Argyll's online broadsheet.

You always have been very ‘hands on’ …

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

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Who is stating that it won’t go ahead, all be it in a revised form?
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    And they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids…

    (I’ll get my coat)

    The extent to which it is defective must be marginal if it got as far as appeals to the Supreme Court.

    Be interesting to see how much any revisions are actually material in terms of what is rolled out but my gut feeling is that they will be marginal and a lot of people happy at today’s ruling are going to be spitting blood.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    My personal view on this is that we are better without the thumbs up and down. They don’t mean anything and they just clutter the page. I think they are more of a trivial facebook/twitter thing than something for a forum.

    You also get people who simply use them just because they don’t like the poster regardless of what they say. I am pretty sure if Malcolm or NCH posted a story about a lovely old lady being recognised for her lifetime commitment to helping retired guide dogs there would be someone petty enough to give it a thumbs down!

    However I appreciate people might like them.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is probably worth being clear that this will not stop it being implemented – it just means there will be some amendments to it. Amendments which could have been got to without a stack of cash wasted on legal battles if politicians could be a little more grown up and a little less obsessed with never admitting they don’t know everything.
  • What now for Scotland?

    Like indy1 it was a campaign packed with untruths from both sides and it further demonstrated that our politicians will say anything to hoodwink the public to voting their way. We are already seeing the Remain camp back pedalling on two of the claims they pedalled relentlessly in order to get votes.

    I think you’re pessimistic in terms of the number of previous NO voters that this will swing. Hardly scientific I know but I have been very surprised at the number of friends of mine who have already said they will now vote yes, some of them who were staunch No voters before. However I’m not basing this view on what a few of my mates say! There is just an inherent logic that such an issue is bound to cause a degree of swing toward Yes and we know that swing doesn’t need to be substantial.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments