Chief executive row leads to council walkout

Chief executive row leads to council walkout

Chief executive row leads to council walkout

First published in News

ANGRY opposition councillors walked out of a Malvern Hills District Council this week in a row over plans to merge the authority's chief executive post with Wychavon council.

Members of the Lib Dem and Democrat groups walked out of Tuesday’s full council meeting , charging that a notice of motion brought by the ruling Conservative group was illegal.

The Tories' motion sought to change a decision made last month when the plan to share the chief executive's post was approved.

In that meeting, the words that "the new post is regarded as suitable employment for the current chief executive and managing director" was replaced with a recommendation that the post is "subject to open application and competition".

The Tories' motion sought to change the minutes to restore the original wording.

Opposition councillors said changing the minutes to reflect something that was not agreed at the meeting is illegal, , and Cllr Anthony Warburton produced written legal advice backing up that view.

The Tories quickly reworded the motion. After taking advice from council officers, cllr Mike Morgan, who was chairing the meeting, ruled that the reworded motion should be allowed - prompting the opposition walkout.

The rebel councillors stood outside the Council Chamber while the motion was passed 17-0 with two abstentions.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:56am Thu 31 Jul 14

3thinker says...

Its about time councillors across the County started to see the bigger picture.

Whether we like it or not, with all the cuts faced by local government and the increased privatisation of services we no longer afford to sustain 7 District and 1 County Council and all the management and councillor overheads.

At a stroke merging all the councils into one (or two) Unitary Councils would bring economies of scale and bring massive savings that could be used to meet the cuts and/or maintain vital services.

All the large cities and some Counties have already gone down this route.

The other big advantage is that local people would know who was responsible for what and it would be easier to hold councillors accountable. As they'd no longer have the excuse that it was another councils responsibility or fault.

This sharing of a CEO is a case in point. Imagine how much time has already been wasted on petty party politicking.

I appreciate concerns about making the decision makers more remote, but as local government has very little real power any more is it any wonder that they have time to increasingly play party political games that make no real difference apart from re-enforcing the electorates disillusionment with politicians. The Alan Amos fiasco in Worcesters is a case in point.

Where Worcestershire has a big advantage is in having a complete (or almost complete?) third layer of government in its parish and town councils. These operate at the 'parish pump' level that most residents can better relate to, have wide ranging powers that are often under-used and can raise their own finances. If for instance there was an agreement for all or most of the New Homes Bonus to go to the Parish or Town Council then we'd really be getting closer to the Localism the current Government says they are trying to deliver.

The Parish and Town Councils also tend to be less party political, attract those who want to be councillors for the right reasons and are good 'training' grounds for quality councillors who may then move on to stand for the new Unitary council.

I know people rare worried about losing local control, but given what's happened nationally to undermine Local Government and what may happen in terms of more resources and powers being allocated at a City Region level, whether the Council for your area meets in Worcesters or Malvern really makes very little difference.
Its about time councillors across the County started to see the bigger picture. Whether we like it or not, with all the cuts faced by local government and the increased privatisation of services we no longer afford to sustain 7 District and 1 County Council and all the management and councillor overheads. At a stroke merging all the councils into one (or two) Unitary Councils would bring economies of scale and bring massive savings that could be used to meet the cuts and/or maintain vital services. All the large cities and some Counties have already gone down this route. The other big advantage is that local people would know who was responsible for what and it would be easier to hold councillors accountable. As they'd no longer have the excuse that it was another councils responsibility or fault. This sharing of a CEO is a case in point. Imagine how much time has already been wasted on petty party politicking. I appreciate concerns about making the decision makers more remote, but as local government has very little real power any more is it any wonder that they have time to increasingly play party political games that make no real difference apart from re-enforcing the electorates disillusionment with politicians. The Alan Amos fiasco in Worcesters is a case in point. Where Worcestershire has a big advantage is in having a complete (or almost complete?) third layer of government in its parish and town councils. These operate at the 'parish pump' level that most residents can better relate to, have wide ranging powers that are often under-used and can raise their own finances. If for instance there was an agreement for all or most of the New Homes Bonus to go to the Parish or Town Council then we'd really be getting closer to the Localism the current Government says they are trying to deliver. The Parish and Town Councils also tend to be less party political, attract those who want to be councillors for the right reasons and are good 'training' grounds for quality councillors who may then move on to stand for the new Unitary council. I know people rare worried about losing local control, but given what's happened nationally to undermine Local Government and what may happen in terms of more resources and powers being allocated at a City Region level, whether the Council for your area meets in Worcesters or Malvern really makes very little difference. 3thinker
  • Score: 3

1:44pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Jabbadad says...

