24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Council Tax

Victory in Winslow

Oct 17th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In June, I wrote about a local campaign in Winslow, Buckinghamshire to stop the introduction of parking charges in one of the town’s car parks.

Last year, Aylesbury Vale District Council announced plans to introduce parking charges in Greyhound Lane Car Park. A petition opposing these charges was organised by a local resident, the indomitable Ruth Ash. Ruth had never been involved in political campaigning before, but she knew parking charges would have a negative effect on her community. Although she was told to forget it as she would never win, she set about collecting signatures, and managed to get 2186 people to sign her petition – over half of Winslow’s adult population. 

It has been a long and rocky road, however thanks to her determination and tenacity she has achieved a remarkable victory, and parking will remain free until 2018. It should have been obvious to councillors and council officers that charges would drive business elsewhere. Instead the wheels of bureaucracy moved at just about the slowest pace they could as consultations and enquiries took place. It will be interesting to find out how much all of this has cost taxpayers in AVDC, and this is something I will be enquiring after.

In recent months I have highlighted campaigns across the country where local people have stood up against their councils on this issue. In Salisbury, where local traders told of a dramatic fall in business after charges were increased, the local newspaper led the campaign. It was the same story in Northumberland, but I have not come across a campaign that has been so successful and organised by just one person. Ruth is a modest lady who doesn’t want the credit, but as I told her, she deserves it, as without her hard work the council would have go its way, and her town would have been poorer as a result.

I hope this story serves as a catalyst to others around the country. It is possible to take on your council and win. This story has proven it.

The hidden perks inside Hull City Council

Oct 14th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In a report earlier this year, we revealed that many councils pay mileage rates to staff well above the HMRC recommended rate of 45p per mile. Hull was one of those councils.

In a report in the Yorkshire Post this week, it was revealed that not only are staff benefiting from generous rates of 65p per mile, but staff can also claim a petrol allowance on top of the mileage allowance of up to 11.3p per mile. This was news to me, and to the journalist I spoke to about it. I described it as another of the hidden perks inside Hull City Council, and something that needs to be rectified. Scrapping this allowance and reducing the mileage rate to 45p per mile will bring considerable savings to the council’s budget.

It was also revealed that officers on Grade 12 or higher benefit from 33 days annual leave. Those on lower grades receive 25 days, rising to 26 after ten years service. The council also award two extra days leave to all staff in addition to the statutory public holidays. This means those earning above £42,066 a year are not only benefiting from hugely generous mileage rates when they travel on council business, they also receive 35 days holiday every year.

It is impossible to work out exactly how many officers there are benefiting from these additional days, as the council’s accounts only list those earning above £50k. Instead of providing two lists of teaching and non-teaching staff (which many councils do), Hull does not list them separately. There are, however, over 300 staff listed in the accounts (page 61) who earn in excess of £50k. We can easily add many more who will be earning above £42,066. It is therefore safe to assume that the council would not need as many managers as it currently employs if only the amount of annual leave was reduced.

I’m pleased to say that the leader of the council, Cllr Steve Brady, is negotiating with the unions on these matters. However, this is not a guarantee that these perks will end, or that other perks won’t be substituted for them. Hopefully everyone will see sense and realise that by reducing the mileage rates paid and reducing the amount of annual leave many officers receive, a significant contribution can be made towards balancing the books.

I would love to know if there are similar hidden perks in your council. If you know, please e-mail me. If you don’t know, you can always send a freedom of information (FoI) request to find out. If you would like me to send you a FoI template, please do get in touch.

Non-job of the week

Oct 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

On 29 September, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced the final Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency. In a written statement to the House of Commons, Eric Pickles said:

The code of practice calls on local authorities such as councils and fire and rescue services to shine a light on every part of their business, from employees’ salaries over £58,200 and details of all their contracts and tenders to details of grants to voluntary organisations, spending data and the locations of public land and building assets.

Non-Job of the WeekMore transparency in local government is great news for taxpayers, although a London council could learn a thing or two about it. I say ‘a London council’ because I don’t which one, as it is using the recruitment agency Morgan Hunt to advertise, of all things, a Governance Officer – Openness and Transparency!

Perhaps the first action of the new Openness and Transparency Officer will be to make sure all jobs at the unnamed council are advertised in an open and transparent way!

The accolade this week though goes to Lambeth Council. Lambeth wishes to employ an Energy Efficiency Manager, paying between £40506 – £43152 per annum. Now, energy efficiency is, of course, a good thing. With energy bills rising dramatically, we are all looking for ways to reduce our energy consumption and councils should not be the exception.

I am sure many of you who have worked in offices will have seen stickers next to light switches reminding you to switch off the lights if they are not needed. These days we also have things like smart meters that tell us exactly how much energy we are consuming. If you have seen one in action you will know that as soon as you switch on a kettle, the energy consumption rises. It doesn’t stop me making a cup of tea, but I know exactly which appliances at home use the most electricity, and if I can find ways of using those appliances less I will save money.

Councils can reduce energy consumption by doing the same. If you are about to go into a meeting for a couple of hours, does your computer still need to be switched on? It may have been dark when you started working this morning, but do the lights still need to be switched on? Letting council workers see how much energy they are consuming will result in a reduction of energy consumption, as happened at Windsor and Maidenhead Council.

In a report last year we highlighted how councils reacted differently to government legislation. Although all councils have to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, there are councils who manage to do it without creating mini-departments like Lambeth do.

By adopting simple strategies that we all use at home, councils can dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions and save taxpayers’ money.

