City of York Council pays top official Sarah Tanburn £700 a day

Sarah Tanburn

Sarah Tanburn

Updated in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

CITY of York Council has come under fire for paying almost £3,000 a week to a top official to shepherd the controversial Local Plan through the planning process.

The council has been slammed for appointing an interim director on £700 a day for a year, following the departure of its last City and Environmental Services director in March.

Sarah Tanburn started work on May 6, with responsibilities including the oversight of the Local Plan until it goes before a Government inspector later this year.

But now a Freedom of Information request has forced the council to reveal details of the four-day-a-week contract of Ms Tanburn, which show she will be paid £700 per day, the equivalent of £130,000 over 47 weeks a year. Opposition councillors have slammed what they call profligacy and lack of transparency in decisions about the appointment.

Labour and City of York Council defended the position, with chief executive Kersten England saying the council needed to find someone with the necessary expertise.

Conservative leader Cllr Chris Steward said: “This appointment was made through the so-called ‘interim market’ whereby a small number of candidates are available at maximum rates for short-term executive appointments. Quite frankly, in this day and age there are better and more cost-effective ways to find a talented individual to fill this type of position until a permanent director can be appointed.”

The FOI documents show just six applications were received for the job, and only three people interviewed.

The Liberal Democrat’s Cllr Keith Aspden said: “With frontline services being cut for residents, many will wonder how this wage can be justified. What is perhaps even more concerning though is that the details of the wage have only come to light after a resident submitted an FOI request.

“At the very least we need a more open and transparent approach.”

The FOI documents also show the decision to appoint Ms Tanburn was taken by council chief executive Kersten England, and Cllr Steward has hit out at the fact elected councillors were not consulted.

He said: “Surely, if this position is important enough to attract a per diem fee of £700 it is important enough to deserve the transparency that comes with the involvement of elected councillors.

“We’re afraid CYC have erred badly in this instance, and this episode shows Labour’s total contempt for York residents’ hard earned money.”

The council has defended Ms Tanburn’s appointment, saying they needed to find someone with expertise in the area of local plans.

Kersten England said: “There are times when it is necessary to utilise external expertise; when we do not have the expertise internally or to ensure that the delivery of our services continue when a vacancy arises. This is always subject to the proper procurement processes, undertaken with value for money in mind and on this occasion under the authority delegated to me under the constitution.”

The previous City and Environmental Services director, Darren Richardson, was appointed in July 2012, on a reported salary of between £88,000 and £102,000. He announced his departure in March to take up a post with Orkney Islands Council.

A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced.

 

Comments (138)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:19am Wed 18 Jun 14

TheTruthHurts says...

So this local plan has already cost us over £1million the cost is just going up and the chances of the blooming thing getting approved is slim to nothing so the bill for this is starting to get seriously out of hand.
So this local plan has already cost us over £1million the cost is just going up and the chances of the blooming thing getting approved is slim to nothing so the bill for this is starting to get seriously out of hand. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 79

9:37am Wed 18 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

It shows, and sadly all employees that they are not able to gain higher appointment's, and £700 a DAY . Is this on par with European Parliaments etc, the use or misuse of Tax Payers Monies. City and Environmental Services director, more like. Oh and what is Sarah Tanburn we wounder.

Kersten England seems to be getting herself into the Target Line. £700 wound surly pay for all the Park Wardens for a year. or fix a fair number of Pot Holes.
It shows, and sadly all employees that they are not able to gain higher appointment's, and £700 a DAY . Is this on par with European Parliaments etc, the use or misuse of Tax Payers Monies. City and Environmental Services director, more like. Oh and what is Sarah Tanburn we wounder. Kersten England seems to be getting herself into the Target Line. £700 wound surly pay for all the Park Wardens for a year. or fix a fair number of Pot Holes. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 64

9:39am Wed 18 Jun 14

Outsidein says...

If the Council have not made the shambolic appointment of Darren Richardson and "lost" experienced Assistant Directors in this service then they would not be in this mess.
If the Council have not made the shambolic appointment of Darren Richardson and "lost" experienced Assistant Directors in this service then they would not be in this mess. Outsidein
  • Score: 65

9:41am Wed 18 Jun 14

nowthen says...

A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ! nowthen
  • Score: 66

9:46am Wed 18 Jun 14

courier46 says...

The local plan is not just monetary costs it`s the damage it is going to do to York,and to get someone on that sort of money to implement it is a disgrace.
These people (most times) are no better than joe bloggs who works at any (normal) paid job and more often than not make huge mistakes but seem to come out it it smelling of roses.More council mistakes ,how long before there out!
The local plan is not just monetary costs it`s the damage it is going to do to York,and to get someone on that sort of money to implement it is a disgrace. These people (most times) are no better than joe bloggs who works at any (normal) paid job and more often than not make huge mistakes but seem to come out it it smelling of roses.More council mistakes ,how long before there out! courier46
  • Score: 64

9:51am Wed 18 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater. pedalling paul
  • Score: -73

9:52am Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Plus expenses.
Plus expenses. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 57

9:56am Wed 18 Jun 14

Mrs P123 says...

If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???
If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out??? Mrs P123
  • Score: -24

9:57am Wed 18 Jun 14

courier46 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
Since when have these idiots been bothered with legal costs,it`s not there money!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]Since when have these idiots been bothered with legal costs,it`s not there money! courier46
  • Score: 63

10:00am Wed 18 Jun 14

courier46 says...

Mrs P123 wrote:
If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???
That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.
[quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???[/p][/quote]That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick. courier46
  • Score: 61

10:15am Wed 18 Jun 14

Mrs P123 says...

courier46 wrote:
Mrs P123 wrote:
If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???
That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.
It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???[/p][/quote]That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.[/p][/quote]It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over. Mrs P123
  • Score: -27

10:24am Wed 18 Jun 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Disgusting waste of public money.
Disgusting waste of public money. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: 55

10:29am Wed 18 Jun 14

julia brica says...

She needs £700 a day to carry all that " baggage " with her from Brighton.
It doesn't take long on google to see what an utter shambles Brighton is in.
Well done Sarah. Now lets see what a mess you can make of York.
The James gang have made a good start.
She needs £700 a day to carry all that " baggage " with her from Brighton. It doesn't take long on google to see what an utter shambles Brighton is in. Well done Sarah. Now lets see what a mess you can make of York. The James gang have made a good start. julia brica
  • Score: 57

10:51am Wed 18 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

No one in public service should earn more than the prime minister (from whichever party) Full Stop.
No one in public service should earn more than the prime minister (from whichever party) Full Stop. nearlyman
  • Score: 58

10:57am Wed 18 Jun 14

again says...

Unfortunately whilst the Press has reported this story it has done so without intelligence.

Could the reporter not have given a bit more information about what this individual is required to achieve and consequences of failure?

It's very easy to rabble-rouse in this day and age, much easier than taking the trouble to tell the whole story.

As for Brighton, it is "the third highest ranked place on the UK Vitality Index Report, which measures the economic strength of towns and cities in the United Kingdom. It was "among the top performing towns and cities on almost all" of the 20 measures used by the index". And that is 'a shambles"?
Unfortunately whilst the Press has reported this story it has done so without intelligence. Could the reporter not have given a bit more information about what this individual is required to achieve and consequences of failure? It's very easy to rabble-rouse in this day and age, much easier than taking the trouble to tell the whole story. As for Brighton, it is "the third highest ranked place on the UK Vitality Index Report, which measures the economic strength of towns and cities in the United Kingdom. It was "among the top performing towns and cities on almost all" of the 20 measures used by the index". And that is 'a shambles"? again
  • Score: -21

11:24am Wed 18 Jun 14

Dr Brian says...

Is Kirsten England accountable to anybody? She seems to be way out of touch with the City rate payers. But I suppose she is in a very well paid job . Reading her Twitter feed she seems to ponce about at a lot of meetings oh and waffle about the Tour De France.

As for Jimmy and his mates defending this, just 10 and a half months to go before this Council Leader is ousted taking the other clowns with him!
Is Kirsten England accountable to anybody? She seems to be way out of touch with the City rate payers. But I suppose she is in a very well paid job . Reading her Twitter feed she seems to ponce about at a lot of meetings oh and waffle about the Tour De France. As for Jimmy and his mates defending this, just 10 and a half months to go before this Council Leader is ousted taking the other clowns with him! Dr Brian
  • Score: 61

11:28am Wed 18 Jun 14

madsally123@gmail.com says...

Karen Smurthwaite,
I live in a city of york council house, I an disabled from birth with cerebral palay, I have to sleep downstairs on the sofa because the council say they can not a ford to move me and my family to a house which is more suitable to my disability, BLOODY DISGUSTING
Karen Smurthwaite, I live in a city of york council house, I an disabled from birth with cerebral palay, I have to sleep downstairs on the sofa because the council say they can not a ford to move me and my family to a house which is more suitable to my disability, BLOODY DISGUSTING madsally123@gmail.com
  • Score: 47

11:30am Wed 18 Jun 14

eeoodares says...

again wrote:
Unfortunately whilst the Press has reported this story it has done so without intelligence.

Could the reporter not have given a bit more information about what this individual is required to achieve and consequences of failure?

It's very easy to rabble-rouse in this day and age, much easier than taking the trouble to tell the whole story.

As for Brighton, it is "the third highest ranked place on the UK Vitality Index Report, which measures the economic strength of towns and cities in the United Kingdom. It was "among the top performing towns and cities on almost all" of the 20 measures used by the index". And that is 'a shambles"?
A popular seaside town on the commuter route to London....yeah, must be struggling!
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately whilst the Press has reported this story it has done so without intelligence. Could the reporter not have given a bit more information about what this individual is required to achieve and consequences of failure? It's very easy to rabble-rouse in this day and age, much easier than taking the trouble to tell the whole story. As for Brighton, it is "the third highest ranked place on the UK Vitality Index Report, which measures the economic strength of towns and cities in the United Kingdom. It was "among the top performing towns and cities on almost all" of the 20 measures used by the index". And that is 'a shambles"?[/p][/quote]A popular seaside town on the commuter route to London....yeah, must be struggling! eeoodares
  • Score: 26

11:36am Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

1,386.7% more than minimum wage (Daily Rate) annualised £130,000.

Min Wage = £50.48 per 8 hour day.

NHS Consultant £73,403.00 to £98,962.00, Sarah Tanburn valued at almost the same as 2 NHS Consultants on lower rate.

Specialist Nurse £29,091- £38,352 Sarah Tanburn valued at almost the same as 4.5 NHS Specialist Nurses on lower rate.

There is something seriously wrong with the pay structure.
1,386.7% more than minimum wage (Daily Rate) annualised £130,000. Min Wage = £50.48 per 8 hour day. NHS Consultant £73,403.00 to £98,962.00, Sarah Tanburn valued at almost the same as 2 NHS Consultants on lower rate. Specialist Nurse £29,091- £38,352 Sarah Tanburn valued at almost the same as 4.5 NHS Specialist Nurses on lower rate. There is something seriously wrong with the pay structure. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 60

11:37am Wed 18 Jun 14

yorkandproud says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
"Coach and horse driven through it","melting pot",""yardstick", "field day", nouce and clout" good grief PP you are turning into "cliche man"
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]"Coach and horse driven through it","melting pot",""yardstick", "field day", nouce and clout" good grief PP you are turning into "cliche man" yorkandproud
  • Score: 49

11:39am Wed 18 Jun 14

Dr Brian says...

Just looking at Sarah Tanburn Associates web site she says

"Sarah is available in the United Kingdom for shorter and off-site consultancy projects. A text or phone call will be the fastest way to reach her"

I do hope she will be devoting her full time to our City whilst she is drawing her £700 a day from our rates and not using the day to tout for other business at our expense!
Just looking at Sarah Tanburn Associates web site she says "Sarah is available in the United Kingdom for shorter and off-site consultancy projects. A text or phone call will be the fastest way to reach her" I do hope she will be devoting her full time to our City whilst she is drawing her £700 a day from our rates and not using the day to tout for other business at our expense! Dr Brian
  • Score: 53

11:46am Wed 18 Jun 14

RingoStarr says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Just looking at Sarah Tanburn Associates web site she says

"Sarah is available in the United Kingdom for shorter and off-site consultancy projects. A text or phone call will be the fastest way to reach her"

I do hope she will be devoting her full time to our City whilst she is drawing her £700 a day from our rates and not using the day to tout for other business at our expense!
Well spotted!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Just looking at Sarah Tanburn Associates web site she says "Sarah is available in the United Kingdom for shorter and off-site consultancy projects. A text or phone call will be the fastest way to reach her" I do hope she will be devoting her full time to our City whilst she is drawing her £700 a day from our rates and not using the day to tout for other business at our expense![/p][/quote]Well spotted! RingoStarr
  • Score: 48

11:51am Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted!

According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan.

Her experience is varied, and includes;

*strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation.

*Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex

She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:-

Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr
The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin.

Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr
People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now.

The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York!

BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days.

Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted! According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan. Her experience is varied, and includes; *strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation. *Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:- Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin. Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now. The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York! BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days. Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 47

11:54am Wed 18 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

Another socialist who thinks/ demands more money than the average working man/woman.
No doubt shacked up in er..clementhrpe/ or the new name ...bishy road.or even barmby ont marsh...you know...how.s about car shareing with the other york council employee out there...save US a few bob....
Another socialist who thinks/ demands more money than the average working man/woman. No doubt shacked up in er..clementhrpe/ or the new name ...bishy road.or even barmby ont marsh...you know...how.s about car shareing with the other york council employee out there...save US a few bob.... piaggio1
  • Score: 40

12:10pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

julia brica wrote:
She needs £700 a day to carry all that " baggage " with her from Brighton. It doesn't take long on google to see what an utter shambles Brighton is in. Well done Sarah. Now lets see what a mess you can make of York. The James gang have made a good start.
She did a stint in Brighton, but, is travelling from Norwich at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: She needs £700 a day to carry all that " baggage " with her from Brighton. It doesn't take long on google to see what an utter shambles Brighton is in. Well done Sarah. Now lets see what a mess you can make of York. The James gang have made a good start.[/p][/quote]She did a stint in Brighton, but, is travelling from Norwich at the moment. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 24

12:27pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Sarah Tanburn is also a sailer, writer and blogger?!!!

In an interview about her writing, she said,

'...most years I spend four to six months travelling...'

http://morgenbailey.
wordpress.com/2011/0
9/17/blog-interview-
no-129-with-author-s
arah-tanburn/

Seems that this lady has so many interests, that it's a wonder she has time to do any work?
Sarah Tanburn is also a sailer, writer and blogger?!!! In an interview about her writing, she said, '...most years I spend four to six months travelling...' http://morgenbailey. wordpress.com/2011/0 9/17/blog-interview- no-129-with-author-s arah-tanburn/ Seems that this lady has so many interests, that it's a wonder she has time to do any work? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 34

12:27pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along. holden79
  • Score: -52

12:29pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Zetkin says...

No surprise that Labour rushes to defend another over-paid bureaucrats.

No surprise that the Tories and their LibDem lapdogs rush to condemn the pay, even though they (and we) know fine well they are more than happy to make rich people richer in the same way when it suits them.

All three parties are guilty of shamelessly enriching their cronies whilst slashing the jobs and services the rest of us depend upon.
No surprise that Labour rushes to defend another over-paid bureaucrats. No surprise that the Tories and their LibDem lapdogs rush to condemn the pay, even though they (and we) know fine well they are more than happy to make rich people richer in the same way when it suits them. All three parties are guilty of shamelessly enriching their cronies whilst slashing the jobs and services the rest of us depend upon. Zetkin
  • Score: 31

12:30pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Stevie D says...

nowthen wrote:
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds. Stevie D
  • Score: -17

12:37pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Another quote from Sarah Tanburn's interview...

" I sail, spending (most years) between four and six months a year cruising in the Mediterranean....."

Nice work for a champagne socialist!
Another quote from Sarah Tanburn's interview... " I sail, spending (most years) between four and six months a year cruising in the Mediterranean....." Nice work for a champagne socialist! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 53

12:38pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote:
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D.

The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them. holden79
  • Score: 8

12:58pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these?

the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving.

Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc....

They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 15

1:21pm Wed 18 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

4/6months in tbe med???

My god .an i thought only the tory/rich mob did this.
Don.t go on about how cost effective this is ..this is one big scam...an the taxpayers r payin for it.....
4/6months in tbe med??? My god .an i thought only the tory/rich mob did this. Don.t go on about how cost effective this is ..this is one big scam...an the taxpayers r payin for it..... piaggio1
  • Score: 33

1:23pm Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 39

1:28pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.
After a bit more research on Sarah Tanburn, I found that she had advised Geoff Mulgan in 1996 on a paper he wrote for marxist think-tank Demos.

The piece was about 'DELFI' which stands for Devolving Local Finance Initiative, which basically proposes powers for Local Authorities to raise more money locally from taxation to use on services.

Isn't it amazing that here we are in 2014, and the same devolution agenda is being pushed by James Alexander, Kersten england and their WYCA mates?

I think Ms Tanburn has been brought in for other reasons than the Local Plan, and no doubt her connections with Geoff Mulgan, who is chief executive of Nesta, where Kersten England is a trustee, were an important factor in her appointment. Nesta are involved with many 'initiatives' at York Council, and I'm sure that Ms Tanburn will be getting very involved with these behind the scenes!!!
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]After a bit more research on Sarah Tanburn, I found that she had advised Geoff Mulgan in 1996 on a paper he wrote for marxist think-tank Demos. The piece was about 'DELFI' which stands for Devolving Local Finance Initiative, which basically proposes powers for Local Authorities to raise more money locally from taxation to use on services. Isn't it amazing that here we are in 2014, and the same devolution agenda is being pushed by James Alexander, Kersten england and their WYCA mates? I think Ms Tanburn has been brought in for other reasons than the Local Plan, and no doubt her connections with Geoff Mulgan, who is chief executive of Nesta, where Kersten England is a trustee, were an important factor in her appointment. Nesta are involved with many 'initiatives' at York Council, and I'm sure that Ms Tanburn will be getting very involved with these behind the scenes!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 42

1:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

jay, york says...

nowthen wrote:
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
It's the typical labour response though - it doesnt matter what the blinding obvious truth is, we will just tell eveyone that they are wrong and we are right.- of course they will believe us cos what we say is always right.
Another example - heard little jimmy live on Radio York this morning. The point put to him was about Lendal Bridge being a failuire - his response - "no it was a success".
Buit how can this council afford to pay this tanburn woman such an extortionate salary - when all the time they keep telling they do not have enough money to do what they need to do? No doubt a similar excuse as to why they pay the extortionate amounts to implement the ridsiculous blanket 20mph speed limits across the whole of York.
To me this sounds like
1 - a desparation tactic
2- an admission of failure - we do not have anyuone within our organisation who can handle it
3- a get out clause when it all goes wrong- please sir it wasnt us - it was this tanburn woman we "bought in" as she told us she could could do it.
Is there any wonder no-one trusts this labour council any more!
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]It's the typical labour response though - it doesnt matter what the blinding obvious truth is, we will just tell eveyone that they are wrong and we are right.- of course they will believe us cos what we say is always right. Another example - heard little jimmy live on Radio York this morning. The point put to him was about Lendal Bridge being a failuire - his response - "no it was a success". Buit how can this council afford to pay this tanburn woman such an extortionate salary - when all the time they keep telling they do not have enough money to do what they need to do? No doubt a similar excuse as to why they pay the extortionate amounts to implement the ridsiculous blanket 20mph speed limits across the whole of York. To me this sounds like 1 - a desparation tactic 2- an admission of failure - we do not have anyuone within our organisation who can handle it 3- a get out clause when it all goes wrong- please sir it wasnt us - it was this tanburn woman we "bought in" as she told us she could could do it. Is there any wonder no-one trusts this labour council any more! jay, york
  • Score: 30

1:59pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Dave Taylor says...

All the employees who have lost their jobs in Council cuts must be seething at Labour again shovelling money into the pockets of the most highly-paid Directors. It's not long ago that a £12,000 'market supplement' was added to another top job, while the Council asks citizens to come and volunteer to do work for free. Labour's motto appears to be, "to (s)he who hath shall be given more..."
All the employees who have lost their jobs in Council cuts must be seething at Labour again shovelling money into the pockets of the most highly-paid Directors. It's not long ago that a £12,000 'market supplement' was added to another top job, while the Council asks citizens to come and volunteer to do work for free. Labour's motto appears to be, "to (s)he who hath shall be given more..." Dave Taylor
  • Score: 47

2:02pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Pleased to see that the score hacker hasn't got to the scores yet.... !!!
Pleased to see that the score hacker hasn't got to the scores yet.... !!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 24

2:03pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995. holden79
  • Score: -29

2:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 20

2:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

andrew flower says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Disgusting waste of public money.
Typical of Alexander and his cronies. They make FIFA look tranparent.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: Disgusting waste of public money.[/p][/quote]Typical of Alexander and his cronies. They make FIFA look tranparent. andrew flower
  • Score: 43

2:16pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Stevie D says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

These things go in cycles. I have no idea what the senior management structure under Darren Richardson was like, but to say that it's an automatic failure because no-one was ready to step into his shoes is just obtuse. It may be that other senior managers were nearing retirement, or had only just been appointed to that role, or simply didn't want the extra responsibility and workload.

And even if one of them had been able to step up to the role, they would have had to have had their job backfilled, which either means promoting someone else or bringing in someone new as a senior manager. And so on down the line.

It isn't always in a company's best interests to promote from within all the time. Sometimes you need the fresh perspective and new ideas that come from someone who has worked elsewhere, rather than people who have spent all their time in the same place.
[quote][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.[/quote] These things go in cycles. I have no idea what the senior management structure under Darren Richardson was like, but to say that it's an automatic failure because no-one was ready to step into his shoes is just obtuse. It may be that other senior managers were nearing retirement, or had only just been appointed to that role, or simply didn't want the extra responsibility and workload. And even if one of them had been able to step up to the role, they would have had to have had their job backfilled, which either means promoting someone else or bringing in someone new as a senior manager. And so on down the line. It isn't always in a company's best interests to promote from within all the time. Sometimes you need the fresh perspective and new ideas that come from someone who has worked elsewhere, rather than people who have spent all their time in the same place. Stevie D
  • Score: -19

2:22pm Wed 18 Jun 14

wallman says...

If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council.
If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council. wallman
  • Score: 24

2:36pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

wallman wrote:
If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council.
That will depend on your political ideology, and your gender?!!!
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council.[/p][/quote]That will depend on your political ideology, and your gender?!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 27

3:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

Stevie D wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

These things go in cycles. I have no idea what the senior management structure under Darren Richardson was like, but to say that it's an automatic failure because no-one was ready to step into his shoes is just obtuse. It may be that other senior managers were nearing retirement, or had only just been appointed to that role, or simply didn't want the extra responsibility and workload.

And even if one of them had been able to step up to the role, they would have had to have had their job backfilled, which either means promoting someone else or bringing in someone new as a senior manager. And so on down the line.

It isn't always in a company's best interests to promote from within all the time. Sometimes you need the fresh perspective and new ideas that come from someone who has worked elsewhere, rather than people who have spent all their time in the same place.
Lots of things can go in cycles..............
.......
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.[/quote] These things go in cycles. I have no idea what the senior management structure under Darren Richardson was like, but to say that it's an automatic failure because no-one was ready to step into his shoes is just obtuse. It may be that other senior managers were nearing retirement, or had only just been appointed to that role, or simply didn't want the extra responsibility and workload. And even if one of them had been able to step up to the role, they would have had to have had their job backfilled, which either means promoting someone else or bringing in someone new as a senior manager. And so on down the line. It isn't always in a company's best interests to promote from within all the time. Sometimes you need the fresh perspective and new ideas that come from someone who has worked elsewhere, rather than people who have spent all their time in the same place.[/p][/quote]Lots of things can go in cycles.............. ....... pedalling paul
  • Score: -28

4:52pm Wed 18 Jun 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

simply unbelievable........
....it's rancid
simply unbelievable........ ....it's rancid thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: 13

4:56pm Wed 18 Jun 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I have worked with many consultants over the years and apart from specialist engineering consultants have not found one yet who is worth more than 50p per day. My experience of them is that they come in mooch around picking everybody's brains taking their ideas, They then translate these into a glossy report, as they have so much time and nothing else to do, then present the ides as their own which are quickly taken up by the people who hired them. They then disappear and when it all goes horribly wrong the management who are the ones being paid to make the decisions they hired the consultant to make can say twas not us twas the consultant. So worth every penny then if you can avoid doing your job and taking responsibility for your decisions.
I have worked with many consultants over the years and apart from specialist engineering consultants have not found one yet who is worth more than 50p per day. My experience of them is that they come in mooch around picking everybody's brains taking their ideas, They then translate these into a glossy report, as they have so much time and nothing else to do, then present the ides as their own which are quickly taken up by the people who hired them. They then disappear and when it all goes horribly wrong the management who are the ones being paid to make the decisions they hired the consultant to make can say twas not us twas the consultant. So worth every penny then if you can avoid doing your job and taking responsibility for your decisions. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 23

4:57pm Wed 18 Jun 14

acomblass says...

Interesting to see who has recently been appointed by Kersten England - Ruth Kennedy consultant from Lambeth to write York's poverty strategy Guy van Dichele consultant to sort out adult social care Kirsteen Murray to sort out adult social care. Seems we have more employees as consultants than ever before and none of them local!
Interesting to see who has recently been appointed by Kersten England - Ruth Kennedy consultant from Lambeth to write York's poverty strategy Guy van Dichele consultant to sort out adult social care Kirsteen Murray to sort out adult social care. Seems we have more employees as consultants than ever before and none of them local! acomblass
  • Score: 17

4:58pm Wed 18 Jun 14

only human says...

And still there is no money in the kitty for the most vulnerable in york,now that is one cause i wouldnt object so much to.
I dont know how they sleep at night
And still there is no money in the kitty for the most vulnerable in york,now that is one cause i wouldnt object so much to. I dont know how they sleep at night only human
  • Score: 24

5:01pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Jalymo says...

What we needed was someone who was familiar with York. Someone who lives here, uses it's infrastructure every day and can appreciate what this Plan would do to York. Bringing someone in will be a disaster, they will just look at the map and implement their left wing dogma regardless. Were all doomed, doomed!
What we needed was someone who was familiar with York. Someone who lives here, uses it's infrastructure every day and can appreciate what this Plan would do to York. Bringing someone in will be a disaster, they will just look at the map and implement their left wing dogma regardless. Were all doomed, doomed! Jalymo
  • Score: 27

5:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
You are very well informed Paul, but you would be wouldn't you as you probably read and digest every scrap of information issued by your CoYC associates, I really don't know how this council justifies and gets away with paying this type of money, is she really worth £700.00 per day, PER DAY!!!!!!, it's diabolical.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]You are very well informed Paul, but you would be wouldn't you as you probably read and digest every scrap of information issued by your CoYC associates, I really don't know how this council justifies and gets away with paying this type of money, is she really worth £700.00 per day, PER DAY!!!!!!, it's diabolical. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 25

5:33pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Well, we tried to play bingo.
I only got "champange socialist"
There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot.


Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -24

5:33pm Wed 18 Jun 14

A.P.Feeders says...

andrew flower wrote:
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Disgusting waste of public money.
Typical of Alexander and his cronies. They make FIFA look tranparent.
Lol.
[quote][p][bold]andrew flower[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: Disgusting waste of public money.[/p][/quote]Typical of Alexander and his cronies. They make FIFA look tranparent.[/p][/quote]Lol. A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 15

5:52pm Wed 18 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
The majority of York residents will not notice an iota of difference as a result of her efforts and I reluctantly imagine that if you gave it to little Jimmy to do as a saturday job/project the same outcome would be achieved.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]The majority of York residents will not notice an iota of difference as a result of her efforts and I reluctantly imagine that if you gave it to little Jimmy to do as a saturday job/project the same outcome would be achieved. nearlyman
  • Score: 20

5:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration.

As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists!

He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.[/p][/quote]BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 29

5:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

piaggio1 wrote:
4/6months in tbe med???

My god .an i thought only the tory/rich mob did this.
Don.t go on about how cost effective this is ..this is one big scam...an the taxpayers r payin for it.....
Don't be stupid....that is well beyond the means of most Tories !!
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: 4/6months in tbe med??? My god .an i thought only the tory/rich mob did this. Don.t go on about how cost effective this is ..this is one big scam...an the taxpayers r payin for it.....[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid....that is well beyond the means of most Tories !! nearlyman
  • Score: 11

5:57pm Wed 18 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

Jalymo wrote:
What we needed was someone who was familiar with York. Someone who lives here, uses it's infrastructure every day and can appreciate what this Plan would do to York. Bringing someone in will be a disaster, they will just look at the map and implement their left wing dogma regardless. Were all doomed, doomed!
.........And that includes the Councillors....
[quote][p][bold]Jalymo[/bold] wrote: What we needed was someone who was familiar with York. Someone who lives here, uses it's infrastructure every day and can appreciate what this Plan would do to York. Bringing someone in will be a disaster, they will just look at the map and implement their left wing dogma regardless. Were all doomed, doomed![/p][/quote].........And that includes the Councillors.... nearlyman
  • Score: 12

6:00pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration.

As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists!

He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day!
Come on Paul, we've gone beyond this. Apparently "everyone" knows who you are.
What's with the third person nonsense?
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.[/p][/quote]BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day![/p][/quote]Come on Paul, we've gone beyond this. Apparently "everyone" knows who you are. What's with the third person nonsense? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -11

7:06pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these?

the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving.

Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc....

They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot![/p][/quote]We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor. holden79
  • Score: -9

7:23pm Wed 18 Jun 14

bolero says...

PP said Please Sir, that nasty man's been calling me names so I've had his posting removed. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! shame.
PP said Please Sir, that nasty man's been calling me names so I've had his posting removed. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! shame. bolero
  • Score: 14

7:25pm Wed 18 Jun 14

thecairnman says...

Yes they can afford to pay this sort of money when they reduce our pay by £1 an hour disgusting
Yes they can afford to pay this sort of money when they reduce our pay by £1 an hour disgusting thecairnman
  • Score: 14

7:36pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery. holden79
  • Score: -13

7:53pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

seem people are now so far away from the story, love to get £700 a month never mind an hour .. Now wounder what else will be cut to pay this woman magician.
seem people are now so far away from the story, love to get £700 a month never mind an hour .. Now wounder what else will be cut to pay this woman magician. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 11

7:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 8

8:05pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Pinza-C55 says...

holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Including you , apparently.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Including you , apparently. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 13

8:08pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact. holden79
  • Score: -14

8:39pm Wed 18 Jun 14

wilfor says...

When this plan is finally agreed is it likely that this or any future council will take any notice of it over the next 40 years, as usual devious ways will befound to ignore it.
When this plan is finally agreed is it likely that this or any future council will take any notice of it over the next 40 years, as usual devious ways will befound to ignore it. wilfor
  • Score: 12

8:46pm Wed 18 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 6

9:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

spragger says...

'Labour and City of York Council defended the position'
I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money?

Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems
'Labour and City of York Council defended the position' I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money? Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems spragger
  • Score: 18

9:20pm Wed 18 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!! pedalling paul
  • Score: -17

9:21pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Mrs P123 says...

Argue and bicker, well glad to see this comments section has been a mirror image of what the politicians have been doing for the past 40 years!! Nobody cares about the local plan until that is they suddenly realise where the land fill sites or travellers sites or a few hundred houses fencing them in are going to be. It's all there on the council website it's been in consultation for years now, either we put it to bed, and hope this woman delivers , because history would dictate York council just can not deliver it, maybe she can't but I would suggest we go with it. If she fails it will not only open york up to the NPPF guidelines but will just keep costing us more money, hopefully, once we have a plan no more money will be wasted and hopefully be spent elsewhere. It is a legal requirement we will just keep going round this, the money that has been wasted on this is unknown and would probably shock us all!,
Argue and bicker, well glad to see this comments section has been a mirror image of what the politicians have been doing for the past 40 years!! Nobody cares about the local plan until that is they suddenly realise where the land fill sites or travellers sites or a few hundred houses fencing them in are going to be. It's all there on the council website it's been in consultation for years now, either we put it to bed, and hope this woman delivers , because history would dictate York council just can not deliver it, maybe she can't but I would suggest we go with it. If she fails it will not only open york up to the NPPF guidelines but will just keep costing us more money, hopefully, once we have a plan no more money will be wasted and hopefully be spent elsewhere. It is a legal requirement we will just keep going round this, the money that has been wasted on this is unknown and would probably shock us all!, Mrs P123
  • Score: -5

9:30pm Wed 18 Jun 14

pault42 says...

To quote from the article 'Labour and City of York Council defended the position, with chief executive Kersten England saying the council needed to find someone with the necessary expertise'. K E is finally right about something:

The council need to find someone with the expertise to STOP them, NOW.

This is not worth discussion, it's wrong. No doubt this soulless individual will enjoy bleeding York's finances as the rest of the drove (group of pigs) do already. It won't be long before this superstar has to have a group of 'assistants', paid ridiculously too, to 'help'.

Labour should be ashamed to have this squandering bunch using their name.

Disgusting
To quote from the article 'Labour and City of York Council defended the position, with chief executive Kersten England saying the council needed to find someone with the necessary expertise'. K E is finally right about something: The council need to find someone with the expertise to STOP them, NOW. This is not worth discussion, it's wrong. No doubt this soulless individual will enjoy bleeding York's finances as the rest of the drove (group of pigs) do already. It won't be long before this superstar has to have a group of 'assistants', paid ridiculously too, to 'help'. Labour should be ashamed to have this squandering bunch using their name. Disgusting pault42
  • Score: 18

9:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's.

Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's. Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY. holden79
  • Score: -14

9:55pm Wed 18 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Grow up pp, you sanctimonious bigot.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Grow up pp, you sanctimonious bigot. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 10

9:57pm Wed 18 Jun 14

pault42 says...

spragger wrote:
'Labour and City of York Council defended the position'
I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money?

Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems
The problem is they will. Never about the lining in their own pockets, just how they need to raise council tax again next year, extra charges on the vulnerable and most ill placed people to pay them. And how they can't give genuine council workers pay rises due to lack of money. No doubt the leaders will say they are to get an appropriate rise to ensure they 'retain the right level of expertise for the city', and if they can't get away with that create new improved (for them) contracts.
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: 'Labour and City of York Council defended the position' I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money? Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems[/p][/quote]The problem is they will. Never about the lining in their own pockets, just how they need to raise council tax again next year, extra charges on the vulnerable and most ill placed people to pay them. And how they can't give genuine council workers pay rises due to lack of money. No doubt the leaders will say they are to get an appropriate rise to ensure they 'retain the right level of expertise for the city', and if they can't get away with that create new improved (for them) contracts. pault42
  • Score: 8

9:58pm Wed 18 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

holden79 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's.

Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.
Another sanctimonious bigot.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's. Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.[/p][/quote]Another sanctimonious bigot. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 8

10:07pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

holden79 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's.

Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.
Is this Councils Clowns ordered to go on the attack.

From what they have wrote in their posts both holden79 and PP are a pair of Kn0bs.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's. Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.[/p][/quote]Is this Councils Clowns ordered to go on the attack. From what they have wrote in their posts both holden79 and PP are a pair of Kn0bs. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: 17

10:18pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Mrs P123 says...

Well I doubt my grammar measures up! But I can tell you , this woman is cheap as chips compared to what this has cost york residents over years and years! And it will go on, regardless of which party is in..... I have had FOI act requests ignored by York council. I have asked York press to investigate the "million pounds" it is supposed to have cost last time around. Of course my Foi request were ignored at least the press could report that they were ignored. Sadly York press refused to rise to the challenge and prefer the "back of a fag packet" tell em it was a million, doesn't sound bad over eights years guvnor! approach sad but true . Can I ask if everybody thinks this lady is expensive why don't you care what you've already spent and will continue to spend?
Well I doubt my grammar measures up! But I can tell you , this woman is cheap as chips compared to what this has cost york residents over years and years! And it will go on, regardless of which party is in..... I have had FOI act requests ignored by York council. I have asked York press to investigate the "million pounds" it is supposed to have cost last time around. Of course my Foi request were ignored at least the press could report that they were ignored. Sadly York press refused to rise to the challenge and prefer the "back of a fag packet" tell em it was a million, doesn't sound bad over eights years guvnor! approach sad but true . Can I ask if everybody thinks this lady is expensive why don't you care what you've already spent and will continue to spend? Mrs P123
  • Score: -6

10:30pm Wed 18 Jun 14

johnwill says...

The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners, the excuse for paying these salaries is always ' we have to, to attract the right people' this is nonsense, most of these people come in short term, demand as much as they can screw out of the Councils and move on to try and demand more from the next.
Fair pay for a fair days work but these salaries, paid for by council tax payers, are disgusting , this one is more than the Prime Minister earns.
The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners, the excuse for paying these salaries is always ' we have to, to attract the right people' this is nonsense, most of these people come in short term, demand as much as they can screw out of the Councils and move on to try and demand more from the next. Fair pay for a fair days work but these salaries, paid for by council tax payers, are disgusting , this one is more than the Prime Minister earns. johnwill
  • Score: 26

10:41pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Jalymo says...

James Alexander, Our Great Leader, says that they are "doing the best by York, for York". The reason York residents are protesting about this labour plan, is that it will trash our City. It proposes too much development in too short a time and their cynical procurement of a champagne socialist to push the plan through, whilst pocketing £700 per day is appalling. These people are so blinkered by their political affiliations that it may just be better for York to have The Government draw up the plan. Could it actually be worse? it would certainly be cheaper!
James Alexander, Our Great Leader, says that they are "doing the best by York, for York". The reason York residents are protesting about this labour plan, is that it will trash our City. It proposes too much development in too short a time and their cynical procurement of a champagne socialist to push the plan through, whilst pocketing £700 per day is appalling. These people are so blinkered by their political affiliations that it may just be better for York to have The Government draw up the plan. Could it actually be worse? it would certainly be cheaper! Jalymo
  • Score: 16

10:45pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Pinza-C55 says...

holden79 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's.

Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.
"Me and PP" should actually be "PP and I".
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's. Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.[/p][/quote]"Me and PP" should actually be "PP and I". Pinza-C55
  • Score: 8

10:45pm Wed 18 Jun 14

calmdownyork says...

nowthen wrote:
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
I'm no labour supporter but it is cheaper when you take into account employers NI contributions at 11% and pension at 10-15% plus other overheads around employing people. There's also the fact she's temporary and part time so doesn't actually get £130k per annum.

£700 per day is a great deal of money, but in the private sector it's a normal senior management interim day rate. At director level for an organisation the size of CYC you'd pay £1-2k per day.

The real question is will she deliver value for money?
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]I'm no labour supporter but it is cheaper when you take into account employers NI contributions at 11% and pension at 10-15% plus other overheads around employing people. There's also the fact she's temporary and part time so doesn't actually get £130k per annum. £700 per day is a great deal of money, but in the private sector it's a normal senior management interim day rate. At director level for an organisation the size of CYC you'd pay £1-2k per day. The real question is will she deliver value for money? calmdownyork
  • Score: -13

10:48pm Wed 18 Jun 14

CRWPROJ says...

Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel.
Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel. CRWPROJ
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Wed 18 Jun 14

courier46 says...

CRWPROJ wrote:
Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel.
I dont know if it`s unusual but it`s disgusting in this day and age.
[quote][p][bold]CRWPROJ[/bold] wrote: Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel.[/p][/quote]I dont know if it`s unusual but it`s disgusting in this day and age. courier46
  • Score: 10

11:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
holden79 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality.

What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan.

If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running.

You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees).

Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.
The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.
All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan".

All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that.

Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.
Desperate assumption.
Simple fact.
For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption.

Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it.

End.
"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book.
You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are".
Back to school!!
Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's.

Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.
"Me and PP" should actually be "PP and I".
I was being facetious. For once :-)
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]Pretty easy to deny the comparison, then you don't have to acknowledge the reality. What has been revealed by having to bring in an interim (not consultant) director is the failing of the councils senior management to have in place a staff development program coupled with an effective succession plan. If the senior management were doing their jobs (highly paid) effectively then Darren Richardson's junior would have been in a position to step in as an interim and also a trial for the role. But the senior management clearly don't have staff development and a succession plan otherwise York would have had someone already hands on ready to hit the ground running. You may be happy to shrug off sloppy management with comments like "Nothing to see here, move along." but that really doesn't address the failure to train and plan for staff development and progression (senior management failings it's employees). Some people may be happy to suck up the debris of failure like a Dyson others however are not, the cost to council tax payers in this case is a reflection of poor management.[/p][/quote]The internet. Giving thick people a voice since 1995.[/p][/quote]Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance. Good to see you have reduced the discussion to an argument.[/p][/quote]All you've done is pad out a response based upon the phrases "staff development" and "succession plan". All large organisations experience skills shortages and have to buy in expertise. Someone doing a Business Studies A-level could tell you that. Banding about a couple of management terms doesn't mean you have any real knowledge of large organisations or major project delivery.[/p][/quote]Desperate assumption.[/p][/quote]Simple fact.[/p][/quote]For something to be a fact, either simple or complex it needs to be supported evidentially and yet you have nothing beyond assumption. Here is a fact, I have a list of people who's opinions matter to me, you won't be surprised to learn your not on it. End.[/p][/quote]"your" is the possessive pronoun, which indicates ownership of something eg your book. You meant to use "you're" which is an abbreviation of "you are". Back to school!![/p][/quote]Quite right, and while we're at it, "it's" is for it is, "its" means possessive. So the management is failing its employees, not it's. Me and PP are going to have to consider charging you a consultancy fee on the old grammar there, YOUWILLDOASISAY.[/p][/quote]"Me and PP" should actually be "PP and I".[/p][/quote]I was being facetious. For once :-) holden79
  • Score: -13

11:24pm Wed 18 Jun 14

jay, york says...

Mrs P123 wrote:
courier46 wrote:
Mrs P123 wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???
That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.
It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over.
So both mrs p123 and pp both tell us that this local plan is a legal requirement.
She seems to know quite a lot about it and is certainly anti government.

Not that I am suggesting that there is any connection between the two - could it just be a coincidence - or another pp alias/ user name?
[quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???[/p][/quote]That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.[/p][/quote]It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over.[/p][/quote]So both mrs p123 and pp both tell us that this local plan is a legal requirement. She seems to know quite a lot about it and is certainly anti government. Not that I am suggesting that there is any connection between the two - could it just be a coincidence - or another pp alias/ user name? jay, york
  • Score: 10

11:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Bad magic says...

holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
You $&*&^( well pay for it then, matey.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]You $&*&^( well pay for it then, matey. Bad magic
  • Score: 8

11:51pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Mrs P123 says...

jay, york wrote:
Mrs P123 wrote:
courier46 wrote:
Mrs P123 wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???
That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.
It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over.
So both mrs p123 and pp both tell us that this local plan is a legal requirement.
She seems to know quite a lot about it and is certainly anti government.

Not that I am suggesting that there is any connection between the two - could it just be a coincidence - or another pp alias/ user name?
Gosh, this site is paranoid .... No I'm not anti government they are forcing the council to adopt a plan which I agree after forty years, whichever
your party loyalties lie with ls well overdue, don't you think? Or are you all prepared to keep paying new money after bad? I tell you what? All of you take the moments it takes to fill out a FOI act request to find out how much York council have spent On , salaries and field tirips and consultants over the last 40 years on the new local plan ( it may interest you political experts to know that the plan they have been using for years is not adopted and was just agreed by the boys) , go on its your right to know..... If you can write on here surely you can ask the council the right questions...........
.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs P123[/bold] wrote: If this woman manages to deliver an acceptable local plan, you can double her salary for me. York has not had a local plan for forty years! The last one supposedly cost a million, what a joke! The amount of people working on it for eight years! It would have cost that in salaries alone. York press failed to investigate this and report to its paying customers accurately, we need a plan in place, the politicians joking around with and using it for their own political gain has to stop, 40 years is enough, the plan they are using for planning purposes is looking increasingly archaic. The NPPF will take over. Believe me paying this lady is a saving for all york residents in the long run, how much has it cost us over the last 40 years and still no plan, come on press why don't you find out???[/p][/quote]That proves we can do without a plan if we haven`t had one for 40 years,maybe just a bit of common sense might do the trick.[/p][/quote]It is a legal requirement that we have a plan. I see your point, but i would rather regain some control as York is a beautiful city , the Nation planning policy framework making all decisions for York? I feel it's being used as a bit of a big stick by the government, get your own plan in order or else..these are very loose guidelines that will be used to govern development in your area...and as time goes by its gaining momentum. It's been around since 2012 I think, not for the last forty years it's going to take over.[/p][/quote]So both mrs p123 and pp both tell us that this local plan is a legal requirement. She seems to know quite a lot about it and is certainly anti government. Not that I am suggesting that there is any connection between the two - could it just be a coincidence - or another pp alias/ user name?[/p][/quote]Gosh, this site is paranoid .... No I'm not anti government they are forcing the council to adopt a plan which I agree after forty years, whichever your party loyalties lie with ls well overdue, don't you think? Or are you all prepared to keep paying new money after bad? I tell you what? All of you take the moments it takes to fill out a FOI act request to find out how much York council have spent On , salaries and field tirips and consultants over the last 40 years on the new local plan ( it may interest you political experts to know that the plan they have been using for years is not adopted and was just agreed by the boys) , go on its your right to know..... If you can write on here surely you can ask the council the right questions........... . Mrs P123
  • Score: -10

11:53pm Wed 18 Jun 14

holden79 says...

holden79 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these?

the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving.

Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc....

They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.
As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot![/p][/quote]We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.[/p][/quote]As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on. holden79
  • Score: -18

12:05am Thu 19 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Bad magic wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money.

Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth.

"How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place.

£700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in.

All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods.

Nothing to see here, move along.
You $&*&^( well pay for it then, matey.
I am paying for it, to the tune of pennies per month. Nothing to see here, move along.
[quote][p][bold]Bad magic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]You $&*&^( well pay for it then, matey.[/p][/quote]I am paying for it, to the tune of pennies per month. Nothing to see here, move along. holden79
  • Score: -16

12:13am Thu 19 Jun 14

Stevie D says...

johnwill wrote:
The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners

The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are. If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way, or even your hospital or your kids' school or your bus company or any other large organisation ... would you be equally up in arms about those? If not, why not? What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners, but we don't hear cries for them to take massive pay cuts, only for council officers. Are you applying a fair standard to everyone?
[quote][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote: The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners[/quote] The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are. If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way, or even your hospital or your kids' school or your bus company or any other large organisation ... would you be equally up in arms about those? If not, why not? What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners, but we don't hear cries for them to take massive pay cuts, only for council officers. Are you applying a fair standard to everyone? Stevie D
  • Score: -5

1:49am Thu 19 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year.
I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.
A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year. I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 15

1:59am Thu 19 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

CRWPROJ wrote:
Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel.
They are not being 'suckered'.

Kersten England knows what she is doing.

I suggest you read Sarah Tanburn's consultancy website and her Twitter page, you will soon work out what her skills are, and why she was unilaterally chosen by the Chief Executive?

I'll give you a starter for ten, it's nowt to do with the Local Plan!
[quote][p][bold]CRWPROJ[/bold] wrote: Personally I do not think that a day rate of £700 per day is unusual in this day and age for short term contractual employment. However, I do believe that a rate of this magnitude has to reflect unique skills and a measurable performance. I do hope that COYC are not being 'suckered' into paying these fees and result in nothing. And the person in question disappearing into obscurity when the final objective fails or goes sour (Lendal bridge!). I do think that the COYC's local plan should be able to stand on it's own merit without the need for a 'expert baby sitter'. Is the underlying message here the fact that there is doubt about the local plans viability, when scrutinised by an independant expert panel.[/p][/quote]They are not being 'suckered'. Kersten England knows what she is doing. I suggest you read Sarah Tanburn's consultancy website and her Twitter page, you will soon work out what her skills are, and why she was unilaterally chosen by the Chief Executive? I'll give you a starter for ten, it's nowt to do with the Local Plan! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 16

3:41am Thu 19 Jun 14

Magicman! says...

Hmm, why aren't jobs like this advertised at the jobcentre?! :)
Hmm, why aren't jobs like this advertised at the jobcentre?! :) Magicman!
  • Score: 13

7:07am Thu 19 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

I don't know how james alexander and his cronies have the nerve even to mention the words 'poverty', 'austerity' and 'government cutbacks'?
alexander, simpson-laing, and the rest of York liebor are a bunch of phonies!
this is an absolute disgrace! Basically that woman is wiping out mine and 99 more hard working tax-paying residents 2014/15 council tax, alexander and his cronies are actually worse than any of Thatchers tories!! kersten england needs to go as well along with the rest of her muppets!
I don't know how james alexander and his cronies have the nerve even to mention the words 'poverty', 'austerity' and 'government cutbacks'? alexander, simpson-laing, and the rest of York liebor are a bunch of phonies! this is an absolute disgrace! Basically that woman is wiping out mine and 99 more hard working tax-paying residents 2014/15 council tax, alexander and his cronies are actually worse than any of Thatchers tories!! kersten england needs to go as well along with the rest of her muppets! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 25

7:13am Thu 19 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

courier46 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
Since when have these idiots been bothered with legal costs,it`s not there money!
they are not bothered! that idiot simpson laing was only on about seeking legal action the other day, because somebody dared to ask her about buses on her twitter account!! what an absolute bully that woman is!
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]Since when have these idiots been bothered with legal costs,it`s not there money![/p][/quote]they are not bothered! that idiot simpson laing was only on about seeking legal action the other day, because somebody dared to ask her about buses on her twitter account!! what an absolute bully that woman is! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 25

7:51am Thu 19 Jun 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Stevie D wrote:
johnwill wrote:
The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners

The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are. If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way, or even your hospital or your kids' school or your bus company or any other large organisation ... would you be equally up in arms about those? If not, why not? What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners, but we don't hear cries for them to take massive pay cuts, only for council officers. Are you applying a fair standard to everyone?
"The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are."
Because they are paid out of taxpayer's money, yes.
"If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way"
I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies.
"or even your hospital or your kids' school "
Senior employees of hospitals or schools should not , in my opinion, be paid disproportionate wages since they are publicly funded.
"What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners"
Doctors are highly skilled and vital, but if they work in the NHS they should not be overpaid. I couldn't care less what solicitors earn.
"Are you applying a fair standard to everyone?"
Yes.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote: The massive salaries paid to these Local Authority directors are sickening to the majority of average wage earners[/quote] The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are. If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way, or even your hospital or your kids' school or your bus company or any other large organisation ... would you be equally up in arms about those? If not, why not? What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners, but we don't hear cries for them to take massive pay cuts, only for council officers. Are you applying a fair standard to everyone?[/p][/quote]"The only thing here is that you can find out what those salaries are." Because they are paid out of taxpayer's money, yes. "If the salaries of senior officials in your bank or supermarket of choice were published in the same way" I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies. "or even your hospital or your kids' school " Senior employees of hospitals or schools should not , in my opinion, be paid disproportionate wages since they are publicly funded. "What doctors and solicitors earn is sickening to the majority of average wage earners" Doctors are highly skilled and vital, but if they work in the NHS they should not be overpaid. I couldn't care less what solicitors earn. "Are you applying a fair standard to everyone?" Yes. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -4

8:50am Thu 19 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

calmdownyork wrote:
nowthen wrote:
A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
I'm no labour supporter but it is cheaper when you take into account employers NI contributions at 11% and pension at 10-15% plus other overheads around employing people. There's also the fact she's temporary and part time so doesn't actually get £130k per annum.

£700 per day is a great deal of money, but in the private sector it's a normal senior management interim day rate. At director level for an organisation the size of CYC you'd pay £1-2k per day.

The real question is will she deliver value for money?
Rollocks !!

