Just what sort of a waterlogged tub is Cleland Sneddon – Executive Director for Education, no less - not attempting to helm in the Council’s Education Department?
Under regulation 8 of the Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975, local authorities are legally required to maintain a register of classrooms and capacities for every school in their jurisdiction.
The experienced Scottish Rural Schools Network team has presented incontrovertible and objective evidence to assist council officers in understanding the fundamental flaws in the school capacity measurements they presented in their failed school closure proposals, withdrawn on 5th January 2011.
At the meeting on 25th November 2010, Cleland Sneddon himself, with his signature complacency, admitted that they had used no particular method of capacity measurement to reach their conclusions but had simply – in his exact words – ‘sent staff out to have a look’.
Despite this astonishingly casual, subjective and arbitrary approach to a matter on which they hung (literally) the case for the proposed closures, Sneddon and his team have continued to insist that their ‘calculations’ (?) of school capacity are correct.
In their efforts to discover the history of Argyll and Bute’s approaches to school capacity measurement, the Scottish Rural Schools Network team, under Freedom of Information legislation, asked to see the legally required register of classrooms and capacities for the Argyll schools.
The Council admitted it could not supply this and, like market traders whose abilities would shame them, asked if SRSN would accept instead information on just a few schools.
Stunned but willing to see where this went, SRSN agreed to receiving 4 schools of their choice – Lochnell, Taynuilt, Achahoish and North Bute.
The council sent only registers for Taynuilt and Lochnell – and both had the date of 1991 at the top of them.
SRSN say: ‘We could not believe what we were reading. North Bute had only a plan of the school amd Achahoish had email exchanges trying to set a capacity on judgement alone’. (As Sneddon had admitted was the modus operandi in the preparation of the case in the failed school closure proposals.)
SRSN tell us that they brought this issue up at their meeting with Sneddon and Carol Walker, Head of Education – described in our recent article on the challenge to public debate now issued by SRSN to Sneddon and Education Spokesperson, Ellen Morton.
Then, according to SRSN: ‘Walker asked for more time as she said “the register must exist”. We agreed that it must exist (or they had been breaking the law for 20 years)’.
In the following few days, Executive Director for Customer Services (a misnomer if ever there was one),
Douglas Hendry, wrote to SRSN (reproduced below) saying SRSN’s request had been satisfied under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act as far as the Council are concerned.
SRSN say: ‘Patently it had not been – but we decided to give Walker the benefit of the doubt, copied Hendry’s email to her and asked if she had found the register’. (This email is also reproduced below.)
By now it was a week and a half beyond their meeting and still the education department had not produced the up to date register they must legally keep for each school.
In spite of her reply (reproduced below) to this SRSN email (From Justin Willey), Walker has, to this day, produced nothing to SRSN and has made no further contact with them on the matter.
Now the SRSN team are even more disturbed to understand that Sneddon defended his capacity ‘calculations’ at the ‘seminar’ for councillors on Thursday 17th February.
They question how on earth he can know that he is right if the base calculations for each school do not exist – as is apparently the case?
SRSN is now going straight to the Information Commissioner with these failures.
The question for the Argyll and Bute electorate and taxpayers is on what exactly has been going on at Argyll and Bute’s education department since 1991 (the date of the only available register material) and what is going on just now?
This is a department that could not prepare school closure proposals that were even basically compliant with the relevant law – the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.
It seems now also to be a department which has never bothered to fulfil its legal obligations in record keeping,
Nevertheless, this department, evidently with no actual records available to it, has concocted wildly eccentric school capacity measurements on nothing more scientific than a look-see in a passing visit by assorted council staff. The ability of such random operatives to perform accurately such subjective visual assessments – and with stability of subjective judgment between one gofer and another – has to be in question.
The education department then went on to make such unfounded and unscientific ‘measurements’ the very basis for their proposals to close 25 schools across Argyll and Bute. They argued that schools were underused – on a set of ‘measurements’ we described as equating to a Guinness Book of Records challenge – ‘How many kids can you cram in a phone box’.
This has to be a matter for Audit Scotland and it is certainly also a case for resignations or sackings.
As well as pointing to negligence by the Head of Education and the Executive Director for Education in ensuring legal compliance, these fundamental failures to comply with the law call into question the laissez faire administration under inexperienced Chief Executive, Sally Loudon.
We would also ask why the department responsible for law and governance is not maintaining – or is not required to maintain – a supervisory scrutiny of the compliance of every council department with the laws that govern their operations?