Councils can return to weekly bin collections

Sep 30th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Yesterday the Coalition announced it is to provide £250 million to enable local authorities across the UK to switch back to weekly bin collections. In June I wrote about our disappointment that the Conservatives had backtracked on their manifesto pledge to end to fortnightly collections. However, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles yesterday made the offer councils will hopefully find impossible to refuse.

Council tax has almost doubled over the last decade and for many the most valued and visible service in return is waste collection. While councils across the country reassess their priorities after reductions in their central government grants, many are reluctant to return to weekly collections. But we regularly publish stories and produce research that shows there are savings to be made in council budgets.

While it is not ideal that the Government felt forced to bribe councils to provide the weekly service, as with the council tax freeze introduced earlier this year, it is often the only tool Ministers have. But this decision places power back in the hands of local residents. Councils will find it difficult to go against their will.

There will be some who claim that offering an incentive to local authorities goes against the localism agenda. Firstly, the offer is optional. The councils that genuinely believe a weekly collection is what their residents want but who find it financially prohibitive have the funds available, those who strongly believe in fortnightly collections can refuse. Secondly, the eye-watering landfill taxes councils frequently moan about emanate from the European Union, the very anathema of localism. Meddling from the EU in council affairs severely restrict the service they can provide residents. If councils want more power, they should first tell the Government to stop accepting diktats from Brussels.

Offering his immediate reaction to the news, our Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

“Weekly bin collections are the number one service which council taxpayers expect to receive from their local authorities, so it is terrific to hear that councils will no longer have any excuse not to provide this to every resident in their area.  Rubbish collection may not be seen as a sexy issue to the chattering classes in London, but it is one which is of great concern to ordinary hardworking taxpayers. It’s good to see a manifesto promise delivered despite the difficult financial times we live in. Woe betide the councils who do not reinstate weekly bin collections or who persist with plans to scrap this basic service, causing misery to local residents.”

Meanwhile our Campaign Director, Emma Boon, was on Sky News discussing the announcement:

More taxpayer funded union activists at York City Council

Sep 29th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The York Press reported this week that two of the five planning officers at York City Council have been released to do full-time union duties.

Mike Slater, assistant director for planning and sustainable development said the council had a statutory duty to release union reps for duties, and other members of the enforcement team would now move up to full-time roles with an extra member being brought in.

So according to Mr Slater, council taxpayers should pay for these two officers to help organise strikes, protests, and engage in political campaigning, instead of the jobs we pay them to do. Cllr Sian Wiseman, who chairs the east area planning sub-committee, had this to say:

“One has to question the priorities of a council which either allows this to happen or which has found itself in a position where it can find itself dictated to regarding the secondment of officers to union duties. It’s the people of York who are being short-changed.”

If you agree with her, as we do, you can write to the leader of the council, Cllr James Alexander and express your views. If these two officers want to work full time for their union, they should resign from their posts at the council and become union employees, and not leave taxpayers to foot the bill.

Non-job of the week

Sep 28th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The council is transforming the way it delivers public services. This is the first line of the job advert for Newham Borough Council’s Change Project Portfolio Manager. Paying a salary of £43,368 per annum, the new recruit “will have overall responsibility for the integrity and coherence of the change projects allocated within the Customer Access Programme.”

Is the fact it needs to advertise it’s transforming the way it delivers public services an admission that it wasn’t very good at delivering them in the past? Or is this an excuse to get on the ‘change management’ bandwagon that seems to be sweeping over councils at the moment? Councils seem to be making staff in lower grades redundant, and then employing managers on higher pay to make the changes that only a few years ago they didn’t think were needed.

Non-Job of the WeekIn a report last year, we highlighted how councils interpret government legislation in wildly different ways. Although the legislation that has poured down on councils has been great, some have set-up new, mini departments, whereas other councils have taken the legislation on board, but have not found it necessary to employ a battalion of extra staff. For example, Birmingham City Council (the country’s largest council) employs 28 Diversity Officers at a cost of almost £2 million. Manchester City Council (another large authority) doesn’t employ any.

The BBC is in the process of recruiting staff for its new Salford Quays Development, and is looking for a Diversity Talent Executive. This is an eight-month secondment aimed at increasing the number of disabled managers within the BBC. Here is the job description:

You’ll research, create and implement a robust Diversity action plan that will enable Children’s to build and maintain a diverse workforce. You’ll proactively seek new ways in which to attract new diverse talent including:

- Creating new strong partnerships with both internal and external stakeholders in order to source new diverse talent.

- Building upon existing relationships / forums / networks that will maximise our ability to develop and source diverse talent

It is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are disabled – and rightly so. In new, modern premises, like Salford Quays, wheelchair access will not be a problem, so why the need to employ a diversity manager? Political correctness should not get in the way of appointing talented people, and this policy does just that.

Any employer will tell you they want the best person for the job, and I am sure there are many disabled people who will make great managers for the BBC. Equally there will be many women, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, you name them, who will make great managers too. It should be a level playing field, and cream will rise to the top. With so much employment legislation on the statute book these days, non-jobs like this one are not needed.

 

Union funding in Leeds

Sep 28th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

On 7 September, councillors met in Leeds to debate the following motion, placed before them by Cllr Alan Lamb:

‘This Council understands and recognises the valuable role played by Trades Unions in ensuring effective industrial relations and reaffirms the principle of providing reasonable support to Trades Unions including time off for stewards for this purpose.

However, this council believes that given the current state of the public finances taxpayer subsidy of full time Trade Union officials should now be brought to an end. The £417,000 annual cost to taxpayers in Leeds for 15 full time convenors is now unjustifiable both in terms of the massive budget pressure faced by Leeds City Council and the programme of cuts to frontline services currently being undertaken by the Labour administration.

This Council also notes the wider context of the huge donations that Trade Unions are able to offer to the Labour Party.’

