All posts in the topic News from the trough (Short link)
Summary
- There are 13 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Lane Taylor at Aug 12 09:41 UTC
I see that two of the Mayor's advisors have swapped jobs. Ian Corbett is
responsible for public realm and June "Southend" Leitch is now in charge of
the Keystone Kops.
As of yet, the portfolios for these jobs have not been switched on the
Council's propaganda site.
This is interesting as it suggests that the points values and special
responsibility allowances will change.
The following is a brief "history" for both portfolios:
Prior to May 2007 the Public Realm portfolio had a points value of 174 was on a
band of 4A and had an allowance value of £19,605.00.
After May 2007 this changed to points 200, band 3B and the allowance dropped to
£18,000.00.
Pre May 2007 ASB had a points value of 251, a band of 4B and an allowance of
£25,041.00.
Post May 2007 that changed to: points 350; band 4C and allowance £30,000.00.
So, if things stay as they are (and I doubt that very much), congratulations to
Cllr Leitch on the promotion (good time to sort out the parks constabulary
fiasco), and commiseration to Cllr Corbett.
Nearly a month on from the Council's AGM and still no sign of the new
portfolios for Corbett and Leitch.
I heard a whisper (from a current Labour councillor) that Cllr McAuley has lost
his regeneration portfolio, or is about to - there's no indication that this is
so on the website. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it just a rumour?
Or was it made up?
Still no sign of the Portfolios - how can Cllrs Leitch and Corbett have any
idea of what the Mayor expects of them? Surely they must be quaking in their
boots, worrying about what it is that they will need to do to satisfy the
criteria for achieving top marks in their respective member performance
monitoring revues (which the Mayor was keen to implement because it is an
effective way to measure how councillors he promotes are performing; not, as
some suspected, a means to denigrate and enforce the de-selection of Labour
councillors he does not favour).
On Sunday I submitted a FOIA request asking for:
"The current portfolios for the following Mayoral Advisors positions with the
up-to-date points values [none of which appear on the Council's website] -
Executive Member for Public Realm
Deputy Executive Adviser - Community Participation
Executive Member for Anti-Social Behaviour
Deputy Executive Adviser - Special Projects
Deputy Executive Adviser, Community Forums (Legal)"
I was sent a reply which informed me that I would get a response before the
27th of next month - odd that. More so as one would assume the portfolios would
be readily available; especially as some of the "advisers" have been in post
for well over a year. And is it not odd that there are elected members rewarded
with posts that we can safely assume the Mayor thinks are important to his
effective governance of Newham, yet the portfolios that explain exactly what
those post entail are not readily on hand?
Or is it that these are just airy-fairy titles, fabricated to give lucrative
jobs to the lacklustre and the loyal?
Will let you know when I get a response to my FOIA request.
Another week and still no sign of the portfolios.
I guess that drafting one is a time consuming process.
Got a response today (of sorts). Here it is: "Dear Mr Law In reference to your Freedom of Information Enquiry - E2582: Information Requested: Subject: Mayoral Advisors. The current portfolios for the following Mayoral Advisors positions with the up-to-date points values [none of which appear on the Council's website] - Executive Member for Public Realm Deputy Executive Adviser - Community Participation Executive Member for Anti-Social Behaviour Deputy Executive Adviser - Special Projects Deputy Executive Adviser, Community Forums (Legal) This information is available through the following link to our website: http://www.newham.gov.uk/Services/YourRepresentatives/ Please click on individual councillor details for a link to portfolios. The names of the portfolio holders mentioned in your enquiry are as follows: Executive Member for Public Realm: Cllr Ian Corbett Deputy Executive Adviser - Community Participation: Cllr Rohima Rahman Executive Member for Anti-Social Behaviour: Cllr June Leitch Deputy Executive Adviser - Special Projects: Cllr Jonathan Knott Deputy Executive Adviser, Community Forums (Legal): Cllr Simon Tucker Regards...." I responded with the following: "Dear Ms xxxxxxx, Thank you for this but I must ask, have you tried the link yourself? For that matter, did you actually read my information request? I did point out that the information requested is not on the Council's web site. I followed the link you provided as follows: on clicking the link supplied I was moved to the respective web page I clicked on the link titled "Councillors" (under the photo of the mayor) and was transferred to this page: http://www.newham.gov.uk/Services/YourRepresentatives/AboutUs/councillors.htm Here I clicked on the link "Find information about your councillor" which produced the following page: http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.asp?bcr=1 On this page I clicked on the links for councillors Corbett, Leitch, Knott, Rahman and Tucker (the URLs for each are as follows: http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=196&J=1 [Corbett] http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=1953&J=1 [Knott] http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=215&J=1 [Leitch] http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=1946&J=1 [Rahman] http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=1955&J=1 [Tucker]) None have a portfolio for the respective positions of each councillor; you can make a comparison with the following: http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=199&J=1 [Community Intelligence - my personal favourite portfolio] Would you please supply me with the information I have requested and would you do so by the 27th of this month as is required under the provisions of the relevant legislation. Thank you. Mike Law" It will be interesting to see if the portfolios I have requested can be drafted by the 27th.
Oh dear... I made a shameful mistake, can be seen by this response I got to my
e-mail:
"Dear Mr Law
I did read your information request and check the links before sending my
response; the information is available on the website via the link I attached.
Can I suggest that you scroll down the page for each member to the section
entitled 'responsibilities' where you will find the portfolio for each,
helpfully entitled 'portfolio'.
Regards"
Stupidly, I was too quick to assume that I was being given the run-around. I
responded thus:
"Dear Ms xxxxx,
My sincerest apologies; I should have scrolled down on the page as you so
helpfully point out. However, I was working on the assumption (foolishly) that
there would be some consistency in the layout of Council web pages that convey
information about councillors - so as not to confuse ordinary members of the
public like myself.
Interestingly, your invaluable assistance with regard to my navigation of the
Council's web pages has prompted one further question: when were the five web
pages concerned up-dated?
I accept that this new question may require that you treat it as a new FOIA
request for information. Should that be the case, I would be very grateful if
you would supply me with a reference number and an expected response date.
Once again, I apologies for not having faith in thoroughness your original
response and I thank you for providing the information I requested.
Regards,
Mike Law"
However, I was right that Corbett's and Leitch's job swap didn't go as far as
an exchange of allowances. I'll do a quick study of the old and new portfolios
to see if there are any changes that realistically warrant such dramatic
revisions of the respective allowances.... but isn't it convenient that both
now have exactly the same allowances and portfolio point score they had in
their previous portfolios?
It's highly probable that I'm the only person who posts in this forum who can
be bothered to take the time to investigate the bizarre way the Mayor doles out
portfolios and allowances, but I hope the following will be of interest to
some.
I've looked at the old portfolios for ASB and Public Realm and compared them
with the new portfolios that have appeared on the Council's web site. Each set
have the same basic structure in so far as they list the points value, the time
expectation of the portfolio, the overall aims and the regular tasks expected
of the portfolio holder.
The older portfolios are wordier than the new portfolios but, as far as I can
make out, the basic substance is the same in each set.
However, the most interesting comparison is to be made between the two new
portfolios for ASB and Public Realm. The overall aims for each, although
written to have some bearing on the portfolio in question, are remarkably
similar to those in the other portfolio. More interesting is the fact that,
with regard to the "regular tasks", the portfolios are identical except for the
following tasks in the Public Realm portfolio:
Take part in the preparation of agendas for relevant Mayoral Strategy meetings.
Take responsibility for ensuring all action points are implemented.
To take part in regular ‘executive reviews’ of council services.
Having taken the above into consideration, apart from the fact that the new
portfolios seem to have "watered down" the responsibilities for the portfolio
holders (and as such support an argument for a reduction in the points values
and allowances of each), I can see nothing in the new portfolios that warrant
such dramatic changes in the respective points values and allowances of each.
As the two portfolio holders have effectively swapped jobs and kept the points
values and allowances that went with the previous portfolio, it is logical to
conclude that the allowances are not a measure of the portfolio but are the
value the Mayor has placed on the individual in receipt of the allowance.
As bad as that may seem, I expect nothing more of this current administration.
However, what is most worrying is the possibility that, if my conclusion is
true, some council officers are in collusion with this "nose in the trough"
system of dishing out public funds. Shameful!
2008/7/23 Mike Law <mikelaw_per@yahoo.co.uk>: > It's highly probable that I'm the only person who posts in this forum Seems to be getting that way. Andy Roberts http://distributedresearch.net/blog/
Andy,
It is a bit of a shame... when I was on the Council and this forum was first
put to elected members I thought it would be a great way for Joe (and
Josephine) Public to interact with the great and good in Newham.
I've been told by some that it's the "negative" comments that put people off
posting. My immediate response is "Define negative" and "What people?"
If by "people" the reference is to elected members, they're never going to get
active on a forum like this as they cannot control the content.
As for "negative" comments: it's only right that individuals should be able to
post criticism of the Authority here; after all, it is supposed to be a
"Democracy" forum. And, as we are all well aware, all the "positives" are well
documented in the Newham Mag and that other great promoter of all things that
is Sir Robin Wales, the Newham Recorder.
If my postings about the fact that the current administration is a self
serving, self promoting, self congratulating gravy train for the Mayor and his
acolytes upsets, offends, bores or irritates so be it. I don't make the stuff
up: it's all there to be told and this is as good a vehicle as any to do the
telling.
From Rod Liddle in this weeks Spectator
"" Once elected a Local Council automaticaly become self-important
amd incompetent ""
The present Newham Council perhaps.
I put in a request to the Council asking when the portfolios appeared on the
Council's website. I got this today:
"Dear Mr Law
The portfolios were posted on the 21st July. The reason that there was a delay
and that they are posted in a different area is that the person who normally
posts documents to the democratic section of the website was on leave - his
colleague's access levels means that he can only post on certain sections of
the website . Thus the positioning was not designed to confuse as your email
seems to imply.
Interestingly, your FOI inquiry alerted us to a glitch in the system used to
upload information (modern.gov). For reasons entirely outside of my technical
understanding the system had reverted to old portfolio postings (from 2006/07 I
believe) - this was evident from the format of the reports and from the fact
that certain portfolios e.g. Cllr Tucker's, were missing. Apparently the
suppliers of modern.gov have now corrected the glitch that caused this. In
addition, the correct portfolios have been posted - I should add that when you
click on them you will see that the portfolio banding is missing - these should
be available next week (annual leave again, I'm afraid).
Regards"
A few points:
1/ The portfolios appeared on the website the same day I got my respose;
2/ The jobs were swapped in May... 2 Month Annual leave in one hit?
3/ Different levels of access to the website... what happens if the chap who is
on leave quits the Council?
4/ Reverting to old portfolio postings... I've checked these pages regularly
for the last two years and the only change I've seen has been on the 21st of
this month when the five portfolios I requested had been added.
You can draw your own conclusions.
I see in yesterday's Standard that all three of our MPs will be getting a 9.4
percent pay rise... good for them!
This increase will move them that much further from truly understanding the
financial hardships that face their constituents. As a result, they will have
to work that much harder to fully comprehend the day-to-day struggle facing
those families in Newham that have children living in poverty. Therefore, it is
logical to conclude that, as they will have to make that much more of an
effort, their pay rise should be in excess of 10 percent next year. Hurrah!!
Now, now Mike and all We must remember that at this time of year our hard working Members of Parliament are on 'Summer Recess', all 76 days of it, to 'meet with their constituants'. So they will be only too aware by now what hardships are faced my the man, and woman on the Clapham omnibus. Of course if you want to get away from meeting your MP's approaches to tell him/her your economic woes, you could do no worse than book a few tours of Parliament... you wont see an MP anywhere. I'm surprised our MP's have not joined in the Beijing free for all with the Borough Mayors and their chums, but with an extra 9.4% to play with perhaps they have better places to spend their extended holiday... I mean recess, and hard earched cash n expenses. Source: http://www.parliament.uk/about/visiting/summer_opening.cfm