Jump to content

Herefordshire Council has created a new £90,000 a year role


megilleland
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hereford Times News: Friday 27th June 2014 by Bill Tanner
 
Quote
 
HEREFORDSHIRE Council has created a new £90,000 a year role and extended the interim contracts of two top bosses one of which is worth £147,000 a year.
 
That new role revises the grading and job title of solicitor to the council to Assistant Director, Governance.
 
The council says the post and its £90,000 salary reflects changes in the role and its responsibilities.
 
Chief finance officer Peter Robinson and Director of Adults Well-Being Helen Coombes have had their interim contracts with the council extended to September next year. All three changes have been backed by the councils employment panel.
 
The panel was told that the changes were necessary to ensure continuing effective leadership of a large  proportion of the councils key services undergoing significant change.
 
In 12 -15 months time the  council expects to be on firmer foundations with many of the ongoing changes  delivered, the panel heard.
 
This, the panel heard, was likely to clarify the roles in future and ensure that the  posts are attractive with greater stability to high calibre internal and external candidates in future.
 
The councils former finance boss left in September last to be replaced, as an interim appointment, by Peter Robinson, formerly director of finance for Bristol City Council.
 
The budget situation Mr Robinson inherited was described as difficult and challenging with the council having overspent in its previous financial year and forecasting a £4.5m overspend in 2013/14.
 
External auditor, Grant Thornton had rated the authority as red over its reserves.
 
Subsequently, the council has agreed a three year financial plan to deliver significant savings and replenish its reserves. It has also spent within its budget for 2013/14.
 
Mr Robinson has also led on negotiations with Defra in securing  agreement for the Waste PFI contract with Worcestershire, re-structured the councils finance and re-procured the internal audit contract.
 
Recently, he took on responsibility for ICT strategy and the management and client role for the ICT element of the council’s contract with Hoople.
 
Mr Robinson is contracted through a management service provider called NEPRO.  The contract for these services equates to £147,000 a year including on costs such as employers national insurance contributions and pension - on costs for council employees are in the region of 30%.
 
The contract does not cover sickness or leave. NEPRO charge 1% of the contract cost, which is approximately £1,500 per year.
 
Helen Coombes was appointed to her interim role in July last year to stay in post until mid 2014. She stays on to see Adults Well-Being through major social care service changes. Her total remuneration is £108k compared to a full time equivalent of £120k.
 
The role of solicitor to the council, currently held by Bill Norman, has, over the past six months, taken on a range of additional responsibilities, most recently HR and organisation development management.
 
Re-grading to Assistant Director level is said by the council to recognise the additional responsibilities.
 
Additional costs for the  Chief Financial Officer, approximately £30k - £15k in both 2014/15 and 2015/16  - include ongoing payments to the managed service provider, although a significant discount has been agreed for these and for a four day A week consultancy element of the contract with NEPRO.
 
The council says the additional  cost can be managed from additional savings achieved in  the 2014/15 budget.
 
The costs of continuing the current arrangements for the Director of Adults Well-Being are within the approved budget of a permanent Director post.
 
Additional costs associated with the re-grading of the Assistant Director, Governance - including on-costs - is £13k a year with these costs met by deleting the Head of Governance post.
 
In July last year, the council confirmed changes to its senior management structure that were expected to save nearly £200k.

 

 

So that's where the grass cutting savings went. Amazing that when the staff at the lower levels are "transformed" they get to lose their jobs and forgo pay rises, whereas those bringers of change at the top shovel more of our money into their pockets and put PFI payments into their friends companies offshore. No wonder they want UK Column off the air.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is NEPRO? 
 
‘NEPRO’ is a ‘neutral vendor service’ set up by the North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) on behalf of its members and associate members. It has been designed specifically for Local Government which sources and manages all ranges of suppliers aligned to the provision of interim,specialist professional and consultancy services. 
 
For the purposes of this service ‘Specialist Professional Services’ are defined as the provision of advice, design, development and implementation services that do not “form part of business as usual operationsâ€. A specialist professional contract is an arrangement to employ an individual, group or organisation to facilitate decision making by providing expert analysis/design and advice; performing a specific task/s, involving skills or perspectives that falls outside of the council’s expertise, knowledge or experience. 

 

So if the council don't know how to go about running themselves - who are the people who think they can do a better job and what is their agenda? Who are they contacting within the council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am delighted with this news.  I for one am proud of the council for getting everything in order.  I am excited and look forward to the change in the coming years!  *Please take this with the large amount of sarcasm with which it is meant!