The motion was defeated by 56 votes to 31, with 4 abstentions. A total of 56 councillors had to declare an interest before this motion was debated, because they were either a member of a trade union or were married to a member. It was correct they should declare an interest, but should some of them have declared a prejudicial interest because they either work for a union or they received funding from unions for their election campaigns?

Take Cllr Javaid Akhtar. He works for the GMB as a branch secretary. Cllr Judith Blake, also a member of the GMB, received £250 for election materials from her union, and an additional £200 from UNISON. Both were sent from the London offices of those unions.

Cllr David Congreve is a retired member of UNISON, and he received £220 from his union for mailing. Cllr Jack Dunn is a life member of the TGWU, and received £138 from UNISON for direct mailing. Cllr Adam Ogilvie is a member of UNITE, and has received contributions towards his expenses not only from his union, but also from UNISON, AMICUS, and CWU. The list goes on.

The question I have is: how can councillors who either work for or have received funding from trade unions be allowed to vote on the motion placed before the full council? If you were a member of a planning committee, and a company you had a financial interest in was asking for planning permission, you would recuse yourself from the meeting for that item on the agenda. There would be such an obvious conflict of interest, as there was in this meeting, yet councillors who financially benefit from their membership of a union were allowed to vote.

With so many councillors dependent on the unions for funding, it wouldn’t really be practical for all of them to recuse themselves. But that doesn’t make the backdoor subsidy of their own expenses any more legitimate. If they won’t put the wider community’s interests first, and ask unions to pay for their own staff instead of handing the bill to taxpayers, then taxpayers should keep that in mind at the next election.

Time off to occasionally represent your members – at your own expense or the union’s, is not the same as working full-time for the union at taxpayers’ expense. Unions know this. Those councillors voted against the motion in Leeds also know it. It is unclear whether those councillors who receive financial aid from unions technically should have declared a prejudicial interest, but it is clearly a serious conflict.

If councils keep protecting taxpayer funding of trade unions at the expense of frontline services, if they keep indulging special interests many of them are part of, the Government have to step in. This kind of political funding distorts democracy at the local and national level and is completely illegitimate.

£15,000 for cardboard boxes?

Sep 23rd, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Waltham Forest Council have spent £15,000 taking a company to court after a cardboard box bearing its name was found among fly-tipped rubbish. The boxes had been given to a passer-by who said he could make use of them. However, one ended up being dumped and the council wasted little time in taking action against the company whose name and address was listed on the packaging. It went to court and Judge Alex Milne QC described the case as a ”monumental waste of public time and money”.

Fly-tipping is a problem. But instances such as this shows councils should apply discretion, proportionality and common sense. To spend such a large amount on a small non-case is a waste of Waltham Forest taxpayers’ cash.

Had the company been found to be in the wrong, it would have set a dangerous precedent for businesses wanting to get rid of their empty boxes by giving them to someone who can make better use of them. Everyday, community-spirited gestures might have stopped for fear of future prosecutions. If, say, someone is moving house and asks their local shop or pub for unwanted boxes, they may be loath to cooperate. And anyway, local authorities taking firms to court in cases as ridiculous as this just isn’t the best way to say that their area is open for business.

The Telegraph’s David Hughes points out the local authority’s Band D council tax payment is almost £1,500 per year, meaning that ten households’ council tax for the year has been blown chasing after a cardboard box. The council should be finding the best value for taxpayers’ hard-earned money, not prosecuting businesses on pointless cases that serve no legitimate purpose.

£6 million overspend in Hull

Sep 23rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In June, I wrote how Hull City Council was storing up problems for the future. I said then it looked like there was going to be a £6 million overspend that would need to be plugged. Figures out this week have proved I was correct.

The latest forecasts indicate the council could be overspent by £6.68 million at the end of this financial year, however Labour’s finance portfolio holder, Cllr Phil Webster, says he is confident the books will be balanced. When I heard this yesterday, I was intrigued how they plan to do it. The previous response, as far as I could see, was to bury their heads in the sand and collectively sing a chorus of “Things can only get better!”

In a report in today’s Yorkshire Post, Cllr Webster claims he has not only found the money, but it was there all the time. He said they had set aside £6.5 million from their original budget as a contingency. “If we can hold onto that £6.5m, then we have already closed the gap on the Medium Term Financial Plan. If we have to spend it we have to spend it and look at what’s down the line in forthcoming years”, he said.

The problem is no-one seems to have heard of this £6.5 million before. Liberal Democrat deputy leader, Cllr Mike Ross, said this was the first they had heard of it. I’m with him. In all the documents I have read, I have not seen this figure anywhere, nor have I heard Cllr Webster, or the leader, Cllr Brady, talk about it.

Meanwhile, the council is still in talks with the unions about mileage rates paid to members of staff. In a report earlier this year, we revealed that Hull City Council was paying staff 65p per mile, rather than the HMRC standard 40p (which increased to 45p in April) per mile. This is a simple cost cutting measure, and no-one can complain if they are paid the recommended HMRC rate.

It does seem though that when UNISON stated after the elections in May they were in power, they meant it, as they don’t seem to want to give up this particular perk.

My best guess is come next April, there will be a massive overspend, and either council tax will increase, or front-line services will be cut. Yet if the council adopts simple measures like reducing mileage costs, and not reducing the cost of primary school meals by 50p, it can find money to help plug the gap.

Will they do it? Personally, I don’t think they will.

More councillors not paying council tax

Sep 21st, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

More councillors in the South-West have been uncovered as not paying their council tax on time. Six of West Somerset’s 28 district councillors had to be sent one or more reminders after failing to pay their council tax on time last year. Their arrears mounted to £1,947.70.

If anyone is struggling to pay their council tax, says West Somerset’s own glossy brochure, ‘There is help available and many flexible ways in which you can pay your bill. Contact the council to discuss a payment plan.’

Very convenient I would have thought for the councillors involved and much better than getting the council to spend taxpayers’ money on sending out letters chasing up late payments.

West Somerset’s council leader was unavailable for comment, but the Corporate Director stepped in. ‘Many people are sent reminders and, like anyone else,’ he said, ‘councillors may miss payments through an oversight, being away or a change in circumstances.’

The problem is that councillors are not like anyone else when it comes to council matters. They have been elected specifically to ensure the machinery of local government is run efficiently and effectively—and that includes paying their own council tax on time.

I shall be enquiring with a Freedom of Information request to see whether this contagion has spread to Bath & North-East Somerset council.

Non-job of the week

Sep 21st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

What is a Regional Reputation Manager? I’m not sure, however I know Calderdale Council employs one, thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request sent by one of our supporters.

The FOI also revealed the Marketing and Communications Team includes four graphic designers, a Campaigns Officer, a Marketing Officer, a Principal Communications Officer, and a PR and Public Information Officer. Some of these jobs must be part-time as the salary bill for 2010/11 was £199,900, and for the current financial year, the bill is set to rise to £216,800.

Non-Job of the WeekThe FOI also revealed there are 11 personal assistants employed by the authority, and a further two secretaries who carry out the functions of a PA. When you add on costs for council newspapers and other publications, you can see that there is plenty of fat to trim.

The accolade this week though goes to Surrey County Council, which is looking for a Senior Campaign Communications Officer paying £36,615 per annum. Here is part of the job description:

Want to work as part of an award winning team communicating with an audience of over one million people? Join our team of communications professionals who are constantly delivering new and creative ways of talking to our residents and staff.

We have some experience of the new and creative way Surrey County Council communicates. Take a look at this video. There’s no need to adjust the volume settings on your computer. There’s no sound.

If you are left scratching your head after watching that, here’s an explanation from the council:

The proposal to develop an Eco Park at Charlton Lane, Shepperton is a key element of Surrey County Council’s World Class Solution for the county, which aims to manage Surrey’s waste in the most efficient, sustainable and cost effective way possible. 

So that’s what it’s all about. The council wants to develop an Eco Park, and decided to produce a video. Through a FOI we discovered the cost of producing it was £15,080. If that’s what campaign professionals come up with, taxpayers can certainly do without them.

Surrey CC FoI Response

New LGA Chief hired on package worth nearly £200,000

Sep 20th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The new head of the Local Government Association (LGA) has been hired on a package worth nearly £200,000 a year. Carolyn Downs will replace outgoing interim Chief Executive John Ransford and enjoy a salary of £169,000 plus a generous pension amounting to almost £27,000 per year.

Our Campaign Director, Emma Boon offered her reaction to the news:

“The LGA lobbies government to further its own political interests and

 agitates for higher pay for senior council staff, so it’s unsurprising to see them giving their own chief executive such a great deal. This salary is an insult to ordinary families and shows how out of touch the LGA is with taxpayers who fund it and with public sector workers who are subject to a two-year pay freeze.”

Eric Pickles has urged pay restraint across all councils, however the size of this package shows the LGA think such control does not apply to them. This local government lobbying organisation does not act in taxpayers’ interests. Councils spend millions of pounds in total each year in subscriptions to the LGA for supposed benefits many rarely use. Earlier this year Windsor and Maidenhead council concluded they could put their £40,000 annual subscription to better use. As for the services they receive in return, they decided that it would be cheaper for them to source them on an ad hoc basis.

They are not the only ones though, Barking & Dagenham and Greenwich in London, Test Valley, South Cambridgeshire and Rutland councils have all served notice to leave. This is in addition to Rochford, Doncaster, Slough, Barnet, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton councils, who have all served out their notice.

While the eye-watering pay packet is hardly the act of an organisation in touch with ordinary taxpayers, the LGA can at least be commended for displaying the remuneration package of their incoming Chief Executive on the front page of their website. Despite being an organisation funded by taxpayers and entirely concerned with local government, it does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

Innovative councils do not need spoon-fed assistance from the LGA and are beginning to leave. The size of the pay packet for its new chief should provides another reason for councils across the country to reconsider their membership of this costly organisation.

Council loans

Sep 20th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In our weekly bulletin last Friday, I highlighted Rotherham Council’s recent decisions to loan money to Rotherham College, Rotherham United Football Club, and a local businessman. I asked you to send me other examples around the country. The response was great. Here are some of them:

As we can see from the example from Copeland, when things go wrong, it can be costly. Acting as lenders and guarantors for loans are not what councils are there to do. They should leave it to the professionals, and get on with providing front-line services.

If you haven’t done so already, please sign up for our weekly bulletin. Every week we let you know the work we have been doing on your behalf, and highlight ways you can become involved in our campaigns. As you can see from these examples, the more supporters we have around the country highlighting issues in their local areas, the more we can do to expose wasteful spending. Come and join us, and get your friends and family to do the same. 

Hull Pilgrims

Sep 19th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

After the local elections in May, I wrote about Unison’s countdown to power in Hull. Clearly they thought ‘it was them what won it’ as the picture below proudly demonstrates. The campaign they fought on behalf of Labour in the city could not have been as effective if it wasn’t for the money we paid their Pilgrims – those who are paid to work full-time for their union instead of the job we pay them for.

It’s not just Unison who benefit of course. Unite’s convenor in the city, Dave Mathieson, is also a Pilgrim. Last year he called for councillors to take a pay cut. He wasn’t advocating a pay cut for himself though, and I challenged him to leave his job at the council and work full-time for his union, with them picking up the tab. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t take me up on my suggestion. 

