Neil Wilby Media

It is trite to observe that Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council has a shocking reputation locally, regionally and nationally: Headlines that scream ‘Cover-up’ or ‘Corruption’ and, even, ‘Odious Oldham’ are never far away.

Indeed, it can be argued that, over the past three years, at least twenty well researched and damning articles here on this Neil Wilby Media website lend considerable weight to the argument (read more here). Although it must be stressed that none of them record corruption of the ‘brown envelope’ genre, much trumpeted by conspiracy theorists in the region, mostly from a plush vantage point in neighbouring Tameside.

A fair proportion of those articles are safely grounded in either enquiries to the Council’s press office or freedom of information requests. The rest being, very largely, sourced by an unrivalled journalistic network of professional contacts and friends in the Borough. They mainly record routine law breaking, by the Borough Solicitor, no less; economy with the truth, including a press office in which trust has been lost completely; Constitutional shenanigans; mind-numbing ineptitude; poor judgement; catastrophic decision making and cronyism.

The much reported, and deeply concerning, culture of casual indifference to any recognisable ethical and professional standards within Oldham Council, cascading down from the top of senior paid officer ranks and benignly tolerated by successive political leaders, and a tame local and regional press, is a highly plausible explanation for much that is wrong – and a worrying, and growing, public confidence deficit.

Indeed, the present Council Leader, Cllr Arooj Shah, has very recently joined the ranks of those ducking down behind the Civic Centre ramparts when faced with hard evidence of senior officer delinquency – and declining requests for statements on important public interest topics that do not show the public authority in a good light.

Worse still, the Leader recently gave a very public and sugar-coated valediction to the man mostly responsible for the decline in standards over the past two years when she announced at the Borough’s Mayor-Making on 24th May, 2023 that chief executive, Harry Catherall, was to be allowed to break his contract, which runs until March, 2025, and leave at the end of the current year. Without, it seems, any compensation being paid by ‘Sir Harry’ to the Council over that breach.

The latest freedom of information request made by Neil Wilby to OMBC on 4th June, 2023 is already steeped in controversy, as was always likely to be the case given the questions asked. The full request, with the correspondence exchanged so far on the iconic WhatDoTheyKnow platform, can be viewed here.

The contentious point still extant is one that, in the highly informed and politically neutral view of this journalist, is at the very heart of much of what is wrong with Oldham Council: The culture of working from home (WFH) or, ‘agile working’, as the Council themselves describe it. Adding to the remoteness, and careless, disjointed decision-making of the majority of senior management whom either do not live in the Borough at all or reside at its outer extremities.

What the FOIA request has revealed is that Oldham Council maintain, on a highly visible public platform such as WhatDoTheyKnow, that they do not know on any given days (for the purposes of the request those were 30.9.22, 31.12.22 and 31.3.23) how many of their 2,600+ staff are WFH, in attendance at the civic centre or working in another location (for example, a transport depot).

Most people, it is posited in all reasonableness, would find that not just improbable, but incredible, and ponder upon whether there is another reason why such information is either not available or, more likely, being deliberately withheld by this notorious ‘cover-up’ Council.

Proportionality, and likely success of a legal challenge to OMBC’s freedom of information request outcome (or, ‘finalisation’, in formal terms), further down the line and possibly before a judge-led Tribunal, has to be considered before taking the next step. The public interest in the outcome and what may ultimately disclosed by such time-consuming and demanding action must also be weighed in the balance.

These questions lie at the heart of that public interest both in the policy and the taxpayer sense:

 – Is working from home compatible for those in a public facing role with a failed, and failing, local council that has just spent £millions converting shops to office space for its employees and equipping them with what appears to be high-end luxury fixtures and fittings? 

– To whom does WFH, or ‘agile working’ as Oldham Council describes it, deliver the most benefit: The taxpayer or the employee? At the moment, many people, including councillors and the author of this article, report that having an email or the telephone answered promptly, and effectively, is beyond many departments and council employees. That is strong evidence that the scales are tipped against the Borough’s residents, elected representatives, stakeholders (and journalists).

– Is it too much to expect white collar council officers on salaries above £30,000 per annum to turn up at the office every working day? Which excludes up to seven weeks annual leave, nine public holidays, three paid volunteer days and, it seems from another part of the same FOIA response, well-used sick leave.

These are the views of an expert consulted on the WFH/agile working topic:

“Working from home for a public-facing role, such as a local council position, can present some challenges but may also be possible to some extent depending on the specific requirements of the role and the nature of the work involved. Here are some considerations:

“Nature of the role: Evaluate whether the nature of the role allows for remote work. Some public-facing roles require in-person interaction, such as customer service, community engagement, or certain administrative tasks that necessitate being physically present.

“Technology and infrastructure: Assess whether the necessary technology and infrastructure are in place to support remote work. This includes reliable internet access, appropriate software and tools for remote communication and collaboration, and secure access to necessary systems and data.

“Legal and regulatory requirements: Consider any legal or regulatory obligations that may impact remote work arrangements in public-facing roles. Certain roles may have specific requirements or restrictions that need to be adhered to, such as data privacy and confidentiality.

“Communication and accessibility: Determine how effective communication and accessibility to constituents, colleagues, and stakeholders can be maintained while working remotely. Explore options for virtual meetings, phone calls, email, or other means of communication to ensure ongoing engagement and responsiveness.

“Balancing remote and on-site work: Evaluate whether a hybrid approach combining remote work and on-site presence can be implemented. This may involve scheduling specific days or hours for in-person interactions, meetings, or essential tasks that cannot be performed remotely.

“Adapting work processes: Assess how work processes can be adapted to accommodate remote work while still meeting the needs of the public-facing role. This may involve finding creative solutions, utilizing digital platforms for document sharing or electronic signatures, and implementing efficient communication channels.

“Training and support: Provide necessary training and support to employees to ensure they are equipped to handle remote work effectively. This may include training on remote communication tools, cybersecurity practices, and adapting to new work processes”.

She concluded by saying: “It’s important to note that the feasibility of working from home for a public-facing role may vary depending on the specific circumstances and requirements. Considerations should be made in line with organisational policies, job responsibilities, and the ability to maintain the expected level of service to the public”.

Asked about distractions that agile workers faced whilst operating from home, this is what she put forward:

“When working from home, individuals may face various distractions that can impact their productivity and focus. Some common examples include:

“Home-related distractions: Being at home can expose individuals to household chores, family members including those having disagreements, pets, or other personal responsibilities that can divert their attention from work.

“Noise disruptions: Home environments may have more ambient noise compared to office settings, such as sounds from neighbours, construction, or household activities, which can be distracting.

“Lack of boundaries: Without clear physical boundaries between work and personal life, individuals may struggle to separate their professional and personal activities, leading to interruptions or difficulty in maintaining focus.

“Online distractions: The world-wide web offers a vast array of distractions, including social media, news websites, entertainment platforms, online shopping and internet dating, which can tempt individuals away from their work tasks [bored council officer seeks daytime delight – term time only].

“Communication challenges: Remote work often relies heavily on virtual communication tools. Constant notifications, emails, or video meetings can interrupt concentration and disrupt workflow.

“Emotional distractions: Working from home can introduce emotional distractions, such as feelings of isolation, loneliness, or anxiety, which can impact focus and productivity.”

In three years reporting on the political scene in Oldham, Neil Wilby cannot recall a single motion or any form of debate in the civic chamber on this WFH/agile working issue which is still very much ‘a thing’ as a recent advert for a £30,000+ pa Communications Officer, posted on the LinkedIn social media website, attests.

It is an important public interest matter that is overdue for an airing. Not least in the light of what appears to be an admission from those running the Council that they have no idea how many are actually working from home at any given time – and, presumably, it follows, that that they have no idea what the agile workers are actually doing in terms of providing service to hard pressed taxpayers.

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Wednesday 12th July, 2023 at 09h25

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: Oldham Council

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2023. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.