It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge.
GET REAL.
It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge. GET REAL. Jabbadad
  • Score: -1

7:11pm Thu 31 Jul 14

THE FACTS says...

Jabbadad wrote:
It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge.
GET REAL.
It doesn't make a difference for all the reasons the first poster mentioned.

Less unaccountable councillors and clear responsibilities is reqd
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge. GET REAL.[/p][/quote]It doesn't make a difference for all the reasons the first poster mentioned. Less unaccountable councillors and clear responsibilities is reqd THE FACTS
  • Score: 1

8:45pm Thu 31 Jul 14

wooshman says...

He could also do Worcester City as well seems like a good idea to me
He could also do Worcester City as well seems like a good idea to me wooshman
  • Score: 1

9:19pm Thu 31 Jul 14

3thinker says...

Jabbadad wrote:
It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge.
GET REAL.
The last time I checked we lived in a democracy, not a party state. However, lets have a look at what real difference the change in control of a Council actually makes.

Firstly, it won't be long before most of the remaining services run by the District and County Council will be privatised and on the end of a very specific and long term contractual agreement that allows very little change unless large amounts of are paid because the provider has an effective monopoly.

Secondly, what free resources that do emerge are likely to be one off windfalls such as New Homes Bonus, s.106, CIL or a grant from Government or Lottery that comes with very prescriptive limits on what it can be used for. Oh and the occasional sale of an asset if there are any left.

Add into this that all of the main political parties follow whatever the next focus group report suggests and are increasingly dependent on the remaining in-house staff expertise (who themselves will have their own 'vision' of how things should or could be) and the reality is that it will actually make very little difference what party holds power in the City or for that matter, the County or another District.

Between them previous Labour and Conservative Governments have so emaciated local government power that there is very little any local council can do to make a real difference and particularly when District Councils and the County Council can't agree common agendas that align the limited resources and decisions that do remain available to them.

Two cases in point. The South Worcestershire Development Plan. Do I need to explain more? Secondly the disgraceful Alan Amos affair in the City. It brought in a different controlling party, but what real impact has it really had? Parking will be a little cheaper, they'll pick up a bit more litter and cut a more grass in cemeteries, lay a few new slabs on Angel Place and we may have an extra couple of lanes on a new swimming pool if it ever gets built.

Not exactly a radical change that will make anyone rush out to the polling station at the newt election. And possibly why so many are considering wasting their vote by voting for UKIP who really only have an anti-EU stance.

Ironically its the Parish and Town Councils that have the greatest freedom to raise funds and spend them on things that really matter and make a difference locally.

So what you're basically trying to defend is a situation where we the taxpayers continue to fund a large senior management team and hundreds of District, City and County Councillors to look after services that have and will continue to reduce significantly and will be increasingly contracted out over timescales longer than political cycles so it doesn't really matter what party is in control as they'll have hardly and ability to change what's being delivered.