Mr Mathieson is a very busy man. Not only is he on Unite’s executive council, he is also their Chair of Local Government, as well as being a member of the Labour Party. On 30 June he spoke at a rally of striking public sector workers in Hull. He said he was disgusted that his union had not joined the strike, and went on to say:

“Unless the Government backs off, there will be more strikes in August, September and October and I am sure Unite will be there alongside you. This is not just a public sector fight, it’s a fight for society.”

Even though he wasn’t on strike, we still had to pay his salary whilst he encouraged others to do so.

Unison think they are in power

Thanks to a supporter who sent a Freedom of Information request to Hull City Council, I now know how much Mr Mathieson and his colleagues in other unions cost taxpayers in Hull, and this information was not easy to obtain. The council was not willing to let us know the full facts. He earns a salary of £31,754, and when you include other costs of £11,033.28, the total bill to taxpayers of Mr Mathieson’s political campaigning is £42,787.28. The figures for Unison are £128,361 and the GMB £39,371. In total those three unions cost Hull taxpayers over £219K, and this is not including teachers who could easily double that figure.

Unions argue taxpayers are not funding them. They say we are merely giving union reps time off to represent their members’ interests in industrial disputes. Facilities time. That’s all.

Claiming you are now in power, and swanning around the country and making speeches at various rallies cannot be described as time spent looking after your members working for the council. It is blatant political campaigning, and because we pay for it, unions can divert more of their resources into organising rallies such as the TUC rally in London last March. They can spend more time and money organising strikes, and even allow Mr Mathieson time off to be part of a trade union delegation to Venezuela.

I will not only challenge Mr Mathieson again to leave his job at the council, I will challenge the other four full-time Pilgrims too. As I said a year ago, if they do, I will be one of the first to congratulate them.

In other news, a pig was seen flying over the Guildhall.

Pilgrim News

Sep 16th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The BBC reported this week that Shropshire Council has cut the subsidy it gives to the UNISON trade union by almost £100K. The leader of the council, Keith Barrow said ‘it was not right that money paid to Unison was used in political campaigns against the authority’. This is a good start, and as we have said before, trade union activities should be wholly funded out of members’ subscriptions, not partly funded by taxpayers.

The news elsewhere is not so good. A motion to cut the amount we pay for union activities in Leeds was defeated, and it is the same story in another West Yorkshire Council, Kirklees. We pay £400K to help fund the unions in Leeds, and £339K in Kirklees.

There is some brighter news from London though. The Guido Fawkes blog reports that Jane Pilgrim (the nurse who worked full-time for her union, instead of tending the sick) has lost her cushy number at St George’s Hospital in Tooting.  She is now back working as a nurse – the job we pay her for in the first place. There is some justice in this world after all.

If you spot any similar stories in your local newspaper, please get in touch.

The Bank of Rotherham

Sep 15th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

At a time when Rotherham Council is cutting its budget and making some of its employees redundant, you wouldn’t think it had any spare cash to splash, would you?

Well, you’d be wrong, because the council who spent £2.9 million refurbishing its Town Hall (including £310,000 on chairs and coverings) has recently spent almost £10 million on furnishing its new multi-million pound offices. But that isn’t all it’s been using our money for.

The council also seems to see its future in the banking industry. Last year it loaned £5 million to Rotherham College to help build a new state of the art building on its campus. Recently it managed to find another £5 million to loan to Rotherham United Football Club. Yesterday I was interviewed on BBC Radio Sheffield about the council’s decision to loan a local businessman £750K to help renovate six buildings in the town. He argued that one of the town’s oldest buildings, the former 15th century coaching inn, the Three Cranes, will be part of the plans to rejuvenate the town. The council agreed to loan him this money despite banks refusing to do so on the terms he wanted.

Council taxpayers in the town are not happy, and rightly so. They want to see their money being spent on frontline services, not on expensive refurbishments and loans. The council has said it has guarantees on the loan, which of course means if it could not be paid back it would assume ownership of the properties. At a time when many councils are reducing the size of their property portfolios, Rotherham is potentially adding to theirs.

Putting to one side whether or not they are sound investments (which is questionable) councils are not there to act as banks. Spare cash should be used to help protect front-line services, and fund reductions in council tax. Although all of us want to see our town and city centres flourish, councils can help by reducing car parking charges. The government can assist by reducing the amount businesses pay in corporation tax and business rates. It can look at the levels of employers’ national insurance contributions. There are many ways to stimulate the market without councils resorting to loaning vast sums of our money on deals the banks won’t touch.

Non-job of the week

Sep 14th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The recruitment company, Parkhouse Bell, is searching for part-time Interim Business Development Managers for ‘a number of primes and subcontractors delivering variety of government services’. It seems the consultants bill is set to rise considerably, as those recruited will be rewarded with anything between £200-£600 per day! So much for bringing the consultants bill down.

Not wishing to be outdone, the City of London Corporation is also looking for a new Business Performance and Improvement Officer, earning £34,550 – £39,270. The successful applicant will be part of the Business Performance and Improvement Division based in the City Surveyor’s Department.Non-Job of the Week It seems there are improvement officers in just about every council department these days, as Hackney Borough Council is on the lookout for a Knowledge and Service Improvement Manager based in its new Business and Service Improvement Unit. I can give Hackney Council a tip: stop publishing your newspaper, Hackney Today,  every fortnight, and you’ll save a fortune, and in doing so you’ll help local newspapers who are struggling in the current economic climate.

If none of the above are your ‘cup of tea’ then you can always take up Lewisham’s offer and become a Political Assistant. Here’s part of the job description:

A full time political assistant is needed to provide the Council’s 12 strong Liberal Democrat Group of Councillors with invaluable administrative, policy and political support. It is a wide ranging role, with duties ranging from planning agendas and recording the salient points of meetings to assisting the Group in dealing with press and media enquiries. To be effective, you will need to be acutely aware of new legislation and political developments (on a national as well as local basis) and have an empathy with Liberal Democrat policies. 

I’m not singling out the Liberal Democrats (as all parties do this), but why does the 12 strong Liberal Democrat Group of Councillors need policy and political support? They are elected councillors, who presumably have their collective ears to the ground (there’s a picture) and understand what’s happening in their wards. Do they really need their hands holding during a radio interview? Are they so fearful of the press that they need someone to whisper in their ears what and what not to say? Are they incapable of answering calls on their mobile phones if a journalist wants a quote? When they have group meetings, can’t one of them record the minutes?

I am not saying councillors don’t need some secretarial help from time to time. They do, and this can easily be provided by existing council officers. They don’t need to employ someone to do their work for them, which is what Political Assistants do.

Hull’s 10% parking increase

Sep 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a petition I have set up calling on Hull City Council to abolish on-street parking charges in the city centre on Sundays.

Last week it was announced that on-street parking charges will be abolished on Sundays during November and December, however – even though few people currently park in those spaces because of the charges – Hull City Council has decided to pay for its scheme and will be permanently increasing charges by 10% from January.

Cllr Hale, left, with Cllr Steve Brady, leader of Hull City Council

The deputy leader of the council, Daren Hale, had this to say about the decision:

“This increase was actually approved by the previous Lib Dem council leader, but delayed until after the local elections. That delay has not helped our financial situation. While we regret having to make an increase, it would be typically hypocritical for the Liberal Democrats who approved this increase to criticise us for implementing it.”

I spoke to the previous Lib Dem leader of the council and asked him for his comments. He denied the accusation that he had approved an increase in charges, but that really isn’t the point. The new administration did not have to vote for these increases, especially after a recent report revealing that a quarter of the city’s shops are standing empty. One contributing factor is the high parking charges, and it’s not just shopkeepers complaining. In the Hull Daily Mail today, a member of the public had this to say:

“Quite a few people will choose to shop out of town. People will just go to places like St Andrew’s Quay and Kingswood because most of the things you need, you can get there. If the council makes parking cheaper or free, rather than more expensive, then more people will come into town.”

She is right. St Andrew’s Quay and Kingswood have retail parks where you can park for free, and it is very difficult to find a parking space there on weekends – especially Sundays. In comparison, the city centre is empty.

I understand the council has to balance its books and has to make some difficult decisions, but increasing parking charges at a time when businesses are saying they are already too high is not the way to do it. It will be counter productive, and could easily put more people out of business.

If you live, work, or study in Hull, you can sign my online petition, and if you would like a paper copy of the petition to pass around your place of work, please get in touch. The petition was set up before this decision was announced, but please rest assured I will be campaigning against these proposed increases too. Anyone who lives in Hull wants to see the city centre flourish, and the council needs to work with businesses, not against them.

Non-job of the week

Sep 7th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

The London Borough of Havering is still looking for a Programme Office Manager. It isn’t the first time that Havering has been under the microscope. The council has recently been searching for a Performance Improvement Officer. The vacancy for the former says that an “exciting opportunity has arisen to manage the programme office for two programmes”. The description suggests that the successful candidate will work with the existing Transformation Manager. Which makes you wonder why, if the position is so critical to providing taxpayers with a good service, is it only being created now?

Mole Valley District Council is on the lookout for an Environmental Services Monitoring and Enforcement Officer. One of the key objectives will be to ensure “the district looks great when it hosts the Olympic cycling road race next year”. Taxpayers expect to receive an efficiently-run service anyway, and the Olympics should not have any effect on the council’s determination to provide excellence and value for money.

Non-Job of the WeekOnce again, Oxford City Council get a mention, and they provide this week’s winner. This time, it’s for an Environmental Control Service Manager. The £41,000 a year post has a large number of requirements, ranging from “experience of successful partnership working” to “a clear understanding of the major challenges in local government and of the social policy issues to be faced in a multi-cultural city when delivering the services in the job portfolio”. It also lists “experience of developing and maintaining lean and efficient systems”. Considering some of the vacancies, this is painfully ironic.

The essential and desirable criteria in full:

Degree or equivalent qualification in a relevant subject (E)
Post graduate management qualification or equivalent (D).
Evidence of continuing professional development (E)
Demonstrable experience in environmental work (E)
A proven track record/experience of operational, financial resource and people management (E)
Experience of integrating services to ensure efficient delivery (D).
Experience of successful partnership working (E)
Experience of developing and maintaining lean and efficient systems/ structures (E)
Expert knowledge of the key legislative framework and best practice for Environmental Control work (E)
A clear understanding of the major challenges in local government and of the social policy issues to be faced in a multi-cultural city when delivering the services in the job portfolio (E).
A sound understanding of the business community and interface issues (E)
Experience of best practice capital & revenue management (E).
A high level of understanding and commitment to diversity and community cohesion (E).

Parking charges are reduced in North Lincolnshire

Sep 2nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

After all the stories I have commented on in recent months about car parking charges, it is refreshing to hear about a council that has decided to make it cheaper for residents and visitors to park. From yesterday, North Lincolnshire Council has scrapped parking charges for the first two hours in Brigg, and one hour’s free parking will also be introduced in Scunthorpe and Ashby in the next few weeks.

