When Conservative county councillors were presented with a report last year setting out draft plans to withdraw funding from 44 libraries, they baulked at the idea.

They could predict what was in the offing: damaging headlines about the threat of closures to much-cherished village libraries, many of them in the party's heartlands, no matter what spin was put on it to present the shake-up as innovative and 'transfomational'.

It was an electoral liability they were not prepared to countenance, especially as the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the libraries in question would have come close to the next election. Library chiefs and the cabinet member responsible were sent way with a flea in their ear and told to have a re-think.

Now the report - accompanied by a presentation of frankly bewilderingly complex graphs - that caused a backbench revolt has been leaked.

KCC was anxious to keep it under wraps and had argued that the public interest in allowing politicians to debate policy options in private was greater than the public interest in disclosing it.

So what are we to make of the report? We already knew that the authority was being pressed into considering changes because of the tricky budget situation - and it bears out these suspicions by talking about the need to 'secure affordable local solutions' and 'deliver further revenue savings'.

A key element of KCC's plans was to offload libraries to third parties - voluntary groups, community groups, parish councils and those vague organisations known as 'social entrepeneurs'.

These would be paid an annual grant to maintain the library on behalf of the council although perhaps unsurprisngly, the report is silent on what may have happened had no-one come forward to take on the job. (In all likelihood, they would have shut).

The savings to KCC would have come from negotiations with these third parties to reduce costs on books, premises and IT. In other words, KCC's expectation was that organisations who took over the libraries would have had to have done the job for less.

So, are we to presume that this approach to Kent's libraries has been abandoned altogether? Actually no. When KCC came back with a new report about its approach to 'modernising' libraries last year, which was presented to councillors in public, virtually all these elements were retained: the idea of third parties taking over remains central, savings will have to be delivered, locality boards will be key in 'shaping the future'.

The only thing missing from the report was a list identifying which libraries Kent had in mind. KCC clearly has a conundrum. It has significantly more libraries than many other authorities and although £4m will be chopped from the budget between now and 2014, it is still not enough. Other ways of running the service are clearly being considered out of necessity.

One solution that could be under consideration involves the council's 'Gateway' centres, many of which contain libraries. 

KCC has just confirmed it is reviewing these and among the options being considered is whether to put them out to tender and allow the private sector to run them. At the smaller end of the scale, watch out for reduced opening hours.

Either way, anyone who thinks that Kent will be able to preserve its network of libraries as they are now is probably being unrealistic.

You can read the confidential report here:

kcclibraries (540.77 kb)

kentlibrarylist.doc (24.50 kb)

UP-DATED MONDAY FEB 13.

There has long been a suspicion the government's U-turn that led to its decision to consult on the idea of a Thames Estuary airport was, in part, driven by the Treasury and the Chancellor. It was said they had been won round by the argument that such a project would deliver investment and jobs - along with regeneration - at a critical time.

But how was the Treasury won round? A clue perhaps lies in the meetings George Osborne and his officials had with the backers of the idea that were disclosed to us under the Freedom of Information Act.

Although we aren't being told what was on the table at these meetings as it is not deemed to be in the public interest.

Treasury meetings with Thames Estuary airport backers>>>

What we do glean from the details provided is that there seemed to be a sympathetic ear at the Treasury, where officials met representatives of Foster and Partners and the consultants Halcrow no less than four times to chew over the idea.

The rather gushing email sent by an unnamed representative of Foster following one meeting talks revealingly of how stimulating and reassuring the meeting was given that both sides believed passionately in the same points.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with any proponent of any scheme seeking contacts with politicians and their officials. You wouldn't expect anything less where a project as huge as this was concerned. Access is critical to getting the message across.

But if the government wants to be seen to be playing a straight bat over what is undeniably a massively contentious issue, it will have to better than come up  with the fig leaf of an excuse that it has to withhold information about what exactly was discussed at these meetings.