Personally I'm not happy at all with this, but there comes a point where its only rational to set up one or two unitary Councils for Worcestershire as this is the only real way left to make significant savings on what is now an overblown bureaucracy and political structure that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in being able to respond to its local electorates needs but will involve further cuts on local services to maintain it.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: It will make a diference to which politics run the council though, and can we really trust the CONservatives to operate fairly without any challenge. GET REAL.[/p][/quote]The last time I checked we lived in a democracy, not a party state. However, lets have a look at what real difference the change in control of a Council actually makes. Firstly, it won't be long before most of the remaining services run by the District and County Council will be privatised and on the end of a very specific and long term contractual agreement that allows very little change unless large amounts of are paid because the provider has an effective monopoly. Secondly, what free resources that do emerge are likely to be one off windfalls such as New Homes Bonus, s.106, CIL or a grant from Government or Lottery that comes with very prescriptive limits on what it can be used for. Oh and the occasional sale of an asset if there are any left. Add into this that all of the main political parties follow whatever the next focus group report suggests and are increasingly dependent on the remaining in-house staff expertise (who themselves will have their own 'vision' of how things should or could be) and the reality is that it will actually make very little difference what party holds power in the City or for that matter, the County or another District. Between them previous Labour and Conservative Governments have so emaciated local government power that there is very little any local council can do to make a real difference and particularly when District Councils and the County Council can't agree common agendas that align the limited resources and decisions that do remain available to them. Two cases in point. The South Worcestershire Development Plan. Do I need to explain more? Secondly the disgraceful Alan Amos affair in the City. It brought in a different controlling party, but what real impact has it really had? Parking will be a little cheaper, they'll pick up a bit more litter and cut a more grass in cemeteries, lay a few new slabs on Angel Place and we may have an extra couple of lanes on a new swimming pool if it ever gets built. Not exactly a radical change that will make anyone rush out to the polling station at the newt election. And possibly why so many are considering wasting their vote by voting for UKIP who really only have an anti-EU stance. Ironically its the Parish and Town Councils that have the greatest freedom to raise funds and spend them on things that really matter and make a difference locally. So what you're basically trying to defend is a situation where we the taxpayers continue to fund a large senior management team and hundreds of District, City and County Councillors to look after services that have and will continue to reduce significantly and will be increasingly contracted out over timescales longer than political cycles so it doesn't really matter what party is in control as they'll have hardly and ability to change what's being delivered. Personally I'm not happy at all with this, but there comes a point where its only rational to set up one or two unitary Councils for Worcestershire as this is the only real way left to make significant savings on what is now an overblown bureaucracy and political structure that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in being able to respond to its local electorates needs but will involve further cuts on local services to maintain it. 3thinker
  • Score: 1

11:30pm Thu 31 Jul 14

reTurn says...

As a parish councillor in Worcestershire I find it appalling when our DC behaves in this way (changing minutes because someone made a mistake? Sorry, but that's not on). I'm glad that at the PC level it's apolitical - Surely it's unacceptable that people in this position tow the party line all the time so that the top lot can have their way? They're letting down those who elected them and should be ashamed.

I'd like a local representative who knows something about the area they represent, someone who is interested in the area they represent. If you have a few large councils large areas will be marginalised and under represented. Kind of the opposite of this much talked about, but not really existent, Localism.

Give powers to the PC? Currently we don't have many as our views are ignored by higher levels. If we had more powers the political parties would move in and start changing what is currently local people volunteering to make their communities better places. I'm also very wary of moving essential services to the PCs which have little funding and staff to support them.

Privatising essential services is never always the right thing to do either. Some services should never be run by business - not everything is there to make money and subject to endless 'efficiency drives'. If our PCs become the local seats of power, they will eventually club together to provide services (economies of scale again), merge with neighbouring councils until we have what resembles a DC. The cycle is complete and money was wasted along the way. Far too much time is wasted on this introspective nonsense. Rather than trying to make itself scarce or constantly re-invent itself, mid-level government should buck up and get on trying to serve the people who pay for them.
As a parish councillor in Worcestershire I find it appalling when our DC behaves in this way (changing minutes because someone made a mistake? Sorry, but that's not on). I'm glad that at the PC level it's apolitical - Surely it's unacceptable that people in this position tow the party line all the time so that the top lot can have their way? They're letting down those who elected them and should be ashamed. I'd like a local representative who knows something about the area they represent, someone who is interested in the area they represent. If you have a few large councils large areas will be marginalised and under represented. Kind of the opposite of this much talked about, but not really existent, Localism. Give powers to the PC? Currently we don't have many as our views are ignored by higher levels. If we had more powers the political parties would move in and start changing what is currently local people volunteering to make their communities better places. I'm also very wary of moving essential services to the PCs which have little funding and staff to support them. Privatising essential services is never always the right thing to do either. Some services should never be run by business - not everything is there to make money and subject to endless 'efficiency drives'. If our PCs become the local seats of power, they will eventually club together to provide services (economies of scale again), merge with neighbouring councils until we have what resembles a DC. The cycle is complete and money was wasted along the way. Far too much time is wasted on this introspective nonsense. Rather than trying to make itself scarce or constantly re-invent itself, mid-level government should buck up and get on trying to serve the people who pay for them. reTurn
  • Score: 3

12:01am Fri 1 Aug 14

Casmal says...