Cllr Nigel Sherwood, the cabinet member responsible for highways and neighbourhoods had this to say:

“We are making it easier and cheaper for people to visit the town centres and I hope this will lead to an upturn in trade.”

I hope it will too, because as we have seen in places like Salisbury, where the council has treated motorists as cash cows, shoppers have left town and city centres in droves in order to avoid high parking charges.

Two hours free parking!

This news will be particularly welcome for independent shopkeepers – the lifeblood of local economies the length and breadth of the country. They are already struggling thanks to the economic problems we are all facing, and the crippling high business rates they are forced to pay the government. Anything that encourages more shoppers to park-up and spend their money with them, is good news.

I hope Hull City Council takes note of what is happening across the Humber, and takes up my suggestion of introducing free on-street parking in the city centre on Sundays. This is another way of encouraging visitors and shoppers, rather than turning them away.

If you live, work, or study in Hull, please sign my parking petition, and help local businesses.

Non-job of the week

Aug 31st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

At the end of July, I commented that Oxford City Council was advertising for a Business Improvement Manager. I also commented that the council had previously advertised twice for a Performance Improvement Manager, and a Business Improvement Partner. This was on top of all the other jobs with similar titles. Once again, life is not going smoothly in this famous city. It appears that the council’s search for its new Business Improvement Manager has also hit the buffers, and once again it is advertising the same post, on the same salary of £41,616 – £46,673. Lesser mortals would think someone was trying to tell them something, but nothing is going to stop Oxford creating its mini-department of change and performance. It’s rather like the local government equivalent of a long-running soap opera!

Non-Job of the WeekAs I have mentioned before, performance and change seem to the buzz words in local government these days. Whether you look at our annual Town Hall Rich List, or browse through the accounts of your local council, you will see armies of managers, all of them bringing you a ‘Rolls Royce’ service. We are told in order to have the best, high salaries must be paid, yet if they are providing the best service money can buy, why are so many councils advertising for performance and change managers? Aren’t they paid to be efficient, to look for ways of streamlining the operations they are responsible for, and to provide the best value for our money?

I’ll leave those questions hanging in the air, and let you make up your own mind as we move to this week’s winner. The London Borough of Havering is looking for a Performance Improvement Officer who will report to the amusingly named Continuous Improvement Manager, who unsurprisingly is in charge of the Continuous Improvement Team. Another mini-department created. Here’s part of the job description:

Are you passionate about performance? Inspired by improvement?

Interested in joining a dynamic team environment that is constantly seeking innovative approaches and solutions?

Reporting to the Continuous Improvement Manager you will be part of a team leading on the selection, monitoring and implementation of continuous improvement projects. You will work across teams to realise integrated benefits for the Shared Service Centre as a whole.

After reading that, I thought I would take a look at senior officer pay in Havering by looking through its most recent accounts. I went on to the council’s website and typed ‘accounts 2010/11′ into the search engine as the latest draft accounts may be online. Nothing came up in the search, but the first suggestion was for the Finance Department, with these words, “Welcome to our finance pages. We are committed to providing clear, up-to-date and relevant financial information to our residents. We welcome your views on the information and how it could be improved.”

I clicked on the link to be told that authentication was required, and I need to log-in with a username and password! I would happily give them my views on the information and how it could be improved if I could actually see it! I am sure there is a way of registering, although it’s not readily visible, but that really is not the point. Why should I have to register to view financial information about a council? It should be there, on the website, freely available for all to see.

So I still don’t know how many managers there are earning between £50,000 – £100,000, but surely all of them are committed to continuous improvement? Once again, I’ll leave that question hanging in the air.

 

 

Stop the taxpayer funding of trade unions in Tameside

Aug 30th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

This Saturday 3 September, members of the TPA team will be joining Liam BIllington, our coordinator in Tameside, Greater Manchester, for an action day. We will be meeting in the Market Place, Ashton-under-Lyne, at noon for a couple of hours of campaigning. We will be handing out TPA recruitment cards, and collecting signatures for a petition against the taxpayer funding of unions in Tameside.

To back-up our paper petition, today we have also launched an on-line petition.  Please sign it, and pass the link to your family, friends, and colleagues. We want to continue to send a message to Tameside Council and the government that it is unacceptable for our money to be spent funding trade union activities. In Tameside alone, trade unions cost council taxpayers almost £337,000 a year. This is money that could – and should – be spent on front-line services.

Liam is doing some great work in Tameside. Not only has he helped expose a 48% increase in taxpayer funding of unions in the last financial year, he has also exposed crazy schemes such as Tameside Council spending £5K of our money setting-up walking routes for staff, and thousands of pounds wasted on an iPhone app hardly anyone uses.

If you can join us on Saturday, please let me know, so I can look out for you. It will be great to see you, and you are more than welcome to join us later for lunch, and some liquid refreshment!

Non-job of the week

Aug 24th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

It may be the silly season, but this hasn’t stopped councils advertising more non-jobs, and this week is an ‘Oxford City Council Free-Zone.’ Our starter for ten is a Change Manager at Surrey County Council, paying £36,615 per annum. The council is looking ‘for a well-organised, motivated and adaptable individual with experience of project and programme management and strong communication skills to help ensure the delivery of the Council’s Fit for the Future Change Programme.’ Is this an admission that they aren’t fit for the present?

Non-Job of the WeekAs we know from previous ‘non job of the week’ posts, Surrey is far from the only council appointing more managers to manage change, and even the House of Commons is getting in on the act! It is looking for a Director of Change on £58,200-£93,380 per annum.

If improvement and transformation is your business, then look no further than Dacorum Borough Council, who is searching for two Improvement and Transformation Officers. Gloucester City Council is also looking for two Business Improvement Officers. If you are unsure this is the job for you, here are some handy questions on the job description. Do you tick the boxes?

