any sleep at all.

Yet somehow I can find time to think about issues more local to me. This doesn't weaken my other concerns, as I always bare in mind that the human being is capable of worrying about an almost infinite number of problems.

I am reminded of a wife's description of her household.

"My husband deals with all the important issues, How much money is spent on National defence and what can be done about the homeless in London,  and I deal with all the minor issues, Do we have enough money to pay the mortgage and still have enough left over to feed the kids."

[SteveP]

13 hours ago, marshman said:

Argue the toss all you like, but I am personally much more concerned about those dying all over the world, those health professionals in Italy who are in tears because they can do nothing to help, and those people in the community who do not know how they are going to get by, and indeed those in the community who are alive today but will not see the year out.

Please don't expect me to contribute to a "debate" over something so inconsequential, you should all be ashamed. ALL companies locally and organisations throughout the UK will have appointed smaller groups to make decisions, and I myself am part of a very, in overall terms, inconsequential one ,but to me thats GOOD management and not bad.

I shall leave you, on this topic, to your eternal prattling!

I really don't know a great deal about the BA, but how on earth will ignoring this issue prevent people " dying all over the world". Am I missing something here.

[Vaughan]

I have now read in full all the documents provided and thank you very much, Paladin and Steve (Cockatoo).  Something to read in bed with my morning coffee!

Personally I have not learned anything from all this but I have never before seen it set out so concisely and clearly.  For anyone not clear about real Broads history or the chain of recent events, I can assure them that it is all true and factual, as set out.

12 hours ago, marshman said:

I am STILL much more concerned with reality than fantasy power games!

But that is the whole point, Marshman and coming from someone who obviously knows the Broads as well as I do, I am surprised that you missed it! The Broads Authority is now in the face of what may turn out to be the most catastrophic recession that the Broads has ever known - and there have been a few, in the last 60 years!  So they haven't got time for any more eternal prattling (in Marshman's turn of phrase) about visions of a national park!

They must now apply all of their efforts to considering how they may assist the tourist industry to survive this virus panic and somehow recover from it.  Anyone must now agree that Easter is effectively cancelled.  It is not going to happen and if I were still running a hire fleet I would not be preparing any more than 25% of my boats for the start of the season.

For private owners, this also means "infrastructure".  The day to day running of the navigation does not just mean dredging.  The BA don't do pumpouts, for instance.  Their only pumpout station is at Norwich and they have now closed that anyway!  So they rely on the boatyards, to maintain water quality.  Who does the inspections for the BSS?  The boatyards!  And the list goes on. And watch out, because the slump in tourism will also knock the bottom out of the second-hand boat market.  That too, has happened before!

I have seen a few recessions on the Broads and I know how terribly fragile and vulnerable, the tourist market is.  Each time, we effectively lost a season's business, but we climbed back up again with the help and understanding of the River Commissioners and the local authorities.  This is the first time that the BA have been faced with a real recession while they are in charge, so let's hope they get stuck in, objectively, and do their bit.

One way or another a national park "overview", in these circumstances, would be nothing but a blasted nuisance!

[JennyMorgan]

14 hours ago, marshman said:

ALL companies locally and organisations throughout the UK will have appointed smaller groups to make decisions, and I myself am part of a very, in overall terms, inconsequential one ,but to me thats GOOD management and not bad.

Regarding good management, I agree. I am not going to suggest that JP is a poor manager because, in reality, he is a very able one. However, the issue is not one of management, it is, among others, a matter  of misjudged policy, personal agenda and an excessive level of control. It is a dangerous situation, as more than clearly illustrated by an astute and very aware Mr Ballast.

[rightsaidfred]

15 hours ago, marshman said:

Argue the toss all you like, but I am personally much more concerned about those dying all over the world, those health professionals in Italy who are in tears because they can do nothing to help, and those people in the community who do not know how they are going to get by, and indeed those in the community who are alive today but will not see the year out.

Please don't expect me to contribute to a "debate" over something so inconsequential, you should all be ashamed. ALL companies locally and organisations throughout the UK will have appointed smaller groups to make decisions, and I myself am part of a very, in overall terms, inconsequential one ,but to me thats GOOD management and not bad.

I shall leave you, on this topic, to your eternal prattling!

I am sure that my parents generation managed to deal with all the consequences of the 2nd world war bombing, rationing and disease etc and still cope with everything else life threw at them, as tragic as the current situation is the rest of life`s issues still need to be managed and as we have seen in the past public bodies/figures are not slow in using periods of bad news to try and slip through what would otherwise be unpalatable policies, the need to be vigilant and to speak up is just as relevant in the current circumstances as at any other time.

Fred

[scaniaman]

Perhaps it may be a good time to reprint the concerns that DEFRA had about the BA management culture when it decided to send in a team of National Park senior executives and DEFRA staff members last year. The report, "A Peer Review" gave a less than rosy view of the practices being undertaken in the name of the authority at that time and It would appear that the situation has not improved since then.  It may be helpful to reproduce the report, because it would demonstrate why so many forum members are concerned about the future conduct of the authority. I do not have a copy of the report but hope that someone on the forum can reproduce it should it be deemed appropriate.

Paul.

[JennyMorgan]

Is this it, Paul?

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1064506/Broads-Authority-report-12.12.17.pdf

[scaniaman]

22 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Is this it, Paul?

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1064506/Broads-Authority-report-12.12.17.pdf

Thanks JM, time flies, I thought it was last year.  If anybody doubts DEFRA`s concerns about BA`s management style ,please read this report then  look at the seniority of the reports authors. Such reports are not undertaken lightly given the costs involved.

Paul