I am instantly attracted to the horrifying explanatory power of "rationing by litigation" - that is precisely what's going on with SEND and EHCPs, thanks for that. And it is a neat (for evil values of 'neat') accountability sink manoeuvre by central government to have stripped local government of income and income-generating power while leaving them with a statutory responsibility that is growing rapidly in cost.
Much to think on, but the general principle that people should be able to challenge administrative decisions by arguing that the administrators had the power to act on the relevant reasons but opted not to seems sound to me. The paper trail is only going to get the administrators so far, particularly where the decision is manifestly non-responsive to things that ought to count. So much is going to depend on how deferential judges are prepared to be to the executing and, conversely, how willing to call out obvious bs.
yes I guess I could have, in a different mood, seen it as the tiny spark of hope that keeps us all going. in particular in retrospect, the implied threat of "you are the one who will carry the can" is me being cynical - I think not excessively so, but I am talking in that bit about things and practices that have grown up in the system as a whole rather than anything that was intrinsic to TJOYS, which I didn't make clear because I hadn't realized it.
I suppose a key part of the accountability sink is the basic principle of minute-taking: Do say "after a discussion so and so was decided", don't record the discussion as if you were writing a play.
when I was a lad, I would take minutes and circulate them in draft, and participants at the meetings would often strike out things which they actually said, on the basis that they did not want to be seen as not having been on the winning side. I was not meant to allow them to insert things which they hadn't said, but even this principle was not always kept.
then the final minutes were agreed and the draft minutes were shredded. presumably the age of email must have meant that people need to be a lot more careful getting it "right" first time.
In-house counsel here. I found that the unaccountability machine was a godsend for lawyers with a strong sense of organizational mission and a small dose of hubris. In a timid governmental organization, everything becomes a legal question, whether there is a real legal issue or not. An aggressive lawyer could easily end up running the organization, sometimes in a more active direction than management would have taken on its own.
I am instantly attracted to the horrifying explanatory power of "rationing by litigation" - that is precisely what's going on with SEND and EHCPs, thanks for that. And it is a neat (for evil values of 'neat') accountability sink manoeuvre by central government to have stripped local government of income and income-generating power while leaving them with a statutory responsibility that is growing rapidly in cost.
Much to think on, but the general principle that people should be able to challenge administrative decisions by arguing that the administrators had the power to act on the relevant reasons but opted not to seems sound to me. The paper trail is only going to get the administrators so far, particularly where the decision is manifestly non-responsive to things that ought to count. So much is going to depend on how deferential judges are prepared to be to the executing and, conversely, how willing to call out obvious bs.
yes I guess I could have, in a different mood, seen it as the tiny spark of hope that keeps us all going. in particular in retrospect, the implied threat of "you are the one who will carry the can" is me being cynical - I think not excessively so, but I am talking in that bit about things and practices that have grown up in the system as a whole rather than anything that was intrinsic to TJOYS, which I didn't make clear because I hadn't realized it.
I suppose a key part of the accountability sink is the basic principle of minute-taking: Do say "after a discussion so and so was decided", don't record the discussion as if you were writing a play.
when I was a lad, I would take minutes and circulate them in draft, and participants at the meetings would often strike out things which they actually said, on the basis that they did not want to be seen as not having been on the winning side. I was not meant to allow them to insert things which they hadn't said, but even this principle was not always kept.
then the final minutes were agreed and the draft minutes were shredded. presumably the age of email must have meant that people need to be a lot more careful getting it "right" first time.
I think we can be certain of that!
In-house counsel here. I found that the unaccountability machine was a godsend for lawyers with a strong sense of organizational mission and a small dose of hubris. In a timid governmental organization, everything becomes a legal question, whether there is a real legal issue or not. An aggressive lawyer could easily end up running the organization, sometimes in a more active direction than management would have taken on its own.