You are all missing the point at issue in this article.

At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get.

This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision.

As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings.

When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record.

Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version!

Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!!
You are all missing the point at issue in this article. At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get. This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings. When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record. Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version! Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!! Casmal
  • Score: 1

12:33am Fri 1 Aug 14

3thinker says...

Most of the UK population (including all the large cities) have only two layers of Government, Parliament and there local Unitary Authority.

In Worcestershire there are four. Parliament, County, District and Parish.

In a recent focus group organised by the County and with people invited from their "Viewpoint" panel we were asked a series of questions at the end about whether certain functions were a County Council responsibility. None were, but the majority of those attending hadn't a clue.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the electorate don't know whether its the County or District that's responsible for a particular service then how do we know what we're voting for and how can we hope to hold our local District and County councillors accountable.

In a Unitary Authority there are no hiding places. Councillors can't blame another Council or pass the buck as all the services are delivered by the one Council. It also means there's greater flexibility to align services so they work better for local residents and efficiencies and extra resources can be found to focus on changing or specific local needs.

Its what private business calls economies of scale and value chains. The Conservatives wax lyrical about the benefits of adopting private sector practices so why not practice what they preach. Lets have a merger or two.
It would also mean that Worcestershire would have a united voice to lobby Government and fend off the approaching 'take over' by the Birmingham City Region.

By the way here's a list of the very wide ranging powers parish and town councils have. http://www.cpalc.org
.uk/parish-council-p
owers
Most of the UK population (including all the large cities) have only two layers of Government, Parliament and there local Unitary Authority. In Worcestershire there are four. Parliament, County, District and Parish. In a recent focus group organised by the County and with people invited from their "Viewpoint" panel we were asked a series of questions at the end about whether certain functions were a County Council responsibility. None were, but the majority of those attending hadn't a clue. The point I'm trying to make is that if the electorate don't know whether its the County or District that's responsible for a particular service then how do we know what we're voting for and how can we hope to hold our local District and County councillors accountable. In a Unitary Authority there are no hiding places. Councillors can't blame another Council or pass the buck as all the services are delivered by the one Council. It also means there's greater flexibility to align services so they work better for local residents and efficiencies and extra resources can be found to focus on changing or specific local needs. Its what private business calls economies of scale and value chains. The Conservatives wax lyrical about the benefits of adopting private sector practices so why not practice what they preach. Lets have a merger or two. It would also mean that Worcestershire would have a united voice to lobby Government and fend off the approaching 'take over' by the Birmingham City Region. By the way here's a list of the very wide ranging powers parish and town councils have. http://www.cpalc.org .uk/parish-council-p owers 3thinker
  • Score: 0

12:40am Fri 1 Aug 14

3thinker says...

Casmal wrote:
You are all missing the point at issue in this article.

At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get.

This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision.

As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings.

When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record.

Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version!

Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!!
Merge all the Districts and County and you'd have eight CEOs to choose from! It would also save over £1M per year forever.

Add in the savings made with other senior management and reduced councillor expenses and overheads an this alone would certainly save in excess of another £5M per annum and that's before all the other efficiencies, economies of scale and service improvements that could be made through a better alignment of County and District services.
[quote][p][bold]Casmal[/bold] wrote: You are all missing the point at issue in this article. At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get. This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings. When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record. Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version! Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!![/p][/quote]Merge all the Districts and County and you'd have eight CEOs to choose from! It would also save over £1M per year forever. Add in the savings made with other senior management and reduced councillor expenses and overheads an this alone would certainly save in excess of another £5M per annum and that's before all the other efficiencies, economies of scale and service improvements that could be made through a better alignment of County and District services. 3thinker
  • Score: 0

8:26am Fri 1 Aug 14

reTurn says...

Agree with Casmal that the real point here is that proper procedure was not followed.

A lot of PC powers are ultimately limited by funds. When we set the precept we too are encouraged not to raise by more than 2%. Sure, we could do lots of things but do not have resources to back them up. Still, the PC is an effective level of government as it deals with the local detail that gets forgotten in a wider area and is run mostly by volunteers.

A change so that councillors can be more accountable and can't hide decision making would be welcome, but we can't go about achieving that in exactly the opposite manner.
Agree with Casmal that the real point here is that proper procedure was not followed. A lot of PC powers are ultimately limited by funds. When we set the precept we too are encouraged not to raise by more than 2%. Sure, we could do lots of things but do not have resources to back them up. Still, the PC is an effective level of government as it deals with the local detail that gets forgotten in a wider area and is run mostly by volunteers. A change so that councillors can be more accountable and can't hide decision making would be welcome, but we can't go about achieving that in exactly the opposite manner. reTurn
  • Score: 0

9:13am Fri 1 Aug 14

Casmal says...

3thinker wrote:
Casmal wrote:
You are all missing the point at issue in this article.

At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get.

This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision.

As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings.

When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record.

Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version!

Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!!
Merge all the Districts and County and you'd have eight CEOs to choose from! It would also save over £1M per year forever.

Add in the savings made with other senior management and reduced councillor expenses and overheads an this alone would certainly save in excess of another £5M per annum and that's before all the other efficiencies, economies of scale and service improvements that could be made through a better alignment of County and District services.
Does the breaching of the constitution and the breaking of the law not concern you?
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Casmal[/bold] wrote: You are all missing the point at issue in this article. At the June Council meeting opposition Council members put forward an amendment to the effect that The post of joint CEO should be advertised nationally, not restricted to the two current postholders, one of whom is said to want to retire anyway, meaning that any selection process will be a farce as the CEO that doesn't want to retire will get the post, regardless of whether he is the best person we could get. This amendment was passed, but the Tories didn't like it, 'cos it upset their plans to have the man of their choice in post. So, just like with the SWDP they called an ECM to overturn the decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, instead of doing this through a motion to rescind the agreed amendment, they put forward a motion to change the minutes to read that the version they wanted was what was passed at the June meeting. The Leadership and of course the officers must know that minutes must be a true record of the meeting, i.e. what actually happened, not what they wished had happened. That goes will all minutes of all meetings. When presented with the legal opinion proving that this was illegal, the Chairman refused to consider it. Eventually, after a lot pushing,he finally agreed to break for five minutes to consider it. After this time he said it could be amended. Only minor amendments are allowed, they are not allowed to significantly change a motion, so they added a word, but the motion approved still involved changing the minutes to make them an incorrect record. Meanwhile, they put in a bid for Govt. funding on the 1st July stating there was political agreement and complete agreement with Wychavon, which isn't true, because Wychavon agreed the unamended version! Once again, it is not just what the ruling party is doing, it is the way they are doing it. This time, not content with breaching the constitution, they are actually breaking the law. Smart move!!!![/p][/quote]Merge all the Districts and County and you'd have eight CEOs to choose from! It would also save over £1M per year forever. Add in the savings made with other senior management and reduced councillor expenses and overheads an this alone would certainly save in excess of another £5M per annum and that's before all the other efficiencies, economies of scale and service improvements that could be made through a better alignment of County and District services.[/p][/quote]Does the breaching of the constitution and the breaking of the law not concern you? Casmal
  • Score: -1

9:05pm Sat 2 Aug 14

BadgerMash says...

MHDC and Wychavon are an excellent match for merging services, as both of them have equally appalling reputations with their residents and (mostly) equally bizarre councillors voted for by a very small proportion of their electorates.
MHDC and Wychavon are an excellent match for merging services, as both of them have equally appalling reputations with their residents and (mostly) equally bizarre councillors voted for by a very small proportion of their electorates. BadgerMash
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree