ForArgyll.com: Argyll's online broadsheet.

This article in concerned only with performance management …

Comment posted Council Leader, Councillors, CEO, Senior Officers: working relationships by newsroom.

This article in concerned only with performance management – an objective responsibility which has not previously been a notable feature in the operations of Argyll and Bute Council.

This laxity may itself have produced slack observation of responsibilities in the corporate management team.

Officers must be given the opportunity to show what they can do under a regime that demands integrity, competence and propriety, monitors performance and insists upon due process.

Should any then prove incapable of responding to these standards, that would be a point where, in any capable and well managed business, the question of their remaining in their posts would arise.

The past is the past. An enlightened regime which everyone hopes will seed a very different culture for public sector conduct in Argyll and Bute – at an individual and collective level, should have no care for retribution but every care for the calibre and correctness of performance now.

newsroom also commented

  • There is no formal council as yet. Although it seems clear what the administration will almost certainly be, nothing is formal until the full election process is complete.

    There is a council meeting on 22nd May where rival motions are likely to be advanced proposing specific pairings of Leader and Deputy Leader. The group with the greatest number of supporting councillors votes its choice through.

Recent comments by newsroom

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Not in my control and hadn’t noticed this myself [so thanks] – and will pass on your concerns.
    This us likely to be one of the consequences of recovery from recent outages which were beyond our control.
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
    ‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
  • Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placement
    Eveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
    When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
    Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
    This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
    The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
    What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
    One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
    The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
    We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
    This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
    We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.
  • Turkey’s military coup raises issues to be confronted here in Britain
    This is another issue – a procedural one – and one which clearly needs to be resolved while the need can be immediately understood.

    It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
    The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
    Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
    Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
    In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.

  • The measure of Britain – who cares about Gibraltar?
    What was done to the Chagossians – under Harold Wilson’s government so not a matter of distant history but of contemporary moral dysfunction – is an enduring shame on Britain.

powered by SEO Super Comments