This is the responsibility of Executive Director for Customer Services, Douglas Hendry.
The email trail
From: Walker, Carol (Head of Education, Argyll and Bute Council)
To: Justin Willey (SRSN)
Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:20
Subject: RE: Occupancy calculations
I have been totally immersed in budget issues and have not had a chance to progress this. I am in Kilmory tomorrow and I shall go on the hunt for the information.
Carol
From: Justin Willey
Sent: 14 February 2011 13:51
To: Walker, Carol
Subject: Occupancy calculations
Dear Carol
It was good to meet you last week, and I do feel we made progress on a number of issues.
Since we spoke, I have received the email below from Mr Hendry. He is in effect saying that all information that I originally requested about the calculation of capacity, that is held by the Council, has now been provided. My original request is at the bottom of the e-mail trail below.
As we discussed, last week – this simply cannot be the case. Using the example of Achahoish alone, this would mean that the Council is saying that it has no knowledge of what classrooms or other teaching areas there are in the school, what their areas are or how the capacity has been arrived at – an impossible situation , never mind being in contravention of the duties imposed by regulation 8 of Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975.
As far as an FOI request is concerned, this section 20 review is the end of the road, legally being the Council’s last word on the subject, leaving me to take it up with the Commissioner. However given the relevance of occupancy to the context of the current debate (I appreciate that the degree of difference between methodologies is disputed) it would seem more constructive to see if the information can in fact be located, and I wondered if you had been able to make any progress on this question?
Many thanks
Justin Willey
From: Hendry, Douglas (Executive Director for Customer Services, Argyll and Bute Council)
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Subject: Section 20 Review
To: Justin Willey
Dear Mr Willey
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA)
Section 20 Review
I refer to your email of 11 January 2011, requesting a review of the way in which this Council dealt with your request for information dated 19 November 2010.
I would note for your information that the consultation process which commenced on 13 December 2010 has been suspended and the proposals published for consultation on that date have been withdrawn by the Council. Notwithstanding this I am responding to your request for information in relation to the proposals issued for consultation on 13 December 2010.
I reviewed the correspondence and have found that the response was issued outwith the 20 day statutory timescale on 11 January 2011, and I must apologise on behalf of the Council for that.
I asked the relevant department to undertake a further search of their records to ascertain whether they held the information you were requesting in the format you described in your email of 11 January.
I am advised that there was further discussion between you and my colleague, Iain Jackson, Governance Manager and you agreed on 3 February to restrict the scope of your original request to Achahoish, Lochnell, North Bute and Taynuilt Primaries.
I am advised that this information was sent to you on 4 February.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which the review has been dealt with you are entitled to make an application to the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9DS (Tel: 01334 464610) for a review.
You must make representation to the Scottish Information Commissioner no later than 6 months after the date of receipt by you of the notice or decision you are dissatisfied with or within 6 months of the expiry of the period of 20 working days from receipt by the Council of your request for review.
Yours sincerely
Douglas Hendry
Executive Director – Customer Services
I’ve seen the document relating to Lochnell and interestingly its date (at the head of the first page) predates the actual building of the school.
The document does not make any mention of the extension to Lochnell that was completed later. The capacity of Lochnell is given as 117 in the document (a figure that appeared in the first “draft” of the closure proposals but said to be a typo). Interestingly the very last figure in the document says that the capacity if 177 – with no explanation as to how this is reached as the previous pages clearly show the calculated capacity as being 117. 177 is of course the capacity figure that the Council were quoting for Lochnell in the proposal to close Achaleven, Ardchattan and Barcaldine and move the weans into Lochnell (despite considerable disquiet from the Lochnell parents who believe that the school is already bursting at the seams, has inadequate toilet facilities and could not believe that the Council seemed to be overlooking the large pre-5 group that is also using the school).
More documentation may emerge to straighten this out but it appears that Lochnell’s stated capacity of 177 is a typo of 117 (not the other way round) and there had been no attempt to recalculate the capacity since the building of the extension nor to take the pre-5 group into account in the calculation of capacity. Indeed if we take the document at its face value it suggests that the capacity figure was calculated BEFORE the building was actually up and never revisited.
I understand that Council officials have visited Lochnell very recently and produced a new capacity measurement. However, it very much looks as if the Council were proposing closing three of North Lorn’s schools without actually knowing the capacity of the proposed receiving school.
I am sure I’m not alone in finding that rather disturbing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I asked the question of the Chief Executive following SRSN Presentation on the 5th Jan if members could now expect that there would be ongoing positive and proactive dialogue between the council and SRNS so that there could be a shared understanding of the issues. The answer was unequivocally yes. Ellen Morton also confirmed that ongoing dialogue had taken place. This would seem to differ from Sandy’s experience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John: My understanding from the seminar on Thursday was that Cllr Morton stated that she had been speaking with the Rural Schools Network but specifically said that she had not spoken with Murdo (Murdo MacDonald). Maybe you can confirm if this was said before you left the meeting?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A For Argyll reader has drawn our attention to this passage from: Circular No 3/2004: GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING SCHOOL CAPACITIES, the full text of which may be found here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20528/50015
’8. Authorities will want to ensure that their system for determining school capacities is open, transparent, fair and rigorous. They will also want to ensure that this system is applied consistently to schools across their area. Authorities will, of course, regularly review school capacities and revise them as necessary. Under Section 28B of the 1980 Act, authorities are required to make information available about their arrangements for placing children in schools. To aid transparency, we suggest that authorities consider detailing how they determine school capacities as part of this information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This whole fiasco is running on and on, and why? SRSN and the group known as ARSN – interested, intelligent folk who care about communities and schools – consistently come up with sound financial (savings) ideas, hard facts and accurate figures. This is repeatedly ignored, and from the recent postings here it looks like the council is actually forming a kind of ‘counter-attack’ on these groups, why? Why? The noble thing to do dear Snedders et al is either leave the country (preferred option) or sit down with these two groups, work together and move forward. I fear that school closures are simply a vehicle for a small group of power crazy folk to try to exercise their power and influence, again, why? Get a grip, and stop trying to draw battle-lines in the sand. On the other hand surely the more ridiculous this becomes, the more likely a clear sweep of these ‘executives’ seems to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if the fact that supervision of compliance is in the hands of a member of the same tribe (so to speak) as the leader of the council might not be very good for the health of democracy, and accountability, in our Council?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Never mind “Snedders ” leaving the country – that might entail him being paid off and going to another Authority where some of his friends could cover for him.
The simple facts are that on this , and other evidence produced by Argyll, he and his immediate Junior are totally incompetent, particularly given the salary level they are paid. If he and his overall boss get over the next three months without being found to have acted in an incompetent and improper manner, and well outside the conditions called for by their contracts, then their final bosses, the elected members will be found to be incompetent if not dishonest at the final place of decision – the ballot box.
It really should not require thousands of protesting electors marching from Lochgilphead to Kilmory to sort this out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for doctor d and picking up earlier stories.
the new closure list will have sneddon’s name on it so any criticism by councillors will be public.
councillors are being threatened with the code and a complaint to standards on any hint of public criticism.
every council computer is forced to have a picture of the chief executive and her blog as the home page.
it was acceptable to have a budget that did not balance this year but ‘risky’ according to officers to take a few extra days to consider other options.
councillors can’t get information and trust in officers to be politically neutral has been lost.
why no external intervention with this failing council?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Coracle: criticism of the actions of an administration or department within an administration is not the same as public criticism of a named official – MPs and MSPs do it all the time. I would urge councillors not to be intimidated from making criticisms where these are due as I cannot see how this can be construed as anything other than them doing their job as regards scrutiny.
The revelation that each council computer has the CEO’s picture and blog as the home page made me smile. I’m sure that really gees up the troops first thing in the morning when they turn their computers on!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to dr d.
you miss the point on intimidation with all the legal opinion of the council behind it. also it will be sneddon’s name on papers (he is responsible for the content) so any criticism of the content is a direct public criticism of him. so the council lawyers will say. councillors will not be willing to take on a legal battle with the council – it is time for others to intervene.
read in the times yesterday politicians can buy good press in some countries. in argyll the quid pro quo for supporting local press with public notices is critical immunity. good work for argyll in providing an alternative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For coracle: We don’t doubt that this is the advice councillors are being given in order to intimidate them – but this advice could not be legally sustainable if any action on the Code were taken on these grounds against any councillor.
It locks down any critical comment on any issue because virtually any document before the council will, of necessity, have been produced by council staff.
Yet councillors are accountable for scutiny and are accountable, where staff are not, for decisions taken and actions approved.
Despite the fact that the majority of councillors describe themselves as ‘independent’, they seem to have little trace of independence in them.
Dr Mackenzie is right that criticism of material, where necessary, is imperative and is solidly defensible in terms of the Code. Any ‘advice’ to the contrary is no more than the usual bullying from one of the usual enthusiastic suspects and is legally unsustainable.