 

Picking up on the point made by megilleland, how can a management company know how to run the council with the specific challenges that it faces?  Although i suppose the council has only been around a year or so now so are still inexperienced so could do with some advice. *Again please insert sarcasm here. Theyve been at this game for ages now, surely they know what needs doing.

 

12-15 months???!!!  Dont rush then, its not like its costing a fortune or anything.  Why do these things take so long?  In a previous life i was a Store Manager of a large shop, if my line manager came in and told me what he wanted done and i had turned round and said, yeah thats fine, i will put plans in place to ensure it is done in say 2 months?  He would of laughed in my face.  I think large timescales are attached to things like this to line peoples pockets, be that private companies such as consultantancies or individuals who "slide" into temporary posts created by such a plan.

 

I have the pleasure of regularly going to the glass ivory tower that is Brockington HQ..  I usually visit around 4pm, there is rarely any cars parked in the "special" spaces reserved for the top brass, it is dead inside, and anyone that is there is on there way out.  The only people about are the admin, "frontline" staff who deserve better.  I dont find the amounts mentioned nauseiating and believe that those perfoming should be well renumerated, want does get me bile rising is that complete lack of value we get for the money at present.  Only working til 4pm does not represent good value for money nor does the current state of the council.  So someone hasnt been performing!

 

Now go and cut our grass :Grin: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the Councillors sat on the Employment Panel shame on you!!! Do your research before you appoint people, are you really that stupid!! Where is the freeze on increased salaries and how many front line staff did you dismiss before you decided on these new posts! What in gods name made you believe these two men are worthy of your trust!!!

 

 

http://herefordheckler.co.uk/trebles-all-round-as-runaway-council-managers-trouser-a-wedge/

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_council_officers_scr#comment-51324

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did view that Guy Taylor video before it was taken down and the TV studio segment was constructed to resemble a tv newsroom. The TV style 'news' host was possibly the most biased I have ever seen and his female co-presenter merely seemed to nod in agreement with him.

 

ATVOD has been delegated powers by OFCOM to regulate certain on demand video for anyone who doesn't know. It was arranged under a Labour regime.

 

If you look at the internet coverage of this UK Column video removal episode then the people moaning are people like David Icke who is that well known fruit loop ... Nothing has really hit the radar of the mainstream press.

 

What exactly has caused these videos to be removed? Is it that they are imitating tv? Have they not paid a required fee? Anyone got a link to any ATVOD contact where they outline the alleged infringements? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, just sometimes, I am lost for words.

 

And they wonder why we complain so bitterly at the loss of much needed services.

 

This is a slap in the face to every front line worker who has lost their job, to every disabled person and their families who have had their care/ respite slashed, and to every single council tax payer in this county.

 

"We have no money" is always the cry......yet still they find a little more to increase the pay of those who already earn a significant amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, just sometimes, I am lost for words.

 

And they wonder why we complain so bitterly at the loss of much needed services.

 

This is a slap in the face to every front line worker who has lost their job, to every disabled person and their families who have had their care/ respite slashed, and to every single council tax payer in this county.

 

"We have no money" is always the cry......yet still they find a little more to increase the pay of those who already earn a significant amount.

 

Why can't this crucial new job be filled at £85K and not £90K ? Or £80K ... Cynics would probably suggest the person lined up/selected is near the £90k mark already ... There are plenty of people who could deliver a decent return for far less than this suggested yearly return ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Flam!

 

I read this on Heckler when it first came out......I think it's very worthwhile for everyone to follow this link, and have a read through!

 

Evening Roger!

 

As our Bobby has commented before, they always sing the same song....."We need to pay the best, to get the best!"

 

Trouble is, we've been paying the best for quite some time now......and have little if anything to show for it.

 

These "temporary"contracts, seem to me to mean, that folks float in, mess up, float out and are never, ever held accountable for the failings they inevitably leave in their wake. They simply move on to the next hapless authority.......and we bring in another.

 

Ever decreasing circles.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not just the mantra, 'if we want the best we must pay the best' that's biting us now. It's the lack of quality that the public service employ to lead our frontline staff.

Since the emergence of New Labour, public services have been gathering up the dross to lead and command. These people who were cast out by the private sector because they were bloody useless, were quick to find a safe haven beneath the canopy of public service.

The thick, the incompetent, the socially disfunctional and the runts of the management litter were all quickly hoovered up by the public service who keenly grabbed out at failed Solicitors who couldn't buy their way into a private practice and made them their Chief Legal Officers. No matter that they were bloody useless and nobody wanted their limited operational ability, public service had a home for them. Our Council is infested by these people. Truly, they are poor in quality and because of a slip and sliding culture that's seen 'them' move from the bottom of the foodchain to the top, they now make the rules, they spend the money and they are only answerable to themselves.

The consequence to this disfunctional model of management is that the front line staff disappear and the suits are left standing promoting their odd way of thinking to a tiny few who have only managed to cling onto their jobs because the suits need a couple of staff to justify their existence.

This is now the way of things. A top heavy, overpaid collective of incompetent bungling idiots who reached their personal level of incompetence the day the private sector called them into the office and said, 'your'e bloody useless and we can no longer afford to carry you. Pi.ss off and don't come back'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consequence to this disfunctional model of management is that the front line staff disappear and the suits are left standing promoting their odd way of thinking to a tiny few who have only managed to cling onto their jobs because the suits need a couple of staff to justify their existence.

This is now the way of things. A top heavy, overpaid collective of incompetent bungling idiots who reached their personal level of incompetence the day the private sector called them into the office and said, 'your'e bloody useless and we can no longer afford to carry you. Pi.ss off and don't come back'.

Yes, it looks as if Mr Norman has been richly rewarded for his recent wholesale demolition of the committee and legal departments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did view that Guy Taylor video before it was taken down and the TV studio segment was constructed to resemble a tv newsroom. The TV style 'news' host was possibly the most biased I have ever seen and his female co-presenter merely seemed to nod in agreement with him.

 

ATVOD has been delegated powers by OFCOM to regulate certain on demand video for anyone who doesn't know. It was arranged under a Labour regime.

 

If you look at the internet coverage of this UK Column video removal episode then the people moaning are people like David Icke who is that well known fruit loop ... Nothing has really hit the radar of the mainstream press.

 

What exactly has caused these videos to be removed? Is it that they are imitating tv? Have they not paid a required fee? Anyone got a link to any ATVOD contact where they outline the alleged infringements? 

 
I did view that Guy Taylor video before it was taken down and the TV studio segment was constructed to resemble a tv newsroom. The TV style 'news' host was possibly the most biased I have ever seen and his female co-presenter merely seemed to nod in agreement with him.
Is it an offence to present information in a format deemed by the authorities to resemble mainstream television? Brian Gerrish researches his information and always invites doubters to do the same. It seems to me that an alternative view could be correct, so why are the authorities frightened of what he has to say. You say he is biased. Don't you like what he is telling you or can't you believe these things actually go on in the UK.
 
ATVOD has been delegated powers by OFCOM to regulate certain on demand video for anyone who doesn't know. It was arranged under a Labour regime.
Correct Roger. Tony Blair brought this in. He wouldn't have an interest in controlling media output - would he?. All the mainstream parties have an interest in controlling the media. Its been in the news lately hasn't it. It was the UK Column that highlighted the attempt by the government to try to gag future journalistic freedom through the setting up of the Levenson Inquiry.
 
If you look at the internet coverage of this UK Column video removal episode then the people moaning are people like David Icke who is that well known fruit loop
Roger, we are not all fruit loops. Isn't that what Kenneth Clark said about UKIP. In undemocratic countries they just take you outside and shoot you. Here they are a bit more sophisticated - they just laugh at you.
 
 ... Nothing has really hit the radar of the mainstream press.
As I said a few days ago, Wonga have been correctly picked up for using fraudalent documents against vunerable people. This is the tip of an iceberg and the corruption rampant in this country goes right to the top. The BBC and mainstream media pump out what the government and establishment think we need to know.
 
What exactly has caused these videos to be removed? 
You tell me. It can't be because it resembles pornography, which this body appears to be rightly concerned about and watch every year judging by their determinations list.
 
Is it that they are imitating tv? 
Is this an offence in this country? How can they be imitating TV when the message is so different to what the mainstream channels are telling us. They are plenty of alternative programmes on the internet.
 
Have they not paid a required fee? 
No they haven't as it is not clear where they fit into the regulatory scale.  But do they need to pay? Maybe it's a plan to get everyone placing information on the internet to pay a registration fee and control content.
 
Anyone got a link to any ATVOD contact where they outline the alleged infringements? 
If you can make sense of what they do here is the link to their website. For an organisation that wants to communicate with the public here's how they start explaining themselves:
 
Legislative Background to the Rules
The Rules have been drawn up in accordance with the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 20091 and the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 20102 (“the Regulationsâ€) which came into force on 19 December 2009 and 18 March 2010 respectively. The Regulations implement the Audio Visual Media Services Directive3 (“AVMS Directiveâ€) and amend the Communications Act 2003 (“the Actâ€) by inserting new sections 368A – 368R (inclusive), 368BA, 368BB and 368NA and setting out other consequential statutory amendments.
 
The Rules in this document replicate the relevant provisions of the Act, which apply to all on-demand programme service providers falling within the scope of section 368A of the Act (“Service Providersâ€).4 All Service Providers must comply with the relevant provisions of the Act. For the avoidance of doubt all references to the Rules will be taken as a reference to the corresponding statutory provisions in the Act and any contravention of the Rules will be a contravention of the Act.
 
I like the last sentence - classic Orwell.
 
The term "doublespeak" probably has its roots in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although the term is not used in the book, it is a close relative of one of the book's central concepts, "doublethink". Another variant, "doubletalk," also referring to deliberately ambiguous speech, did exist at the time Orwell wrote his book, but the usage of "doublespeak" as well as of "doubletalk" in the sense emphasizing ambiguity clearly postdates the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. (source Wikipedia)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is room, and indeed a need, for alternatives to the mainstream type of stuff that is churned out by the BBC. Just look at the 50K marching outside the BBC last week in protest at austerity. The BBC either never noticed them or it didn't fit in with their agenda to report it. But they did manage to find a single Scotsman in Brazil who cheered the goal against England in the World Cup !!!

 

no-more-austerity.jpg?w=529&h=297

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The piece about Helen Coombs salary is old news, it was back in February at a health & social care scrutiny meeting it was announced that she would needs two assistants at £500 and £495 per day to help her from February to October 2014. At that meeting I ask how they could justify employing these two additional people when they had just announced more financial cut backs in social care services, I was told "you want the best care for people don't you" at that point I said if she needs help either she pays these people salary with a reduction in her salary or if she is not up to the job she should resign. Again at the Full Council meeting at Brockington in February that is why I would not support the 2014-15 budget again giving my reasons as what I said at the scrutiny meeting, the administration boo me, but after the meeting members of the public in attendance thanked me for bringing this to the attention of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was announced that she would needs two assistants at £500 and £495 per day to help her from February to October 2014. 

 

If you extrapolate £500 a day over the course of a year that would be a £130k salary. The Prime Minister is on £142k per year ...  :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true, you have to pay for quality and I have absolutely no problem paying for people who get results.

 

But that's the problem, we're paying these rates and NOT getting the results. Furthermore no one is held accountable when they screw up, they STILL receive their bonuses and high pay rates.

 

Public service workers like council members, consultants for councils etc, should be paid on a performance basis. I'd rather them paid £50k/yr with a (measurable)  Â£50k perfomance package than just given them £100k no matter the outcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public service workers like council members, consultants for councils etc, should be paid on a performance basis. I'd rather them paid £50k/yr with a (measurable)  Â£50k perfomance package than just given them £100k no matter the outcome

 

 
Introduction and purpose 
1. The purpose of this statement is to set out the council’s approach to setting the pay of its employees (excluding those working in local authority schools) by identifying: 
 
* the methods by which salaries of all employees are determined; 
* the detail and level of remuneration of its most senior staff (chief officers), as defined by 
the relevant legislation; 
* who is responsible for ensuring the provisions set out in this statement are applied 
consistently throughout the council, and for recommending any changes to council. 
 
2. Once approved by Council, this policy statement will come into immediate effect and will be subject to an annual review. 
 
17. The council does not make use of performance related pay for any of its employees. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their Managing Director: Adam Jacobs

 
Adam is a leading procurement and change management professional who has worked extensively on leading edge, transformational programmes across the public and private sectors. For the last 12 years, he has been at the cutting edge, designing and delivering transformational change within the public sector, with a particular emphasis on procurement (processes, systems, organisation, category management, savings delivery, service redesign) across central civil government, local government and the wider public sector. He has architected commercial procurement delivery models, procedures and processes, governance and compliance resulting in the delivery of substantial savings for NHS Trusts, local authorities and central government departments. 
 
Don't they just love these terms, sounds as if they have a Common Purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen verbal diarrhoea like that before - over at our old friends Hoople! I went to their site to double check and - would you believe - the website is not responding -  it’s the weekend, it probably fell over on Friday night and will be down until someone can be bothered next week. Good to know our IT services are in such (in)competent hands ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...