Do you want to be at the heart of change? Are you motivated and enthusiastic? Do you want to change the way we deliver services to Customers? Then this role is for you!

There can only be one winner (unless I change the rules) and this must go to Cornwall County Council. It has been reported in the media that the council is searching for a Project Officer – Olympic Torch Relay. The successful applicant will be responsible for the safe movement of the Olympic Torch from Land’s End to the Tamar Bridge, when it will enter Devon. It is estimated it will take 12 hours to complete the 84-mile route.

Our Campaign Director, Emma Boon, was interviewed about this on Pirate FM, and our Campaign Manager, Robert Oxley, had this to say in the Daily Mail:

‘Local taxpayers will be staggered that Cornwall Council plans to spend so much of their money needlessly planning for one part of one day of the Olympics.

‘Existing members of staff at the council should have been able to deliver an excellent day for the torch’s visit, it’s not much extra work.

‘Times are tough for many families and they expect their council to try to make savings, not needlessly recruit extra employees.’

As the route for the Olympic Torch is going to wind its way around most of the UK, how many other councils are going to employ someone to meet and greet it, and then wish it bon voyage? If you have seen similar advertisements on your council’s website, please let us know.

 

Cornwall: Have your councillors been paying their taxes?

Aug 18th, 2011
by Robert Oxley.
Comments are off for this post

Councillors in Cornwall haven’t been paying their council tax. Let me say that again: the people who set the rates of council taxation, who stand on a manifesto of delivering services for residents and who are paid generous allowances from taxpayers’ money, have been failing to pay their council tax.

A Freedom of Information request has revealed that 17 councillors in Cornwall – that’s one in seven of the men and women charged with setting council tax rates – had to be sent payment reminders. It appears only 3 took heed of this, as 14 required a second reminder letter. Councils frequently encourage residents to set up direct debits to avoid this kind of problem, maybe the councillors in questions should practice a bit of what they preach?

Worst of all, one case led to court action, resulting in a farcical situation where Cornwall council instigated court proceedings against its own councillor while they continued to collect their allowances and perks. Maybe they should have used those allowances to pay up?

At first, the identity of the worst offenders was unknown, but two have now been exposed. Councillor Andrew Wallis, representing Porthleven and Helston South, had a court action taken against him for getting into arrears.

On his website, Cllr Wallis explained what happened. “Two years ago I failed to pay my council tax on time which led to court action,” he confessed. “Like many people in Cornwall I was faced with the problem of juggling mounting bills with a limited income and at that time I chose to pay for essentials such as rent, electricity and food rather than pay my council tax bill.” Wouldn’t we all rather do that! “Hindsight is a wonderful thing,” he continued, “but I made that choice of not paying and I will have to live with it.”

Cornwall Council has refused to name any further councillors and the details of their arrears on the grounds that it would breach data privacy laws. This is wrong; standing in a democratic election means a commitment to being held to account for your actions while in public office. Failure to pay your council tax in a timely fashion costs the council money in administration, and ending up in court means further expense. The councillors’ negligence in paying their bills on time will almost certainly have cost local taxpayers money.

Councillors are responsible for spending local taxpayers’ cash, setting the rate of council tax and even deciding policy over tax write-offs. A councillor not paying their council tax is surely compromised when discussing these issues. A councillor taken to court by their own council cannot be a credible representative of the community they wish to represent.

Non-job of the week

Aug 17th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

If I continue to write about Oxford City Council, I am worried I will get an e-mail from their solicitor accusing me of harassing them! I am going to risk it again this week though. On 1 June I wrote the council was looking for a Business Improvement Partner. It seems all has not gone to plan, and it is advertising the post once again. Perhaps someone is trying to tell them something or perhaps the Performance Improvement Manager is getting lonely?

Non-Job of the WeekThe City of London Corporation is looking for an Equalities and Diversity Manager. The successful applicant will have “a strong emphasis on adding practical value to our equality and diversity work in service delivery, you will have a proven diversity/equalities skill set and be able to operate at both a strategic level – analysing performance against national standards and developing key policies, as well as at an operational level – providing pragmatic advice and effective solutions to build on and enhance our performance.”

In other words they will be able to tick the right boxes! It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, or sexual orientation. As we said in our report last year:

Many local councils have created mini-departments to comply with this policy agenda. Again the disparities across councils are evidence that the hiring of specific staff is not necessary.

The winning council this week though is Gloucester City Council, who is advertising for two Business Improvement Officers. It seems as if every council across the country has decided to open mini-departments to implement change. When you look our Town Hall Rich List from this year though, you will see the chief executive is not working on poverty stricken wages. He managed to get a pay rise in 2009/9 of 5.1%, and there are many managers beneath him who are well paid to implement change. They should have been doing it anyway!

 

2 x BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT OFFICER

Temporary contracts for up to 12 months

  • Salary – £23,708 per annum – bar at £26,276

Do you want to be at the heart of change? Are you motivated and enthusiastic? Do you want to change the way we deliver services to Customers? Then this role is for you!

We are looking for two people to join the Business Improvement team. This is an opportunity for you to contribute to the development and implementation of our change programme / Channel Strategy. You will be working closely with a range of services to make them more efficient, effective and customer focused.

You will need to be a highly effective communicator with the skills to be able to listen and relay information in a variety of formats. You will need to be able to maintain momentum, to achieve outcomes, and implement and manage change.

Ideally you should be able to evidence practical experience in a range of business improvement methods including LEAN and Systems Thinking. You should have an innovative approach to problem solving and have a great attention to detail.

 

 

 

 

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →

Switch to our mobile site