Comment posted Council Leader, Councillors, CEO, Senior Officers: working relationships by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.
You always have been very ‘hands on’
Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented
- I don’t think this should be a discussion about disciplinary action, it should be a discussion about performance management.
Elected members have a role/resposibility for assessing the performance of the chief executive and it would be a failing on their part if they didn’t do that. I have posted on this in a different thread but it is probably better placed in this thread so I have copied it below.
However in essence I agree with Simon – we shouldn’t engage in a witch hunt without a proper process being followed. What we should do is ask the administration to get that process in place sooner rather than later as it would appear, on the surface, that there are questions that need to be asked and answered.
My Other Post
If the new coalition is to be successful then something needs to be done about what are clearly very strained relationships between elected members and the corporate management team. Whether or not people agree that this Council has been failing under the current Chief Executive’s control is up for debate (I think most people on here know where I stand on the debate) however what can’t be denied is that member/officer relations are not what they should be.
Depending on the nature of the CE’s contract the new administration will, fundamentally, have two options available to them. If she is on a fixed term contract which requires renewal at a set date then they would be able to replace her at that point if they felt she was not capable of performing her role competently. They may, of course, conclude that she is capable and agree on a contract extension.
If she is on a permanent contract with no break point then the administration needs to assess whether her performance has been satisfactory and deal with this accordingly. In this scenario she would be treated the same way as any other employee and performance issues would be addressed via a proper performance management process (which could, and I stress could, result in dismissal if, after following a proper process, the performance doesn’t improve).
Dealing with performance issues at director level is slightly different as the administration have no direct control over the appointment and removal of directors. They have (or should have) performance issues managed in the same way as any other employee however the problem here is that they report directly to the CE and if there are question marks over her competence then you could argue that she is not capable of managing the performance issues of those who report directly to her.
What the new Administration need to consider is whether or not their opposition to issues such as the schools closures was because they were opposed to the policy, opposed to the lack of competence shown by Council officers during the consultation process and in the consultation papers, or a combination of the two. If they were opposed to the lack of competence to a material extent (and any other areas of competence amongst the senior staff) then they can’t be seen to duck their responsibility to challenge the CE and CMT and ensure they are accountable for their failings. Just because it happened under the previous administration’s watch does not mean the issue should be overlooked.
Roddy McCuish says ‘The people of Argyll have given us a clear mandate for change in the way the work of this council is conducted.’ It is encouraging to hear those words and there is much talk of ‘change’ in the air’
Recognition of the desire for change makes it crystal clear that change is required and part of that process has to be to identify what has gone wrong, or stood still for too long, and take corrective action. If that means removal of the CMT or close performance management of them then I urge the Administration to be strong and take the necessary steps.
Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll
- Has Councillor Iain Angus Macdonald’s rush to transfer to the SNP fouled the Ward 5 by-election pitch for Iain S MacLean?
Part of the answer to the issue of resigning from party X and joining party Y is for the public to stop voting like blind sheep and start to question the person behind the job.
There are too many people who would vote for a chimp if it had the right rosette pinned to it.
- SNP lose another Argyll & Bute councillor
This whole PR exercise about the number of people joining the SNP is a nice sound bite but doesn’t really add up to more than propaganda. So there are about 35,000-40,000 members now? At the 2011 elections about 900,000 people voted SNP. All this increase in member is showing is that more people who would vote SNP are signing up as members – it doesn’t actually signal a ground swell of new support, just an affirmation of support by a small percentage of people who voted SNP anyway.
- Bitter alone, Salmond now a declared guerrilla leader in charge of government
Richard, Tim is correct regarding the timetable for the Scotland Act coming into affect. You might be confusing those powers with the fact the SG can already flex income tax by 3p but have never done so. The Scotland Act extends it to 10.
The SNP, and more specifically Alex Salmond, is right to keep the pressure on the main UK parties to deliver on their promises of additional powers. However I think some of his approach is damaging to efforts to heal a rift between yes and no campaigners. Making claims about the parties already going back on the deal after 24 hours is ridiculous as is the talk of independence without referendum both by him and a now utterly irrelevant Sillars.
The SG represents all the people of Scotland, not just the 45%. Time for them to return to that job
- Salmond departure only hope for healing in Scotland – successor cannot be Sturgeon
The scenes in Glasgow last night are shameful, hugely regrettable, and a reminder that there is an ugly vein of bigotry amongst a relatively small number of people predominantly in Glasgow.
However it is not the face of the No vote as has been said on many Facebook posts (or words to that effect). Over two million people voted no, a few hundred have behaved like idiotic morons. Christ more people in my small village voted No (and Yes) than that.
Painting it as the face of the no vote is an insult to half the population of the country and can only inflame resentment amongst people who simply exercised their democratic right.
As for Graham’s remark that all no voters are selfish and don’t care about the poor. Well all that does is highlight what a petty person you are Graham. What a relief that Jackie Baillie beat you back in 2007. She isn’t perfect but she is head and zhoulders above you in terms of trying to represent people equally.
Hopefully last night was an isolated incident with those responsible properly dealt with by the authorities. Hopefully we see a rapid decrease in crowing over the result by the no voters and hopefully we see an equally rapid decrease in divisive sweeping insults by Yes voters. Time to grow up and move on.
- The Union, the young, reform and the pound are the gold in the embers of indy
Didn’t expect that I must admit. Bad news for the SNP.
powered by SEO Super Comments