Otherwise, we are in a fascist state.
This is a ‘bring it on’ moment for councillors. The Argyll public will want to see them assert the responsibilities they were elected to deliver.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Coracle – just out of interest do you know who is threatening the Councillors with the code of conduct, is it the leader of the Council or employees of the Council?
As Dr D states it is only if they criticise individuals in public that they can be held to account, but they are perfectly entitled to criticise the Organisation. If they are trying to mislead Councillors by saying that because Sneddons name is on the documents they are directly criticising him, then the individuals offering this advice are themselves in direct breach of the code of conduct by providing inaccurate information and guidance on it.
The code clearly states – “It is vital that the Code continues to give assurance to the public that their elected members are acting in accordance with high ethical standards” Would gagging orders and mis-information constitute ‘high ethical standards’?
Mr Sneddon himself has arguably breached the code of conduct already with his little comment on the Western Isle’s, as the code states emphatically – “Employees must at all times, maintain political neutrality”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bws – heard it was coming from chief executive’s department.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bws
It is the Chief Executive – a letter was sent to all Councillors (or so I am led to believe) which reminded them of their responsibilities under the code (it may even have quoted an extract from the code in it)
Maybe some of the opposition Councillors who frequent here could confirm this and maybe some of the administration ones that frequent here but have not yet had the courage to identify themselves, choosing rather to lurk, could step forward and do likewise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is a pity that the council elections are not in May 2011 as it would be a golden opportunity to get rid of the Executive group of councillors through the ballot box.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Treblet
The key to this is to make sure people remember by May 2012. Too often we see politicians (at all levels) bungle their way through big policy decisions mid term and then ensure the final 18 months is relatively controversy free, sometimes they will stockpile good news initiatives to ensure a swell of good will just in time for the elections.
People across A&B must remember the curent time and actions of the many when they consider their vote in 2012. Do not be pawned off because your local Councillor has managed to get a swing park opened or a few pot holes filled. Think how they deal with the big ticket issues and remember how they ignored the public and danced to Dick Walsh’s pipes until such time as even he had to grudgingly accept that his officers had failed and his administration had supported their failure. Not only did they fail but they also ignored clear evidence that they had and tried to force through flawed proposals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Integrity? Not in the Independents and for Treblet: You;re quite right that people must remember how angry they are now at the extent to which they have been badly served and let down.
We expect a modest schools closure list on 3rd March – designed to soften public opinion for the 2012 election – which will be followed by more savage closure proposals, leaving enough time, they plan, for people to forget the pain, the anger and the loss before the following local authority election.
The only successful antidote to this – and the only just outcome – is to make sure that not one of the 19 who voted to support the failed proposals is re-elected – even where some voters basically like some of them. As we do too.
But nice people can do as much harm as unpleasant ones – and they did – and they did it knowingly and without care for the consequences for their constituents. Nice is nowhere near enough. They have to do their jobs. And they did not do those jobs when it mattered most to their constituents and, in the matter of the budget, to Argyll as a whole.
The 19 to go were, in alphabetical order, Councillors:
Rory Colville
Robin Currie
Vivien Dance
Alison Hay
Daniel Kelly
David Kinniburgh
Duncan MacIntyre
Neil MacKay
Donnie Macmillan
James McQueen
Bruce Marshall
Ellen Morton
Gary Mulvaney
Andrew NIsbett
William Petrie
Al Reay
Elaine Robertson
Len Scoullar
Dick Walsh
In its launch press release, the Argyll Rural Schools Network (ARSN) said that it would consider standing pro-rural-schools candidates against some such councillors. ARSN has plenty of highly capable people in its ranks and others who support its interests.
There is no doubt that the sheer calibre of what might be possible would transform the political stage in Argyll and Bute Council. And people would be voting FOR this sort of change – for capable, open, objective, collaborative and inclusive people in an administration that mirrored those qualities.
They would not simply be voting AGAINST the varieties of the irresponsible, incompetent, negligent, manipulative and brutish who brought Argyll low and broke – although that itself would be enough.
And for those with short memories, all of For Argyll’s articles are archived and we will be publishing a series of retrospectives in the run up to the 2012 council elections – and using unpublished notes of exactly what each councillor actually said at the crucial meeting when they voted to approve the failed proposals for statutory public consultation.
There simply has to be a reckoning for what has happened and the only people who can ensure that the price is paid are the electorate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Coracle & Integrity, thank you both.
It would be useful if a Councillor could possibly produce a copy of this letter. Obviously giving guidance to Councillors on the Code of Conduct is not in itself out of the ordinary as this is part of the role of Senior Council employees to advise Council members on protocols, procedures etc. However it must only be impartial guidance.
For example, if the Chief Executive published guidance to Councillors stating “May I remind all members that they should not criticise Council employees in public” then that’s okay. If it was to then go on to state “and as Mr Sneddon’s name is on this document you are therefore unable to criticise the document” or words to that effect, then that would be a completely different matter.
“To reduce the risk of your, or your Council’s, decisions being legally challenged, you must not only avoid impropriety, but must at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion and any appearance of improper conduct” – The Code of Conduct, 3rd Edition Dec 2010
On the point of Mr Sneddon’s name being on the school proposals document, unless he has completed and written the entire proposals himself, his name is simply there as the Director of the department who has published it. As Dr D has previously mentioned this is standard practice when it comes to issuing documents, guidance etc.
If a Councillor is unwilling to let us have a copy of the letter, Newsroom might want to consider submitting an FOI.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For bws and others: The letter from the Chief Executive to myself (and presumably other councillors) on the Councillor’s Code of conduct is straight forward and certainly raised no concerns with me. We all know that from time to time some councillors ignore the Code (remember the anonymous lies that were spread about my actions following the vote on the school closure proposals at the Council meeting on 25 November) and need to be reminded of its existence. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Councillor Freeman,
I am writing to you in regard to the tone of media coverage of, and debate in regard, to the School Estate Review. I would make it clear, at the outset that I am in no way seeking to prevent proper scrutiny of, and debate on, the issues that arise from this matter. However I am concerned about the increasing tendency in some parts of the media to publically question the integrity of officers involved in the process and to make allegations that suggest officers are acting in an improper manner; and by suggestions that comments of this nature are being made by Members. I feel it is in Members interests that I remind you of your responsibilities in this regard.
It is important that all members respect Council decisions, including those which are hotly contested and that reports prepared by Officers which have followed a proper process and seek to give effect to general policy directions, or specific actions agreed by the Council are recognised as such.
While Elected Members have every right to their opinions, or to conclude that the Council is reaching a wrong determination or conclusion on an issue, it is never acceptable to attack the integrity of the Council itself, or its officers, for presenting their professional conclusions and opinions, particularly where these have been aired at the Council/Executive/other meetings.
It is particularly important that when communicating with third parties, or speaking in public, Councillors ensure that they have regard to the National Code of Conduct for Members and do not state in the media that they are questioning publically the competence of any officer(s).
Specific extracts from relevant provisions in the Code, and the protocol on Member/Officer relations include the following:-
1. Protocol for Members/Officer Relations
Paragraph 2.1 “Mutual respect between Councillors and Officers is essential”.
Paragraph 2.2 “The Council determines policy. It is also ultimately responsible for ensuring the delivery of services: if the public is not satisfied, it is the elected Members who have to take responsibility and answer criticism”.
2. National Code of Conduct
Annex C Paragraph 2 “Councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, with neither party seeking to take unfair advantage of their position”.
Annex C Paragraph 20 “Councillors should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees in public”.
As Chief Executive, my clear understanding is that the Council is very keen to facilitate robust participation in, and scrutiny of the school estates review but reiterate that the vilification of individual officers, is never justifiable.
It is entirely possible and desirable for Members and Officers to work together, in a businesslike manner, which sits within the framework within which we are all required to operate. I look forward to so doing, and am sure you will feel the same.
I trust that members will find the foregoing information to be of assistance to them in ensuring they do not breach the code.
Yours sincerely,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councillor George Freeman: Thank you for this.
A key point would seem to be:
’1. Protocol for Members/Officer Relations
Paragraph 2.1 “Mutual respect between Councillors and Officers is essential”.
Paragraph 2.2 “The Council determines policy. It is also ultimately responsible for ensuring the delivery of services: if the public is not satisfied, it is the elected Members who have to take responsibility and answer criticism”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cllr Freeman: thank you for letting us see the documentation. Most of it is, as you say, pretty asinine and above board. It is right that Councillors should not publicly criticise individual officers (not sure if that applies to the Chief Executive though but that’s another matter).
I’m a bit more concerned with this section:
“It is important that all members respect Council decisions, including those which are hotly contested and that reports prepared by Officers which have followed a proper process and seek to give effect to general policy directions, or specific actions agreed by the Council are recognised as such.
