Riverside,
and
Google`s
`sham`
tax deal
Just like Google`s £150 million deal with the taxman, there is something of a sham about Riverside Housing Association`s long-standing “deal” with many of its would be crtitics
Google `s deal ensured that this giant American multinational
company got the tiniest of tax bills. Riverside`s “deal” meant that any criticism
of this Liverpool association- also a giant-
has been equally tiny.
The
allegation of sham about Google has been made by James Anderson, one of Britain`s biggest
Google shareholders following a sudden
storm of public resentment at the
deal. The allegation of sham about
Riverside is made by a leading tenants`organisation, Carlisle Tenants` and
Residents` Federation following a long build-up of resentment lasting 14 years.
Now,
both “deals” are starting to unravel.
Google`s tax bill could become ten times greater if the criticism of sham sticks. For Riverside following
allegations of a sham deal, life might now get tougher and its ramshackle
organisation and bossy ways become
properly exposed to the public gaze.
The
public`s present “gaze” at Riverside is tiny and has been tiny ever since it took
over Carlisle`s 6,000 council houses in 2002. Like other housing associations,
Riverside has been “protected”
from the public gaze (those embarrassing probing enquiries such as freedom of information requests)
because legally it is not required to deal with these requests.
And
although Riverside is a charitable registered society, it is
not democratic. It is autocratic. So its 50,000
tenants and leaseholders have no say in its operations.
But
times are changing. Mounting criticism
of Riverside made to Carlisle city
councillors has meant more public awareness and the organisation`s work is now
more than ever exposed to probing
by the council`s Overview and
Scrutiny Panel.
That
panel met last week, as a post on this
blog reported. (See “Dean Butterworth and something a bit stronger”). Any new
criticism of Riverside to the panel was muted but for the very first time in 14 years the panel was able to compare
Riverside`s work with the work of other
housing associations.
Two other
associations were represented alongside
Riverside at the panel meeting .And with the prospect ol further meetings that
will include other housing associations,
the meeting marked an important step forward in holding Riverside to account,
What
then about that allegation of a Google-style sham? Will that opening up of the
Overvikw and Scrutiny Panel be enough to eliminate the sham allegation?
Sadly,
there is still work to do? Much work to do..
One
example of this came with the council`s deplorable
rejection of questions submitted by the Federation for answer at a recent panel meeting. The council falsely accused the Federation of using the
panel as a platform to make statements of discontent.
And
Riverside seems over-represented in the
workings of both local councils –Carlisle
and Cumbria- through its employees who are also council members and through four
city council members who are also members of Riverside`s governing
board.
It
was recently estimated that nearly 12
per cent of city council members had links toRiverside.
But
the most serious example of Riverside`s
seemingly over representation in the workings of the council came with the
appointment of a city councillor member of the
Riverside board to be chairman
of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
Part
of that panel`s work (as outlined above)
is to scrutinise the work of Riverside.
That
city councillor held the chairmanship up to fairly recently.
CarlisleTenants`
and Residents` Federation publishes this blog. Information about the
Federation is available on 01228 522277 or 01228 532803.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment