Nice Work If You Can Get It! JLL & The Public.

The politicians at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) have been blaming the Government for the cuts in services inflicted on the people but even a cursory glance at the payments list shows huge pay-outs to the professional classes (and in very many cases to firms who are not located in Sandwell). Whether this is good value for money is difficult to decide particularly when the services provided are shrouded in secrecy - this article deals with a classic example concerning The Public.

In or around Spring 2012 the "Cabinet" of SMBC decided to hire expensive consultants to provide a report on the future "viability" of The Public. (When the truth finally emerges it will be interesting to know if Sandwell College were already sniffing around the building but that will have to wait until another day).

SMBC say that there was "an invitation to quote" but it is not clear how many firms were approached and what figures were provided. That is still a secret. Messrs Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), who have an office in Birmingham but who claim to be the second largest property agents in the world and who are listed on the New York Stock Exchange "won" the contract but we don't know how much they quoted. That is still a secret. We do know they were paid £20,000 (ex VAT ) on 10th May, 2012 which is interesting. Did JLL get the job because they quoted £20,000 only? The significance of this being that they then received two further payments ie £6,000 (ex VAT) on 20th August, 2012 and £10,000 (ex VAT) on 13th September, 2012 making a VERY GRAND total of £39,000 (ex VAT) which is almost DOUBLE the first part of the fee. Did they quote £39,000 payable by instalments (if so,why?) or did they quote £20,000 and SMBC let the project run out of hand so that it cost nearly double the original quote? If the latter was there was any sort of re-tendering process? All this is,of course, still a secret.

And what did the folk of Sandwell get for THEIR £39,000? You guessed it - that is still a secret. Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) enquiry by UKIP Sandwell we now know that JLL prepared reports (plural) but despite the passage of some 18 months and the FOI enquiry SMBC are refusing to disclose them. Up until two-months ago they had not even been disclosed to non-Labour COUNCILLORS ie elected representatives. SMBC acknowledge the reports are not concerned with the (secret) "deal" with The College (why not if it is such a brilliant wheeze?) but say that disclosure would cause prejudice to SMBC's commercial interests. Yet in paragraph 6.8 of the agenda for the 17 minute-long "Cabinet" meeting of 16th October (which set the ball rolling for the proposed destruction of The Public) it is said that "a full options appraisal in May 2012 concluded that a reduction in subsidy of between £250K and £400K was feasible? Was this the JLL report view or something else? It looks round about the right time but we don't know - it is all being kept secret.

The Freedom of Information provisions and lists of payments made by councils were obviously intended to provide a limited amount of public scrutiny of procurement processes but SMBC seem to want to drive a coach and horses through these pitifully limited provisions since in the FOI reply to UKIP Sandwell they have laughably alleged that disclosure of the tendering process, fees etc would also prejudice JLL! They claim the information may be used by JLL's competitors and also discourage them from entering future competitive tendering processes. Now £39,000 is a lot of money in the poverty ghetto of Sandwell but it is a spit in a bucket to the world's second largest property agency!

The mainstream media do not seem interested in the reasons why these reports are being kept secret? Maybe the secrecy is because they are of no use and the money has been wasted? Maybe they recommend a course of action that would require SMBC to apply for planning permission when the public would have the opportunity to be heard. Did they recommend any commercial use for the building? Did they deal with the now notorious suggestion that the arts centre should be shut so as to accomodate a wedding venue (this being an iconic £70m publicly-funded building). We don't know - it is all secret.

On Twitter Cllr Cooper, the "leader" of SMBC (@sandwellleader), tweeted on 13th October, 2013, "The so-called JLL report (sic). I want it out there it adds further evidence to my case. It will be in the public domain next week." but then said disclosure will not be made and that this is not a matter for politicians (!) but a decision for Council officials (although the latter are seemingly determined to prevent disclosure even in the face of the UKIP FOI request).

Coda:

This year SMBC commissioned further work from the inexpensive JLL (the world's second largest property agency) for an unknown matter but which may or may not be something to do with the small suite of old offices at the back of West Bromwich Town Hall where some of the tenants from The Public are being "re-located" by SMBC. The fees were two payments of £9,500 (ex VAT) on 1st May, 2013 and £2,000 on 3rd June, 2013 totalling a mere £11,500 (ex VAT).We have no details yet of what these fees are for and whether there was "an invitation to tender" and once again it has been UKIP Sandwell who have taken up the cudgels and put in another FOI request to force disclosure of the facts.

Finally there is yet another further mystery payment to JLL from the Strategic Finance Budget on 26th September, 2013 of £1,677.80. Could this be anything to do with The Public? Again we await a FOI reply via UKIP Sandwell.

And so in a short period of time SMBC has paid £52,177.80 (ex VAT) to  JLL. The results have not, so far, been placed in the public domain.

Indeed, nice work if you can get it!

Contact - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com