While Elected Members have every right to their opinions, or to conclude that the Council is reaching a wrong determination or conclusion on an issue, it is never acceptable to attack the integrity of the Council itself, or its officers, for presenting their professional conclusions and opinions, particularly where these have been aired at the Council/Executive/other meetings.”
Clearly, if Councillors feel that a report produced by the Council is incorrect then they not only have a right but a duty to say so. The mere fact that it has been through some sort of Council process does not change this one little bit. I note there is nothing in the sections of the Code that suggest otherwise. “The integrity of the Council itself” is an interesting phrase – taken to an extreme this means that opposition Councillors could never question the competence of any Council action after it has been passed. Which is absurd.
Best way to think about it is to look at what happens at Westminster and Holyrood. Opposition MPs and MSPs (and sometimes ones not in opposition) regularly attack reports, bills etc even where they have been through the parliamentary process. They most certainly attack the integrity of the government. What makes ABC any different?
And where does this leave Mr Walsh’s statement regarding the Supporting people and COSLA debacle? He clearly blamed Scottish Government civil servants for Argyll’s predicament. He admittedly didn’t name any of them (though it is easy to find out who they are).
Best guide is your conscience. If something is wrong then it is the duty of good people to say that it is wrong. I would be astonished if the Council attempted to discipline any Councillor for criticising Council activities.
None of the above would excuse personal and public attacks on Council officers but they cannot hide behind this to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Councillor Freeman – thank you for this. As has been previously mentioned, most of it appears quite appropriate and could be interpreted as the Chief Executive simply trying to protect their personnel.
The part that does appear slightly at odds to the code of conduct is -
Paragraph 2.2 “The Council determines policy. It is also ultimately responsible for ensuring the delivery of services: if the public is not satisfied, it is the elected Members who have to take responsibility and answer criticism”.
This would appear to contradict the Code of conduct which states -
3.4 Whilst both you and Council employees are servants of the public, you have separate responsibilities: you are responsible to the electorate but the employee is responsible to the Council as his or her employer. You must also respect the different roles that you and an employee play. Your role is to determine policy and to participate in decisions on matters placed before you, not to engage in direct operational management of the Council’s services; that is the responsibility of the Council’s employees. It is also the responsibility of the Chief Executive and senior employees to help ensure that the policies of the Council are implemented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Your role is to determine policy and to participate in decisions on matters placed before you, not to engage in direct operational management of the Council’s services; that is the responsibility of the Council’s employees.”
It has struck me before that Cllr Morton’s is skating on very thin ice with regard to this section as she has stated that she will determine what schools will be on any future lists and that she is ignoring travel times etc. All down to differences of opinion probably.
I have just seen the presentation given by a council official who will remain nameless unless that is seen as a personal attack and thus precluding any of our councillors commenting on it. Let’s just call him Director “S”. Anyway, it is clear that Director “S” has learned nothing from the first fiasco so expect more of the same mince on the 3rd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I made a Freudian slip in one of my earlier posts: when referring to the CEO’s letter to the councillors I referred to it as “asinine”. I of course meant “anodyne”. I don’t want to annoy anyone without meaning to!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would be great if my local councillor managed to get a few pot holes fixed. However where I stay in Argyll if you want anything done you have to do it yourself. My councillor has been a councillor in Argyll & Bute so long that he is “in with the bricks” in Kilmory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just as the Doctor has I have just taken time to go through the presentation given by Director S (played in this film by Christopher Lee in his Scaramanga years) and it is with breath taking arrogance and no shortage of folly that he has disregarded the sound arguments put forward by SRSN on January 5th. It is no surprise that they resisted the opportunity to have SRSN present on Thursday as the arguments presented (as fact rather than opinion of course) were as fragile as I would wish the current administrations political careers to be.
The scene I envisage was one of the Emperor’s New Clothes where Sneddon played the part of the Emperor and the administration acted out the roles of the gullible subjects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On first reading the Chief Exec. letter to councillors,what concerned me was the initial paragraph. It appears,on first read to be innocuous;but really,is it as it seems?
Do the council officers expect no criticisms at all?
If integrity appears questionable.. is no-one allowed to question it?
Come on council…criticism is what keeps you on your toes and us engaged( or is that enraged!!!)
By “media” ,do they in fact refer to forargyll? If that is so,then HURRAH!!!!
You’ve been “accredited”
I suspect that some in the council are concerned in regard to “media” attention,hence the recent laughable lawyers letter,but hay(pun) never mind!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0