It is, frankly, an insult to say on that policy discussion needs to take place behind closed doors so  opinions can be expressed candidly. In its response, the Treasury says it acknowledges that there is a public interest in what is a 'live' issue - which in its way makes the case for full transparency and openness - not the case for running away and hiding.

It is interesting to speculate on whether,  had the Treasury been approached by, say, the leader of Medway council, for such a meeting, Mr Osborne or his officials would have proved quite as accommodating.

Either way, it is vital that the government's consultation starts from a position of neutrality.

There are arguments on both sides to be had but public confidence in the integrity of that consultation won't be enhanced if there is any suspicion that one side is getting greater opportunities to promote their views above the other.

Read the Treasury's full response to our FOI request here:

Treasury Meetings FOI.pdf (2.34 mb)

The transcript of the email sent by Foster and Partners to Treasury officials:

“It was a pleasure to meet with you this morning. We appreciate you making the trip over to our office and hopefully the experience of actually seeing us all busily working was useful. We found the conversation we had both stimulating and highly reassuring as you both made so many points that we both passionately believe in.”
“The brief presentation we did of some of our thinking and the initiatives we have been taking around infrastructure seemed to resonate with your interests and I am sure we could have spent a lot more time talking. We look forward to developing these conversations.”

IF you visit a library in Kent this Saturday, you probably won't notice anything different. And you certainly won't come across any special event or activity.

Odd? Not especially, until you realise that it is National Libraries Day, a now annual event to celebrate libraries.

Kent County Council is facing claims it is 'snubbing' the national day of celebration from several campaigners who have questioned why there are no events planned to mark the event.

Unlike many other authorities, KCC has opted not to put on a specific programme for the day. Inevitably, that has led to claims the council is downplaying the event because it does not want to draw attention to a shake-up that some fear could mean cutbacks.

For its part, the council says it has a year-round programme of activities and it is focusing on promoting those. There's no major scandal here. But a briefing note from managers to staff appears a little sensitive over the fact that nothing is going on.

The note says staff approached about National Libraries Day “must refer all enquiries from members of the public, community groups and organisations to your district manager."

The memo says: “As NLD is a Saturday, the busiest day of the week for us, all our staff will be fully engaged in helping people to use our wide range of services. There is much to celebrate about libraries in Kent and we will mark National Libraries Day in the best way possible - by continuing to deliver the best quality service to our very many satisfied customers.”

One council library worker told us that staff had effectively been silenced.

In a statement, KCC said: “Managers were briefed on National Libraries Day and advice was given to staff on how to deal with enquiries. The message reminded staff it is not appropriate to engage in campaigning activity which undermines Kent County Council’s commitment to the library service. However we do fully support the National Library Day’s aim to celebrate libraries, librarians and library staff in all sectors and there are more than 14,500 events throughout the year being held in local libraries, from children’s reading sessions and coffee mornings to computer training sessions.”

CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, which backs the event, said: “We want to see as many local authorities get involved as possible. It is disappointing but there’s nothing mandatory that says councils must be involved.”

Ironically, the low key approach adopted by KCC has only served to draw attention to its lack of activity - which was surely not intended.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Education secretary Michael Gove faced MPs to answer questions on a range of subjects this week. He was characteristically confident but less convincing when pressed about the use of private emails by him and his advisers to conduct government business.

He and his department have faced claims that they have done so to avoid the public gaze over potentially sensitive issues. It was because of this that we asked - via the Freedom of Information Act - whether he or his advisers had done so in relation to Kent county council's challenge through the High Court over the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future project.

That was three months ago. We're still waiting for a response. 

The publication of school league tables show many things - possibly too many - but the one striking feature of this year's data is that, for the first time, the achievements of disadvantaged pupils can be compared to others.

Kent's secondary school results>>>

The measure used to make this comparison is the numbers on free school meals or in care. In Kent, the figures show that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are half as likely to get five or more good GCSEs than those that are not. That is behind the national average by 6%.

Why? The temptation is to blame - or explain - the difference on Kent's selective system. Recently, Kent county council's own director of education told county councillors that there was less social mobility achieved in Kent than elsewhere - although he did not go on to articulate the reasons why he thought that was the case.

I'm not so sure that it is as simple as pointing the finger at the grammar school system. It is undeniably the case that grammars in Kent have far fewer children on free school meals - a handful have none at all. On the other hand, in some as many as one in five children are disadvantaged - more than many non-selective schools.

When you sort the tables for Kent by point score, the percentage of children on free school meals at those grammar schools in the top 20 range from 0% to 41%.

To add to the complexity, among the top 20, there are many non-selective schools where the 'added value' to pupils' progress is astonishingly good.

Nonethless, the results do beg important questions of those politicians who routinely argue that Kent's so-called 'mixed economy' of schools can work equally as well as areas where there are comprehensive systems. And one key question ought to be whether some of Kent's grammar schools are doing enough to give opportunities to those from disadvantaged backgrounds given that is the system we have. 

Kent accounts for roughly one in ten of the 107 schools nationally that are failing to meet basic targets.

This is not to say that the county education chiefs do not recognise the problem. County Hall has set up its version of the National Challenge to target support at those schools that are under-achieving (although it won't say which schools are on its list). 

This is said to be having some success although without the authority detailing which schools might be benefiting it is hard to tell.

The problem for Kent is that the government's move to give schools greater freedoms and autonomy through the academy and free schools programme is further fragmenting an already complex jigsaw of schools that exists.

Academies are not answerable or accountable to KCC and although much has been made of the collaborative spirit among Kent schools, for headteachers the key priority is how well their own pupils are doing.

The government is right to shine a light on to how well - or poorly - schools are doing by their less advantaged pupils. Talent is undoubtedly going to waste and in Kent, it seems more of it might be gong to waste than elsewhere.

That is unacceptable.

THERE will be considerable dismay in some quarters that the Prime Minister appears to have agreed that the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary should be fully investigated.

Government to consult on Boris Island airport scheme>>>

But there ought not to be surprise - even if opponents will throw back at him his declaration more than a year ago that the government had 'no plans' to build such an airport. A similar commitment was given to the Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless by new transport secretary Justine Greening in precisely the same terms.

But it was George Osborne who paved the way for the idea of examining the scheme in November when he announced the government would 'explore all the options' for tackling the problems around aviation capacity.

Even so, today's news will be seen as a U-turn and a politically awkward one given the deep hostility among his own MPs in Kent.

It is worth pointing out that there has never been any likelihood the government itself would 'build' an airport - that would be for private investment consortiums.

Some will see it as a shot in the arm for Boris Johnson's campaign to be re-elected as London Mayor although I've never been persuaded that aviation capacity is something that preoccupies London voters as much as issues like tube fares or crime.

Politically, Mr Cameron will have to confront the fact that among the county's Conservative MPs, there is universal opposition. The Conservative controlled Medway Council remains wholly unconvinced - although there have been recent hints that Kent County Council may not be quite as implacably opposed as it once might have been. 

He may also be seen as having performed an about-turn and of betraying those who took him at his word that the government was not interested in the idea. Never an ideal position for a PM or for backbenchers who, in some cases, have marginal seats to defend in 2015.

What has changed? Underlying the news appears to be the feeling that aside from addressing the problem of capacity, a new airport would deliver a huge jobs boost and regenerate a part of the south east in a way no other project could conceivably get close to.

Perhaps it is no coincidence the news has come out on the day that unemployment figures have shown another rise in both Kent and Medway.

Those arguments will inevitably have to be balanced against the fact that an airport would have huge environmental consequences.

One thing is clear from today's news. Whatever one thinks of the idea, it can no longer be dismissed as 'pie in the sky.'

When David Cameron ruled out the expansion of grammar schools in 2007, he said they were "unpopular with parents, who do not want children divided into successes and failures at the age of 11."

The comments - along with some rather barbed criticism about supporters of selection being people who "held on to out-dated mantras that bear no relation to reality" had party activists and councillors in Kent frothing with indignation.

Now it looks like a door has opened on to the possibility of Mr Cameron's veto being overturned in Kent, which - with 33 grammars - is regarded as the torch bearer for supporters of the 11-plus.

The irony is that parents urging a new grammar school for Sevenoaks are doing so on the basis of the government's own new policy of permitting popular, over-subscribed schools to expand to meet demand for places. (Actually, several grammars have expanded their intake in recent years incrementally through admitting extra pupils via the appeals process).

Plenty of Conservatives will be looking to see how Kent County Council responds. To date, it appears to be treading cautiously around the issue, saying that it needs to assess a range of issues before deciding what to do.

It certainly throws up some difficulties, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a long-standing issue in Sevenoaks about the fact that there are no grammar schools in the borough.

A key issue is that there can be no entirely new grammar school. The legislation only permits the expansion of existing schools - and there are none directly in Sevenoaks.

However, the government would sanction a "satellite" school, affiliated to an existing one and it is that idea which is gaining some traction at County Hall. But there is a further issue, which is that the legislation requires the ethos of any such satellite schools to reflect the ethos of the sponsoring school - described colourfully by one politician as "the mothership".

The schools that are discussing becoming involved are, like all but five of the 33 grammars in Kent, single sex - meaning that the satellite school could have to be, too.

It is unclear who would pay for such a satellite and KCC will be wary about committing significant sums to a capital project when other schools in Kent expecting major redevelopment have been left in the lurch after Michael Gove's abrupt cancellation of the Building Schools for The Future programme last year (which KCC challenged in court).

And if KCC doesn't have the money, will the government step in? I can't help thinking that might be something of a hostage to fortune if it does.

Then there is the problem of what to do if other popular and over-subscribed schools seek support to expand their numbers and whether, in opting to increase grammar school places in one area, there could be a detrimental impact on other schools.

Underlying all this is the political desire among Kent Conservatives - and others - to offer some tangible evidence that the party has not completely turned its back on selection, regardless of what their Prime Minister may have said in the past.  

KCC managed to alienate some county MPs when in a cost-cutting measure, it ended a scheme offering help with transport costs for grammar school pupils last year.

Opening a new satellite grammar in west Kent would send a signal that it hasn't completely abandoned its support for a totemic article of faith for many in the party.

Relations between politicians and journalists can often be uneasy ones, characterised by mutual suspicion, a lack of trust and, just occasionally, a touch of paranoia.

Politicians often think we are out to get them and are working to some kind of hidden agenda. And the word that sometimes gets bandied about is that we are 'biased'.

It is a word that KCC leader Paul Carter used when he fired off a New Year salvo at the local media in general just before departing for a month long break to participate in a vintage car rally to South Africa.

Paul Carter's New Year article>>>

In a piece, which for the most part was a look back over the year, he ended with a short section 'looking forward'. It began with a pledge that he wished to "improve our relationship with the local press."

This laudable aim was then rather undermined by a series of comments that together amounted to an attack on those that he wished to foster improved relationships with.

The article claimed that 'some stories have been particularly biased against KCC' and although he stopped short of specifying which ones, it is pretty clear that he was referring to the controversy surrounding the departure of managing director Katherine Kerswell.

Acknowledging that there had been 'several high profile issues' in the last few weeks, he claimed that the media's 'constant sniping at KCC 'impacts on morale for our hard-working staff' and 'the consequence will inevitably be a knock-on effect to frontline service delivery.'

If this was intended to be the start of his desire to improve relationships with the media, it was not only misjudged but perverse.

Perhaps the most risible comment was his appeal to the media to play stories with a 'straight bat' and give 'credit where credit's due' - and to let the public 'actually decide for themselves'.

This from an organisation that has over the years accrued a reputation for evasiveness and PR spin that might make even Peter Mandleson blush.

Unfortunately for KCC, its own unwillingness to play with a straight bat has contributed to a sense of distrust - which was only made worse by the debacle over departure of managing director Katherine Kerswell. 

KCC moved heaven and earth to persuade everyone, including its own staff, that nothing was going on when it was common knowledge that discussions were already underway about scrapping her £197,000 post.

Its initial statement responding to media queries was a classic piece of Orwellian double-speak, a contrivance of misinformation that - while strictly accurate -  was as far removed from 'playing with a straight bat' as could be imagined.

Equally ludicrous was the claim that our 'constant sniping' was threatening front line services by damaging morale among staff.

Does KCC, which never lets us forget that it is one of the biggest authorities in the country and the county's largest employer, expect us not to report job losses and the potential consequences for residents because of the squeeze on public spending - not to mention huge pay-offs for directors on six-figure salaries?   

Nothing has damaged morale at County Hall more than the lamentable way it dealt with events leading up to the decision to scrap Katherine Kerswell's role. The evidence came in some of the scathing comments posted by staff on its own Intranet site about her departure and reported pay-off, showing that many felt duped by KCC, their own employer.

Uncomfortable though it can be for politicians, our job is to hold them to account for their actions and decisions and ask the questions that the public - as taxpayers - would want answered.

It is not to suppress information although you get the sense that KCC sometimes thinks it should be.

It is true we are often sceptical - not biased - and if KCC wonders why we are, it really does have its head in the sand far deeper than even we imagine.

Not for the first time, Kent County Council has shown that when it comes to transparency, its view of what the public has a right to know depends rather on what the circumstances are.

It will not, we are told, be disclosing the details of the severance package it has agreed with its departing managing director Katherine Kerswell because it is bound by a confidentiality agreement. Ah, the good old confidentiality clause.

Perhaps with all the frenzy over trying to come to an agreement with Mrs Kerswell, the authority overlooked its new obligations to publish such information under the transparency regime that, to his credit, the communities secretary Eric Pickles has insisted all councils must follow.

Specifically, KCC appears to have not given much thought to a change in the Audit and Account Regulations 2009 that ensures the public is entitled to much more detailed information about the remuneration of senior council staff.

This places a requirement on councils to disclose how much senior employees have earned in salary, fees and allowances, bonuses and "the total amount of any compensation for loss of employment paid to or receivable by the person and any other payments made to or receivable by the person in connection with the termination of their employment by the relevant body."

In other words, everything about the pay and perks, as well as pension value, of senior staff for the financial year - including their names if they are earning more than £150,000.

So KCC will have to detail the sums involved in scrapping the group managing director's role when it next publishes its full accounts - probably around June.

This does, of course, give the council the advantage of hoping that enough time will have passed for everyone to have forgotten about it but I suspect that may be a vain hope.

So, why doesn't KCC grasp the nettle instead of hiding behind this fig leaf? One of the reasons is that it has form when it comes to eye-watering pay-offs to departing staff, most notably when it agreed to pay former chief executive Peter Gilroy £200,000 on the day he left the authority as part of the package agreed when his contract was extended by a year.

So, it undoubtedly wants to avoid a further clutch of embarrassing headlines.

Its own avowed approach to transparency is - and I quote from the county council leader Paul Carter - is that "it is enormously important that residents of the county who pay substantial taxes know where their money goes. We have no problems with that at all."

Could there be a more compelling case for disclosure of how taxpayers' money is being spent?

KCC is forever telling us how much its controversial re-structuring has saved the taxpayer. And its report proposing the deletion of the post of managing director emphasises how much it will save by not paying her salary - £265,000 a year.

If it can be so transparent on these matters, we are surely entitled to know the other side of the coin.

While KCC keeps its counsel over the future of its managing director Katherine Kerswell amid the on-going swirl of rumours and speculation, some questions arise about the recent behind-closed-doors meeting where the issue was discussed.

KCC held what was described as an 'urgent' meeting of its personnel committee last week. It gave no advance notice of the meeting and produced no advance agenda and has yet to produce any minutes or reports from it. It has, however, recently posted a link to the meeting on its website (after the event) - which you can see here

So, was it consistent with the Access to Information regulations that set out the obligations of councils when it comes to holding and giving notice of any committee meeting, regardless of whether the business of that meeting is discussed in open or closed session?

The legislation states that principal local authorities must give five working days notice of any meeting it plans to hold and must additionally provide agendas, reports and background papers.

Even if part of the business to be discussed in private, the agenda of any meeting has to set out in advance what confidential or exempt items are to be discussed.

That certainly doesn't appear to have been the case here. And the legislation provides no cover to councils on the grounds of the urgency of the meeting - items of business can be added to an agenda as 'urgent' but there is nothing about 'urgent' meetings being able to sidestep the legal requirements.

Some of these points were raised last week at the meeting by the opposition Liberal Democrat member Cllr Tim Prater who questioned (during the public part of the meeting) whether KCC was being compliant with its legal obligations.

Like me, he wonders whether the council has fallen short of the Access to Information regulations.

So, could KCC have been able to hold its meeting under its own constitutional rules? Even there, it would appear there are questions as its own procedural rules for council meetings are broadly the same as the Access to Information Act.

The constitution says all meetings will be advertised five working days before they take place although shorter notice will be permitted 'in exceptional circumstances' - such as a meeting to consider a revised budget.

The constitution also talks about the copies of agendas and reports being available five days before. So, nothing at all so far as I can see about 'urgent' meetings. 

Back to the Access to Information Act and a further requirement which relates to the publication of information after a committee meeting. Under this, councils are required to publish the agenda, minutes and any reports.

Even where items are exempt or confidential, there is an obligation to produce some summary of the item without disclosing the exempt details. To date, KCC has not done so - although it appears there are no time limits on this.

The irony is that as managing director, Katherine Kerswell initiated the authority's own transparency crusade under which the citizens' rights to information were supposedly to be enhanced.

He couldn't quite bring himself to utter the words 'Thames estuary' or 'Boris Island'.

But George Osborne has done enough in his budget statement to ensure that the idea of a new hub airport in the south east has not been completely grounded. Indeed, there are some who believe he has engineered a situation that will encourage proponents of such schemes rather than deter them.

The telling phrase he used was that the government intended to 'explore all the options.' Had he wanted to sound the death knell for either Boris Island or Lord Foster's £50bn vision, he could have said so - just like he did by ruling out any further consideration of Heathrow.

A flat denial could have ended the persistent speculation and would have given some solace to the county's MPs who are deeply hostile to the idea and fear that the government is not helping their re-election prospects.

Several have suggested that George Osborne is merely trying to help his friend Boris as he seeks to secure another term as Mayor of London.

Others have gone further with theories that should Boris return to the House of Commons as an MP, he will be joining forces with Osborne when he takes a tilt at the leadership.

That might be a motive but I am not wholly convinced. If you polled Londoners on the issues they have most concerns about, I'm not sure you'd find aviation high on that list (except in west London). Tube fares perhaps.

I suspect the government doesn't really know whether it wants to see a new airport off the north Kent coast.

But it's worth reading the National Infrastructure Plan published by the Treasury.

It notes how, since 2005, the performance trends on airports in relation to capacity, access and availibility - as well as service quality and reliability - have all gone down. For other transport modes, they have either stayed the same or improved.

That is not an argument for Boris Island or Lord Foster's scheme but as Mr Osborne said, the UK risks falling behind countries like China and Brazil who are building infrastructure schemes at a lick.

Precisely the kind of point that Boris has been making.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There was a meeting of KCC's personnel committee on Monday at the highly unusual hour of 5.30pm. I cannot tell you what was discussed as there was no advance agendas or papers - as there normally would under Access to Information rules - as it was an "emergency" meeting, meaning such rules can be bypassed.

Still, let's speculate about what might have been discussed behind closed doors. If recent events are a guide, some might think the councillors summonsed to attend were discussing the way the authority might be run in future and the option of doing without a managing director.

We may have to wait a little while for this to be confirmed but it may not be long. Meanwhile, KCC's managing director Katherine Kerswell "is and remains" in her post even though not many people have seen her around County Hall in recent weeks.