24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

council

Rotherham councillors booted out

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

How much work do your councillors do? This is a question being asked in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, today. All councillors in Rotherham are paid an annual allowance of £12,130. This is to compensate them for their time, and for any income lost from their normal business activities or job whilst fulfilling their council duties. Yet what about councillors who don’t do any work but continue to claim allowances?

John Gamble was elected to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in May 2008. Mr Gamble is something of a Scarlet Pimpernel. He rarely attended meetings, and the last one he did attend was a full council meeting at the beginning of February this year – ten months ago. According the Local Government Act 1972, a councillor is automatically disqualified if he/she fails to attend any meeting for six months. As Mr Gamble did not give any reasons for his absences, such as ill health, this disqualification should have taken place in August.

Instead, RMBC has let this drag on a further four months until they finally took action. As a result of this inertia, Rotherham council taxpayers are over £4K out of pocket, although with such a poor attendance record since he was elected, it could be argued they were out of pocket the moment he was sworn in.

Attendance at meetings is one of the few ways we can judge a councillor’s performance, but councillors will also point to the other work they do in their communities. A supporter has told me that Mr Gamble did not even hold surgeries. Looking at the council’s website, this seems to be true. On his profile page, under the heading of ‘Surgery Details’, nothing is listed.

I contacted RMBC to find out if we are going to get our money back for the last four months when he shouldn’t have been a councillor. I am still waiting for an answer, but this is not the only Rotherham councillor who has acted in a similar way,

In March this year, former Tory councillor, Gavin Sharp resigned his seat just a few weeks before he was due to stand for election. Since being elected in May 2007, he had been absent from 80 percent of meetings. He hadn’t attended a full council meeting since May 2009, and had made appearances at just enough meetings to allow him to receive his allowance.

According to press reports at the time, his fellow Conservative councillors tried to persuade him to stand down and asked to him to pay the money back, but without success. You would have thought that as a bank manager and magistrate, Mr Sharp would have done the right thing at the time, and it is not known if since his resignation he has paid back all or some of the money he claimed.

These two lazy, (now thankfully) former councillors pocketed money from Rotherham residents, many of whom are on low incomes, without batting an eyelid. Not that they are the only ones at fault. RMBC should have acted sooner to remove John Gamble, and the Conservative group should have taken action against Gavin Sharp.

We elect councillors to make decisions on our behalf. For them to do this, they have to attend meetings. We also elect them to represent our views. Unless they regularly meet their constituents, it is impossible for them to do that effectively. Both of them should hang their heads in shame.

 

Some councils double parking charges

Dec 8th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In last week’s bulletin sent out to all our supporters, I asked for examples of increases in parking charges across the country. Many thanks to those who got in touch. (If you would like to receive our weekly bulletin, sent out every Friday, click on this link to sign-up)

It appears that many councils are planning increases, or are considering charges on evenings and weekends. Some councils regard motorists as the gift that keeps on giving, however as we have highlighted this year, some councils – Wiltshire Council in particular – have found themselves in the eye of a storm as drivers desert town and city centres to visit and shop in other places that are cheaper to park.

Brighton and Hove Council has been in the news lately because the ruling Green administration is planning to refuse the extra cash from the government to help freeze council tax. It instead plans to increase it by 3.5%. Cllr Jason Kitcat, the finance portfolio holder, was awarded our Pin Head of the Month prize in November for this action that will increase the burden on council taxpayers. But it’s not just council tax bills that will increase. Car parking increases are on the way too.

Last week the council approved to advertise price hikes of more than 100%! The Green Party has said this is to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote the use of sustainable transport.

Not surprisingly this has been greeted with opposition. At a time when when residents, visitors and traders can least afford it, these increases would have a devastating effect. If you wish to object to these plans, you have been allowed 21 days from 29 November (the day the meeting took place) to lodge your complaint.

There are also plans to double the cost of parking in Gravesend, and introduce charges on a Saturday. Free parking on a Saturday was one of the town’s selling points, but that seems to be lost on Parking Manager, Paul Gibbons, who told the cabinet, “We seem to be the only town in the county which offers free parking on Saturdays.”

Local trader, Bob Atkinson, said, “It is disgusting what they are doing. If you really, really want to drive everyone to Bluewater, put the prices up.” There are many more comments along the same lines.

