8 Responses to “Alan Wells on IW Radio Phone-In”

1. Freddie says:

   3, July 2008 at 1:01 pm

   So there we have it!
   The DEFINITIVE answer from Cllr. Wells.
   The officers run the council. Councillors are there just “to guide them”.

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
2. Farmersboy says:

   3, July 2008 at 3:09 pm

   Then why don’t we elect the officers instead

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
3. Bertie says:

   3, July 2008 at 3:41 pm

   FB, because in theory, the officers are our employees. I say in theory, because in practice they, like the police, have this unique set-up whereby although they are paid by us, they are not answerable to us.
   For example, if you had a complaint against an officer of the council, it will be investigated by…………a fellow officer, usually his line manager, who will naturally find nothing wrong and so on ad infinitum up the food scale until you reach someone like dear departed Joe Egg, who will also find nothing wrong. Then you could go to the LGO (ombudsman) who MAY find something wrong and deliver what he/she considers a stinging rebuke, but which is in fact a token slap on the wrist with a possible small fine of £200.
   People are rightly cynical of such a situation, but cannot be bothered to persevere. Their lives are too busy, whatever.
   What you need is some crotchety old git who will not give up, has reasonable financial backing and a good lawyer. Any ideas?

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
4. L Pinkerton says:

   3, July 2008 at 10:01 pm

   Bertie,
   No hard feelings but a lot of that is wrong. Unlike central government officers cannot be directed on a person to person basis. This is done via chief officers who take responsibility for their directorate or department. Officers are disciplined both internally and externally (via say the Ombudsman) and if found to be in the wrong receive warnings, final warnings, are sacked – whatever is appropriate. Verbal and other warnings are issued as in any other workplace. What is true is that members set down the policy and officers (try to) make it work. Where problems arise is where members have a general idea of what they want to do but not much idea of the detail of how this will happen or the implications. This is where a member on his or her own in public can easily step outside their knowledge base, particularly when questioned closely if they do not make sure they are properly briefed first. In my 40 plus years in local government I have found most officers to be honest hard working people and a few who I thought were not. The second small group are those best avoided if you can.

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
5. L Pinkerton says:

   3, July 2008 at 10:16 pm

   Apologies, let me insert a word in the above: ‘Unlike central government officers cannot be directed on a person to person basis by politicians.’

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
6. Bertie says:

   4, July 2008 at 7:56 am

   Pinkie, no hard feelings held. I yield to your many years of experience and welcome your input.
   Two points arise from your reply.
   Firstly, I would draw your attention to the fact that were it not for the perseverance of 3 local residents, we would still be paying those officers involved in the Undercliff Drive scandal. It was clear from an early stage that responsibility for wrongdoing would be denied right the way up the chain and those involved were still protesting as they were shown the door.
   Secondly, I accept your contention that Councillors are unable to address any suspicions of wrongdoing by officers.
   This is surely wrong, as Councillors can be and are reported to the Standards Board by officers, yet no reciprocal arrangement exists. Which leads me to conclude that the only way to get any action taken against errant officers is by legal proceedings instigated by residents.
   However, what I find the most unacceptable is that having given a public promise that a certain course of action would happen, Councillors then renege on that promise and ignore emails, letters etc., but will still be expecting support when the next election comes around.

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
7. L Pinkerton says:

   4, July 2008 at 8:41 am

   Bertie,

   I agree with your first point and any sensible officer should welcome sensible intervention from residents. Often it produces a compromise which can be an agreed basis on which to proceed as when there are differences in opinion there are usually shades of grey rather than everything being black and white. Very seldom is officer or resident totally correct.

   Councillors can address suspicions as to wrongdoing by officers but via the officer’s chief officer and not directly. Chief officers are generally dealt with by a group of councillors with a reserved group of councillors who can be held away from the particular problem in order to hear any appeal.
   I agree that whether the different processes for councillors and officers are fair is open to debate and opinion.

   I suppose what I want to stress is that it is vital that an officer remains politically neutral in his/ her work and in talking to councillors however that officer votes in elections. Almost always they do. I agree that any letter or email that is sent to the Council should receive a reply and regret that some do not.

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment
8. James P says:

   6, July 2008 at 8:16 pm

   I recommend the letter from Jonathan Bacon in the current CP (July 4th), where he is apparently looking for suitable job applicants. I gather that Cllr. Wells has taken exception to it, although it doesn’t appear to mention him or his friend, Pughnoccio. Guilty conscience, perhaps…

   (Report comment)

   Reply to this comment