howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
we are all aware of the new shared services thing that will mean just one head honcho to cover dover and shepway.
we have assumed that either mr aziz(dover) or mr stewart(shepway) will get the job.
not so, interviews will be open to all, they will be held during may and june with the successful applicant having his or her feet under the table at the end of june.
should neither of the current chief executives be appointed it could cost the best part of £600 grand to pay off the contracts and add ons.
makes me wonder whether mr aziz and mr stewart will give of their best at the interview.
would you?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
I think they are more likely to be judged on their past performance than their interview technique.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#3
I covered this a while a go and Paul Watkins went off on one,we are actually talking about this at scruity tomorrow,but....as I was told by Gordon Cowan.if we get in after the election in May,it could/would be stopped.
It also brings up what happens next,if we get a Reg style total joint working then watch Council Tax go up because when everythind is a unitary I cant see Shepway being happy that our Council Tax is approx 40 % lower than thiers.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
Bit unsure what your saying john
the chie executives pay off will have been negotatiated
by unions and council
may be high, but it is a contract of emploment
be surprized if they (you)could get out of it without big cost
also are you saying your against a unitary?
PAULW
On unitaries now you said your in favour of a unitary, will you press your gpvt
official(mr pickles) to all;ow east kent to go that route???
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#5
I dont know but I suspect JHG is saying Labour would stop the merger of the councils and therefore the need to pay off one or both of the incumbents.
I do agree Keith that any pay off will be in their contract of employment (or is it a service contract at that level similar to directors in companies?). The only hope would be that one or other is close to the end of their contract and they could be let go cheaply - of course this being Dover that isnt likely is it.
In terms of cost efficiency unitary authorities is the way to go, but of course that means tough decisions on staffing and service contracts - not sure any of our local authorities have shown much metal on that to date. Also it will presumably mean much larger wards in order to keep the number of councillors down at a sensible level
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#6
It's being done in this way so that by the next election (after May this year), most or all sevices will have merged, so the next logical step would (probably) be a Unitary.
It must be better for all concerned that it is done merging a new service each year, gradually, by agreement, rather than have it forced upon us, in a few years time.
There'll be less Councillors too by that time, I'm sure.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#7
Fantastic stuff, we now have paulw and Roger in favour of unitaries, two leading lights, so hopefully now they are both on board they will push mr pickles in that direction.
shared services is a long way short of unitatry councils
talking about being in favour of unitaries, is not the same as pushing mr pickles into allowing East kent to go that route
over to you paulw and roger
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
i think that unitary authorities will happen everywhere, shared services is a way of going forward in a carefully planned way.
changing directly to an east kent unitary authority would cause a lot of upheaval and confusion and severe job losses.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
I didn't exactly say that Keith, I said that with merging of services over the next four years, it will (probably) be the logical step - that's not saying I support it.
Developments will shape the future.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
Sorry Reg
thought roger was on board for your good ship unitary authority. but obviously not.
Councils shared services are a big big step away from unitaries
so looks like it wont happen here for over 2o years or more
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#11
Will come back tomorrow after the meeting tonight,and I may be able to answer some of your questions.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
have to disagree with keith here, shared services are the path towards unitary authorities.
in my view it is an issue of evolution taking precedence over revolution.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
we will just have to agree to disagree howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#14
I agree with Howard; increasing shared services and the level of them, is the best way to go ahead.
A careful, considered approach is what is necessary, taking into account the concerns of each authority and resolving them through discussion and negotiation.
If at the end of four years, it is felt by all those involved that a Unitary is the best next step, than I don't have a problem with that.
I wouldn't take any advice from any Labour politician how to run a Council after seeing how Labour messed up so badly the last time they were in power at DDC - or Westminster for that matter.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
ROGER
Firstly roger you realy do need to get your facts right!!!!!!!!!
1; Labour did not mess up last time, and with comments like yours they are sure
to be back in May
2; I'm not a labour politician
3; Reg is not a labour politician
it's all a matter of opinion roger, for me, i like to see all sides, whilst i may not not agree with much the tories do, i still don't have a blinkered outlook on what they do and i'm happy to discuss things they do
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
Excuse me Keith, Labour left a black hole in the accounts of around £750,000 - that's a mess-up.
If you can't/won't accept that, then you and many/all Labour supports are in denial.
Same as the Labour Government only their's was worse.
You may not be an elected representative anymore Keith, but you are more political and more politically motivated than many elected people.
Same with Reg.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#17
ROGER
Again roger your incorrect but won't argue as your blinkered.
on my motvation, nope dont have a great interest in politics, just come on here and give my view, when i feel like it, just to even up a one sided forum at times.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
LOL Keith.
You will try to say next that the panic meeting was not held about draconian cuts because you had spent all the reserves. You do tell 'em
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
BAZ;
I will avoid answering, havnt saved up for a solicitor yet lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Thats because it is not 'convenient' for you. By the way, once can be funny, but after that it is just very silly.