There are planned increases in Chichester, and a petition has been set-up to oppose the introduction of charges on Sundays, and Oxford City Council has introduced charges at park and ride car parks. This must be to pay for all the non-jobs they have advertised this year!

What amazes me is the reaction from some councillors. You would think they would be acutely aware of how many shops are closing in their high streets, and how difficult it is for everyone during these hard economic times. Instead they defend increases by saying ‘our charges are favourable compared to other towns in the area’. They justify increases by saying ’50p isn’t much.’ They seem to be completely divorced from reality. Perhaps they should trade places for a week with a small independent trader. Perhaps that’s the dose of reality they need.

Oslo Trip

Nov 22nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Fact finding missions have long been the butt of many jokes. You name the subject, and it seems an elected or unelected official has been forced into arduous foreign travel to get that final piece of information to complete the jigsaw. In our report earlier this month, we highlighted the foreign jaunts council taxpayers in the Midlands have had to pay for, and now another one has come across my radar.

The recycling rate in Hull is currently at 50%. This is above the target 45%, and residents of the city are regularly told to ‘Recycle for Hull.’ Not content with this, some councillors recently went on a fact-finding mission to Oslo to see how Norwegians dispose of their rubbish. They have already visited Rotherham, Sheffield and Swindon to see how its done there.

This had angered Cllr John Fareham, the leader of the Conservative Group, as the councillors who travelled to Norway are a sub-committee of the environment scrutiny commission. This means they can only recommend. They cannot make decisions.

The cost of the trip was under £1000, but to defend it as cheap (as a councillor has done) is missing the point.

A group of councillors and officials drove to Stansted Airport, stayed overnight, then flew to and from Oslo in the same day, and then drove back to Hull. The people who can make decisions about this were not present. It has to be asked what did they find out that they couldn’t find out by research on the Internet, and a conference call on Skype?

If councillors spent our money in the same way they would spend their own, trips like this would not happen. All it achieves is two things. It makes councillors the butt of jokes, and gives the impression they have their snouts in the trough. I know that’s not true of the majority of councillors. If they don’t want to give the public that impression, they know what to do next time.

Non-job of the week

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

A non-job of the week with a twist today. Barnet Council do not like criticism, and it seems the council will go to any lengths to make sure it silences its critics.

A local blogger, writing under the pseudonym Mr Mustard, criticised Barnet Council for hiring a Change and Innovation Manager in 2010 on a salary of £47,550 -£50,913.  It sounds very much like the sort of non-job I highlight on here every week. He quoted from the job description, which has to be said is written in perfect gobbledegook, and also quoted from the personal website of the man who got the job – Jonathan Tunde-Wright.

Non-Job of the WeekAlthough I have joked in the past about receiving a letter from Oxford City Council’s solicitor for harassment after all the non-jobs I have highlighted in the past, I have of course never received one. Nor should I. Freedom of speech is something we hold dear in this country, unless you are from Barnet Borough Council.

The council went to the extraordinary lengths of contacting the Information Commissioner claiming Mr Mustard had committed a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act by not registering as a data controller  because he had made critical comments about whether some of its officials have real jobs! The commissioner rightly disagreed, but that didn’t stop the council. It then came up with what can only be described as the most ludicrous description of what he could write about. The One Barnet blog has the full details of the correspondence between the ICO and the Council.

The council said all that bloggers (and that includes us on this website) can write about is their own personal data, their own family defined as people related by blood or marriage and their own household, which is anyone living in their house or flat. Barnet Council claims everything else requires registration and can be subject to a legal challenge.

The Information Commissioner disagreed again, saying this would have a hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression.

Because Mr Mustard (real name Derek Dishman) regularly holds his council to account on his blog, and sends in freedom of information requests to find out how our money is spent, he is regarded as an inconvenience. This may be so, but as he is not writing anything defamatory, he is within his rights to write about anything he likes – inconvenient or not.

So not only do we have a job with a more than dubious title offering £50K a year, we also have the council employing its staff to actively prevent anyone of us criticising them. If Barnet Council had its way, none of us would be able to speak out against waste and hold councils to account.

Hat-tip: David Hencke 

Non-job of the week

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

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has been in the news this past week. The RPA is an executive agency of Defra, and its job is to administer an EU subsidy for farmers for maintaining their land. It was introduced in 2005.

It has faced much criticism over the years for delayed payments to farmers, and although it is questionable why such an agency needs to exist, I will leave that to one side. The post of Interim Finance Director (which was a job share, and has now thankfully been replaced by someone on a much lower salary) cost taxpayers a massive £425K a year. MPs were rightly outraged when they heard this figure. Conservative MP, Neil Parish said his constituents wouldn’t believe that the highest paid post at Defra was an accountant.

Non-Job of the WeekI have regularly highlighted some of the egregious amounts paid to consultants and interim staff. Many of these posts are advertised through recruitment agencies, which of course makes it much harder to pin-point which government department, Quango, health authority, etc, is recruiting. This example though is the worst I have come across, and proves why we need more transparency in the public sector so we can see where our money is going.

Staying on the same theme, the recruitment agency Morgan Hunt is advertising for a Head of Campaigns and Partnerships for a central government department. Once again we don’t know which department, or what those campaigns are going to be. We do know if it for a fixed period of 3 months, and the post pays £250-£400 per day. Is it a non-job? Who knows, and unless there is more transparency, I doubt we ever will.

Morgan Hunt is also acting on behalf of a local government client who is looking for an Interim HR Manager. All we know is this is a London council. The job pays between £150-£200 per day.

This week we can see once again that our money is being spent in large amounts in ways we know very little about. The money spent on the Interim Finance Director’s post at the RPA wasn’t discovered until after the event. The same will apply with the two other posts I have highlighted.

Until and unless there is more transparency this is going to continue. The government will from time to time recruit people to highly sensitive jobs, and for reasons of national security we won’t necessarily know those jobs exist and what those people do. I understand that, but this cannot be said of the examples I have given. We have a right to know how our money is spent.

 

North & North East Lincolnshire Councils save £1.3 million

Nov 1st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire Councils have announced a deal to share housing and council tax administration. It is expected this will save taxpayers around £1.3 million.

This is a very welcome move, and it again proves what we have been saying that when councils share back-office functions, significant savings can be made. If is also worth noting that each council will maintain its own records, and only designated employees will be able to access information from both councils, so data protection laws are adhered to. 

The £1.3 million savings are possible because 21.4 full-time equivalent posts will no longer be needed, and those staff will be offered redeployment elsewhere. Overall in time this will bring down staff numbers, and importantly, will avoid redundancy payments as staff leave of their own accord, or retire.

I have spoken to many people over the last few months who worry that sharing services means the end to their council. They fear that it will mean the creation of super-councils who will not understand and appreciate local concerns. I hope this news will allay some of their fears. Deals like this one help protect those important, local, front-line services that many in our communities rely on.

What this deal also proves is it is possible for opposing political parties to work together. North Lincolnshire is controlled by the Conservatives, and North East Lincolnshire is controlled by Labour, where it is the largest single party. By putting political differences to one side, these councils have proved taxpayers can get a better deal for their money.

Do we need as many MLAs?

Oct 28th, 2011
by Rosie Greer.
Comments are off for this post

In an article earlier this year, Lee Canning wrote how in Strabane there were only 1664 electors per councillor. It appears that it’s not just in councils in Northern Ireland where there are a small number of voters per elected representative. The Northern Ireland Assembly is exactly the same.

Let me start by giving you some facts and figures about the other devolved nations – Scotland and Wales.

There are 3,985,161 people eligible to vote for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. With a total of 129 members, this works out at an average of 30,893 voters per member. In Wales, the electorate for AMs in the Welsh Assembly is 2,302,300. With a total of 60 members, this works out at an average of 38,372 voters per member.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,223,139 on the electoral register, and with 108 MLAs, this works out at an average of 11,325 voters per member.

Although they are paid less than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts (£43,101, as opposed to £57,521 and £53,852 respectively) you do have to ask the question why Northern Ireland needs so many MLAs. Their constituencies are small, so they won’t deal with as much casework as MSPs and AMs. There doesn’t appear to be a record of attendance available, so we don’t even know the amount of work they do for their salaries. So would it be beneficial to cut the numbers?

I ask this question not just as a cost saving measure, which it undoubtedly is, but because anyone who has served on large committees knows that the more people trying to speak, the harder it is to do business. During the EU Referendum debate in the House of Commons on Monday, there were many MPs who did not get a chance to air their views. This was despite MPs being restricted to speeches of 5 minutes – which went down to 4 minutes – during the course of the debate.

If you halved the number of MLAs, they would still have fewer constituents than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. As the number of MPs will be reduced to 600 after the next general election, it is also time to think about reducing the number of MLAs?

Do we need as many MLAs?

Oct 28th, 2011
by Rosie Greer.
Comments are off for this post

In an article earlier this year, Lee Canning wrote how in Strabane there were only 1664 electors per councillor. It appears that it’s not just in councils in Northern Ireland where there are a small number of voters per elected representative. The Northern Ireland Assembly is exactly the same.

Let me start by giving you some facts and figures about the other devolved nations – Scotland and Wales.

There are 3,985,161 people eligible to vote for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. With a total of 129 members, this works out at an average of 30,893 voters per member. In Wales, the electorate for AMs in the Welsh Assembly is 2,302,300. With a total of 60 members, this works out at an average of 38,372 voters per member.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,223,139 on the electoral register, and with 108 MLAs, this works out at an average of 11,325 voters per member.

Although they are paid less than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts (£43,101, as opposed to £57,521 and £53,852 respectively) you do have to ask the question why Northern Ireland needs so many MLAs. Their constituencies are small, so they won’t deal with as much casework as MSPs and AMs. There doesn’t appear to be a record of attendance available, so we don’t even know the amount of work they do for their salaries. So would it be beneficial to cut the numbers?

I ask this question not just as a cost saving measure, which it undoubtedly is, but because anyone who has served on large committees knows that the more people trying to speak, the harder it is to do business. During the EU Referendum debate in the House of Commons on Monday, there were many MPs who did not get a chance to air their views. This was despite MPs being restricted to speeches of 5 minutes – which went down to 4 minutes – during the course of the debate.

If you halved the number of MLAs, they would still have fewer constituents than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. As the number of MPs will be reduced to 600 after the next general election, it is also time to think about reducing the number of MLAs?

Non-job of the week

Oct 26th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Based on the premise that you have to keep repeating yourself over and over again before people will start listening, here are some words I wrote two weeks ago regarding Lambeth Council’s search for an Energy Efficiency Manager:

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.

Non-Job of the WeekCouncils 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.

This week, Nottingham City Council is searching for a Carbon Development Officer who will be ‘tasked with improving Nottingham’s resilience to fossil fuel depletion and climate change, and identifying opportunities for securing investment to support this agenda.’ No prizes for guessing who is likely to be paying for the ‘investment to support this agenda.’

The London Borough of Redbridge is also looking for an Energy Management Officer, who needs to have the skills to forecast the quantity of Carbon Allowances required by the Council each year.

Finally, Broadland District Council needs a Climate Change Advisor who will be raising awareness and promoting sustainable sources of energy and will be required to be inspiring, but credible, and must therefore have sound knowledge of energy and sustainability issues.

My response? As it is often said in the House of Commons: I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago!

Town Hall bosses’ spending on credit cards revealed

Oct 18th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The latest in a series of investigations by the Daily Telegraph into public bodies’ use of credit cards exposes the bills run up by local authority chief executives across the UK. Earlier this year we led the campaign to uncover huge amounts being spent by Whitehall civil servants racking up million pound credit card bills, and have exposed similar waste at many of Britain’s biggest quangos.

The findings show that town hall bosses spent £2.6million on luxury perks using corporate credit cards, including concerts, sport events, dining at Michelin-starred restaurants, tailored clothing and fine whiskies. Council chief executives themselves have expenses tens of thousands of pounds, despite many enjoying six-figure salaries, and at a time when councils need to make all of the savings they can.

Some of the biggest expenses claims were from Colin Carmichael, chief executive of Canterbury Council (salary £135,000), who claimed expenses totalling £18,181; Tim Shields, the chief executive of Hackney council (£203,376), claimed £34,186; Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council (£149,445), claimed £11,403; and John Foster, chief executive of Islington Council (£210,000), claimed £14,815.

Here are just a few of their claims:

  •  The chief executive of Hackney council spent £6,000 on flights to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for “training” to which he flew business class.
  • Colin Hilton, former chief executive at Liverpool City council, spent £1,152 taking colleagues to a sold out Coldplay concert.
  • Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council charged more than £4,000 to his card for flights to Beijing, Frankfurt and Krakow for his assistant, the mayor and his wife. Other items he charged for included £2.17 mini-bar bill and a cash withdrawal of £362.77 which was classified as “unidentified expenditure” when asked by the Telegraph.

Of course many chief executives use corporate credit cards to expense small work-related items, and this is often the most cost effective means of doing so. But evidence suggests that, in practice, taxpayers are footing the bill for much more.

Some of the other favourite destinations include the luxury Dorchester Hotel in London; the Hotel Gray D’Albion in Cannes; the Hard Day’s Night, a Beatles themed hotel in Liverpool; trips to the world renowned Belfry Golf Course; a five star spa in Cardiff Bay; and Lushy Beg, a private 75-acre island.

Many of the items claimed for have little relevance and questionable benefit to the residents council bosses work for. Council chief executives already receive more than substantial salaries that, if they feel they need to stay in luxury hotels, mean they could easily pay for it themselves. This sentiment was echoed by an unidentified chief executive of a UK local authority who said:

“If I spend any money for work I just get it reimbursed but champagne lunches and first class travel is shocking. Chief executives incur costs in their jobs but we are paid well and you should not exploit that. No-one expects a chief executive to stay in a fleapit, but there is a big difference between the Dorchester and a fleapit.”

Unsurprisingly, the LGA has leapt to councils’ defence. They claim:

“It is part and parcel of the job that they have to travel to meet top people from the public and private sectors, and this can involve stays in hotels and the proportionate use of hospitality.”

But they completely miss the point. No-one is claiming council chief executives won’t incur reasonable expenses while carrying out their day jobs, but it is unacceptable for taxpayers to pick up the bill for visits to the Dorchester and luxury restaurants that many can only dream of. Such a staunch defence of irresponsible spending suggests the LGA doesn’t care about the interests of taxpayers or residents. If councils were transparent, residents could decide whether they agree with this sort of spending. The LGA claim that the spending is “properly audited and transparent”, but if it weren’t for newspapers like the Telegraph and bodies like ourselves, such waste would go unnoticed.

While they are one of the more cost-effective means of paying for items, corporate credit cards are inadequately monitored. Far too many dubious claims slip through the net and must be brought under control. If chief executives had to pay for the items up-front and then wait before being reimbursed, the number of lavish claims would almost certainly fall considerably.

Procurement cards were supposed to improve this more inefficient system of claiming expenses, but our research, along with the Telegraph’s inquiry, shows that this system needs to be tightened up to stop taxpayers picking up the bill for unnecessary luxuries.

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.

Nottingham’s parking levy

Oct 4th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

News from Nottingham, and once again it isn’t good. Next April, the city council will introduce a workplace parking levy. Any business in the city that has more than 10 spaces for its staff will have to pay the council £279 per year, per space. Make no mistake, other councils around the country are looking very closely at this scheme. Don’t be surprised if it it introduced in your home town or city. They question is: who will pay? Will it be the businesses or those who work for the business?

Andrew Jameson, the managing director of Keltruck, has estimated this scheme would cost his company £170K if it was rolled out nationwide. He also said:

“As a responsible employer who provides off-road parking for my employees, I’m going to be penalised. The roads around Riverside Industrial Estate are lined with cars for other companies which don’t provide sufficient parking so there is a disparity.”

Despite this obvious truth from Mr Jameson, the council still thinks this is going to help reduce congestion in Nottingham. It wants to use the revenue raised to plough into public transport, but how much of this extra revenue is going to be put into public transport, and how much of it is going to be eaten away in administrative costs? How many extra costs are businesses going to face?

Businesses don’t want to pay the levy, and neither do any of the workforce. It will create extra parking problems. In an interview to BBC Radio Nottingham Mr Jameson said he visits the Nottingham depot of Keltruck about six times a year, and even he will have to declare he uses a space, and cough up £279 for the privilege of parking on his own company’s premises. Repair vehicles visiting the depot will also have to pay. He even said he would move the mobile engineering away from Nottingham to other depots because the council is going to charge him for a man to park his van. This scheme is wrong on so many levels.

The council has said it estimates around 25% of those businesses who should have registered for the scheme have failed to do so. Now it intends to speak to those businesses to ‘help them’ get registered. This is before they resort to legal action.

This council is a joke. It wastes our money, refuses to publish spending above £500, has a poor record in answering freedom of information requests, and now it wants to drive jobs away from the city. If you hear that your council is planning something similar in the future, be sure to let us know. This awful scheme in Nottingham is going to ahead, but we may be able to stop it on other parts of the country. Businesses need a break during these very trying economic times, and certainly don’t need something like this.

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.

£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.

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

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.

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!

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site