The Private sector make money.......The Public sector spend it.........One is easier that the other !!!
[quote][p][bold]calmdownyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]I'm no labour supporter but it is cheaper when you take into account employers NI contributions at 11% and pension at 10-15% plus other overheads around employing people. There's also the fact she's temporary and part time so doesn't actually get £130k per annum. £700 per day is a great deal of money, but in the private sector it's a normal senior management interim day rate. At director level for an organisation the size of CYC you'd pay £1-2k per day. The real question is will she deliver value for money?[/p][/quote]Rollocks !! The Private sector make money.......The Public sector spend it.........One is easier that the other !!! nearlyman
  • Score: 9

8:53am Thu 19 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

Magicman! wrote:
Hmm, why aren't jobs like this advertised at the jobcentre?! :)
I think you know the answer to this question !!
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: Hmm, why aren't jobs like this advertised at the jobcentre?! :)[/p][/quote]I think you know the answer to this question !! nearlyman
  • Score: 5

9:05am Thu 19 Jun 14

Madasanibbotson says...

If its the same Sarah Tanburn that lives in Ipswich she has her own Limited Company. I wonder if us the council tax payer are paying Ms Tanburn via PAYE or a consultancy fee to her own Limited Company and thus avoiding National Insurance and Income Tax (taking money out of the Company via Dividends).
If it is the same person are we also providing accommodation as well ?

And the labour mob talk about living wages, poverty, paying your fair share etc-you couldn't make it up.
If its the same Sarah Tanburn that lives in Ipswich she has her own Limited Company. I wonder if us the council tax payer are paying Ms Tanburn via PAYE or a consultancy fee to her own Limited Company and thus avoiding National Insurance and Income Tax (taking money out of the Company via Dividends). If it is the same person are we also providing accommodation as well ? And the labour mob talk about living wages, poverty, paying your fair share etc-you couldn't make it up. Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 28

9:09am Thu 19 Jun 14

Madasanibbotson says...

And Ms Tanburn has her own Yacht see http://www.sailblogs
.com/member/roaringg
irl/
And Ms Tanburn has her own Yacht see http://www.sailblogs .com/member/roaringg irl/ Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 20

9:11am Thu 19 Jun 14

Madasanibbotson says...

What Ms Tanburn thinks of us the taxpayers, a quote form her website

Lucky us! We got an upgrade to Premium Economy on our ANZ airpoints. The luxury of better food, lots of legroom and metal cutlery. Obviously violent customers only fly in Economy, where the knives and forks are plastic!
What Ms Tanburn thinks of us the taxpayers, a quote form her website Lucky us! We got an upgrade to Premium Economy on our ANZ airpoints. The luxury of better food, lots of legroom and metal cutlery. Obviously violent customers only fly in Economy, where the knives and forks are plastic! Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 29

9:35am Thu 19 Jun 14

again says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year.
I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.
Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal.

"I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies."

How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage?

And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too.

Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity.

Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year. I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.[/p][/quote]Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal. "I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies." How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage? And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too. Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity. Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters. again
  • Score: -11

9:37am Thu 19 Jun 14

again says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year.
I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.
Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal.

"I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies."

How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage?

And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too.

Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity.

Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year. I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.[/p][/quote]Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal. "I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies." How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage? And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too. Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity. Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters. again
  • Score: -12

10:45am Thu 19 Jun 14

soprano 2 says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted!

According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan.

Her experience is varied, and includes;

*strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation.

*Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex

She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:-

Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr
The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin.

Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr
People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now.

The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York!

BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days.

Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website.
She can talk the talk then.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted! According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan. Her experience is varied, and includes; *strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation. *Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:- Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin. Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now. The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York! BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days. Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website.[/p][/quote]She can talk the talk then. soprano 2
  • Score: 10

12:19pm Thu 19 Jun 14

big daddy d says...

this makes me sick. my dads just been told hes fit to work by dwp. hes been out of work after having a stroke and is on medication for other medical problems. this is wrong. theres people out there who are just fleecing the system who can work. and then theres people like this who think they deserve to be paid 700 a week to do what? sit on there arse in an office making decisions that dont work.
this makes me sick. my dads just been told hes fit to work by dwp. hes been out of work after having a stroke and is on medication for other medical problems. this is wrong. theres people out there who are just fleecing the system who can work. and then theres people like this who think they deserve to be paid 700 a week to do what? sit on there arse in an office making decisions that dont work. big daddy d
  • Score: 12

1:02pm Thu 19 Jun 14

meme says...

You cannot blame her for taking a highly paid job. I would have if I could have got it but then I am not highly politicised/have not worked with/for Councils years and don't share extreme left wing beliefs so I didn't stand a chance.
The blame lies with those who set these obscene salaries and just employ those who they think wont create waves and fit their political profile perfectly.
Its a shame we cannot get someone independent but I am sure she is a lovely woman and IF she does manage to do something positive she will be worth every penny as York Council is presently a shambles and needs a good kick up the jacksie to provide the services locals should expect.
I however think I am going to be very disappointed in the relatively near future but hey who knows?
You cannot blame her for taking a highly paid job. I would have if I could have got it but then I am not highly politicised/have not worked with/for Councils years and don't share extreme left wing beliefs so I didn't stand a chance. The blame lies with those who set these obscene salaries and just employ those who they think wont create waves and fit their political profile perfectly. Its a shame we cannot get someone independent but I am sure she is a lovely woman and IF she does manage to do something positive [unlike her temporary predecessor who came to York full of promises took a similar huge salary did nothing then left] she will be worth every penny as York Council is presently a shambles [no pun intended!] and needs a good kick up the jacksie to provide the services locals should expect. I however think I am going to be very disappointed in the relatively near future but hey who knows? meme
  • Score: 13

1:30pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

holden79 wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.
As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.
Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers.

So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there.
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot![/p][/quote]We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.[/p][/quote]As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.[/p][/quote]Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers. So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 3

1:36pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

soprano 2 wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.
But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted! According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan. Her experience is varied, and includes; *strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation. *Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:- Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin. Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now. The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York! BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days. Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website.
She can talk the talk then.
Yes, and tweets the tweets too!!!

She has been fairly quiet (on twitter) since coming to York though, but, did do a RT (retweet), which perhaps was a reaction to the comments on this story. Here it is.....

"And they said it's grim up north, pfft! What do they know!"

It may be grim for some, but, not those coming here each day from Norwich, and getting paid £700/day!!!
[quote][p][bold]soprano 2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Unfortunately York legally has to have a Localplan. The last draft one has a coach & horse driven through it, by the presumed need to attach commercial development to a new football stadium. Having gone back into the melting pot, we currently have no yardstick with which to properly resist many inappropriate Planning Applications, hence developers are set to have a field day for the moment. So the quicker the Local plan is revised and finalised, the better. Quickly appointing someone with the nounce and the clout to do this was vital, and if the Council Constitution allows delegated powers to the Chief Exec to be used to achieve this, then so be it. The legal cost of unsuccesfully resisting inappropriate development could potentially be much greater.[/p][/quote]But, Sarah Tanburn hasn't got much experience in delivering Local Plans - she has never had one adopted! According to her CV, she has had one core strategy approved, but, that is not an adopted plan. Her experience is varied, and includes; *strategic development and direction to adapt to financial pressures, changing political expectations or new legislation. *Strategic vision: developing and delivering innovative strategies moving organisations and partners forward, from new partnerships to counter racial harassment, to driving cultural investment in Essex She is also very political as can be seen from her tweets on twitter, as follows:- Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 09 Apr The left needs to reclaim social justice in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland. This is a good place to begin. Sarah Tanburn @workthewind 23 Apr People in #York want the Scots to stay in the UK. #BBCpm just now. The 23 April tweet was before she started work in York! BTW, her contract is not for a maximum of four days a week, that is just what she is currently working, so it may increase to five days. Anyone wanting to see the FOI, can see it on the What Do They know website.[/p][/quote]She can talk the talk then.[/p][/quote]Yes, and tweets the tweets too!!! She has been fairly quiet (on twitter) since coming to York though, but, did do a RT (retweet), which perhaps was a reaction to the comments on this story. Here it is..... "And they said it's grim up north, pfft! What do they know!" It may be grim for some, but, not those coming here each day from Norwich, and getting paid £700/day!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 15

2:23pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Pinza-C55 says...

again wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year.
I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.
Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal.

"I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies."

How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage?

And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too.

Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity.

Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters.
""I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies." How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage?"
In my opinion all of the basic utilities should be nationalised and therefore the pay rates in those utilities would be in the public realm.
Sadly they were sold off years ago and they are now privately owned so the public have no say on pay rates.
This is really simple.
"And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too."
I care too but my opinion is irrelevant since they are private companies and will respond to my opinion with the verbal equivalent of a big finger.
"Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity."
I agree.
Sadly a majority (or rather the largest minority) of the electorate have voted for governments - Tory, who have sold off our utilities and decimated our core industries - and Labour, who have perpetuated the Tory system.
It's a disgrace, but there's nothing we can do to reverse it short of a revolution.
The nearest the British people will ever get to a revolution is the Vodka Revolution bar.
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: A silly amount to pay when the Council said they didn't have the cash to empty our green bins past October last year. I'm sure someone local could have been employed for a fraction of the cost.[/p][/quote]Indeed. I would do it for a fraction of the cost. Seven eighths would do nicely. I'm talking about the Local Plan not emptying your gruesome green bin, pal. "I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies." How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage? And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too. Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity. Anyway, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. That's us commenters: monkeys with typewriters.[/p][/quote]""I have no interest in what any bank or supermarket employee is paid since they are private companies." How about utility companies, you know, the ones whose bills you have to pay if you want, heat, light, water, sewage?" In my opinion all of the basic utilities should be nationalised and therefore the pay rates in those utilities would be in the public realm. Sadly they were sold off years ago and they are now privately owned so the public have no say on pay rates. This is really simple. "And I certainly care what private sector workers get paid as contrary to the propaganda in the newspapers, that comes out of my pocket, too." I care too but my opinion is irrelevant since they are private companies and will respond to my opinion with the verbal equivalent of a big finger. "Private sector=we can fleece you with impunity." I agree. Sadly a majority (or rather the largest minority) of the electorate have voted for governments - Tory, who have sold off our utilities and decimated our core industries - and Labour, who have perpetuated the Tory system. It's a disgrace, but there's nothing we can do to reverse it short of a revolution. The nearest the British people will ever get to a revolution is the Vodka Revolution bar. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -4

2:32pm Thu 19 Jun 14

janpk2752 says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
So this local plan has already cost us over £1million the cost is just going up and the chances of the blooming thing getting approved is slim to nothing so the bill for this is starting to get seriously out of hand.
£700 a week nice wish I could be paid that for sitting on my bum I may have got this wrong but did we not vote for people to look after planning, York in bloom looking after the elderly , it seems if you live in the city you get to see pretty flowers but live on the roads coming to the city. the garden services have lost 3 or more garden staff but our our lads do what they can to make life a pleasant come on sort yourself out York so called called a council to make us proud of of our city.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: So this local plan has already cost us over £1million the cost is just going up and the chances of the blooming thing getting approved is slim to nothing so the bill for this is starting to get seriously out of hand.[/p][/quote]£700 a week nice wish I could be paid that for sitting on my bum I may have got this wrong but did we not vote for people to look after planning, York in bloom looking after the elderly , it seems if you live in the city you get to see pretty flowers but live on the roads coming to the city. the garden services have lost 3 or more garden staff but our our lads do what they can to make life a pleasant come on sort yourself out York so called called a council to make us proud of of our city. janpk2752
  • Score: 9

8:33pm Thu 19 Jun 14

pault42 says...

Just another thought, bet there's a lot of people who'd love to be paid her expense account, never mind £700 a day.
Just another thought, bet there's a lot of people who'd love to be paid her expense account, never mind £700 a day. pault42
  • Score: 10

8:40pm Thu 19 Jun 14

pault42 says...

Oh and another, check out the following from a page on ST's website. Thought the 'word of the day' was interesting...

http://workthewind.c
om/partners.html
Oh and another, check out the following from a page on ST's website. Thought the 'word of the day' was interesting... http://workthewind.c om/partners.html pault42
  • Score: 6

9:45pm Thu 19 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

pault42 wrote:
Oh and another, check out the following from a page on ST's website. Thought the 'word of the day' was interesting...

http://workthewind.c

om/partners.html
You mean - picaroon - noun: 1. A rogue, thief, or pirate. 2. A pirate ship; verb intr.: To act as a pirate.
[quote][p][bold]pault42[/bold] wrote: Oh and another, check out the following from a page on ST's website. Thought the 'word of the day' was interesting... http://workthewind.c om/partners.html[/p][/quote]You mean - picaroon - noun: 1. A rogue, thief, or pirate. 2. A pirate ship; verb intr.: To act as a pirate. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 8

12:19am Fri 20 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

big daddy d wrote:
this makes me sick. my dads just been told hes fit to work by dwp. hes been out of work after having a stroke and is on medication for other medical problems. this is wrong. theres people out there who are just fleecing the system who can work. and then theres people like this who think they deserve to be paid 700 a week to do what? sit on there arse in an office making decisions that dont work.
£700 a day! (not a week)
[quote][p][bold]big daddy d[/bold] wrote: this makes me sick. my dads just been told hes fit to work by dwp. hes been out of work after having a stroke and is on medication for other medical problems. this is wrong. theres people out there who are just fleecing the system who can work. and then theres people like this who think they deserve to be paid 700 a week to do what? sit on there arse in an office making decisions that dont work.[/p][/quote]£700 a day! (not a week) Badgers Drift
  • Score: 11

12:33am Fri 20 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

What nationality is SarahTanburn?

Is she also scottish like Kersten England?

,
What nationality is SarahTanburn? Is she also scottish like Kersten England? , Badgers Drift
  • Score: 7

9:51am Fri 20 Jun 14

Mr Trellis says...

grossly obscene
I lived in London when Thatcher scrapped the GLC it made no difference but saved billions. CYC should go the same way if the existing over paid employees cant do their jobs.
grossly obscene I lived in London when Thatcher scrapped the GLC it made no difference but saved billions. CYC should go the same way if the existing over paid employees cant do their jobs. Mr Trellis
  • Score: 10

1:51pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Young the Southbanker says...

I am sure Ms Tanburn is a nice and respectable member of society.
Her experience is wholly within Local Authority Management, therefore her website is dominated with what Industry folks would call "Motherhood and Apple Pie" aka nice phrases about 'starting' and 'encouraging' and 'partnerships'. Even so, she looks pretty capable and I personally think she's not the villain here.
This has York Council Incompetent Idiots written all over it. They should have got her in before they messed up their previous attempt at a Local Plan and lost the few competent civil servants they had to frustration (IMHO!)
I am sure Ms Tanburn is a nice and respectable member of society. Her experience is wholly within Local Authority Management, therefore her website is dominated with what Industry folks would call "Motherhood and Apple Pie" aka nice phrases about 'starting' and 'encouraging' and 'partnerships'. Even so, she looks pretty capable and I personally think she's not the villain here. This has York Council Incompetent Idiots written all over it. They should have got her in before they messed up their previous attempt at a Local Plan and lost the few competent civil servants they had to frustration (IMHO!) Young the Southbanker
  • Score: -3

2:15pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Young the Southbanker wrote:
I am sure Ms Tanburn is a nice and respectable member of society. Her experience is wholly within Local Authority Management, therefore her website is dominated with what Industry folks would call "Motherhood and Apple Pie" aka nice phrases about 'starting' and 'encouraging' and 'partnerships'. Even so, she looks pretty capable and I personally think she's not the villain here. This has York Council Incompetent Idiots written all over it. They should have got her in before they messed up their previous attempt at a Local Plan and lost the few competent civil servants they had to frustration (IMHO!)
But has she been brought in to sort out the Local Plan?

How can she change what is so far advanced?

Her website may be all 'Motherhood and Apple Pie', but, read her twitter page, and do some google research on her political associations and views, that tells a different story.... ?!!!
[quote][p][bold]Young the Southbanker[/bold] wrote: I am sure Ms Tanburn is a nice and respectable member of society. Her experience is wholly within Local Authority Management, therefore her website is dominated with what Industry folks would call "Motherhood and Apple Pie" aka nice phrases about 'starting' and 'encouraging' and 'partnerships'. Even so, she looks pretty capable and I personally think she's not the villain here. This has York Council Incompetent Idiots written all over it. They should have got her in before they messed up their previous attempt at a Local Plan and lost the few competent civil servants they had to frustration (IMHO!)[/p][/quote]But has she been brought in to sort out the Local Plan? How can she change what is so far advanced? Her website may be all 'Motherhood and Apple Pie', but, read her twitter page, and do some google research on her political associations and views, that tells a different story.... ?!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 6

2:20pm Fri 20 Jun 14

holden79 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.
As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.
Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers.

So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there.
Only someone with absolutely no experience of large organisations would keep harping on about heating a room and giving her a computer. I am talking about the up-cost of EMPLOYING SOMEONE, not keeping them fed and warm.

Even so....... 20% for gas, electric and a desk?? That's taken as a percentage of salary is it? So the more you earn the more gas and electric you use? Wow - if 20% of MY salary was used on gas and electric I'd be buying shares in British Gas tomorrow, trust me.

Telling the truth isn't craving approval. If I was craving approval I'd post a thicko comment along the lines of "that's obscene, how many dustbin men could we employ for that???".

If you throw comments open to the public you'll get 95% of them getting it WRONG. The smart money would go with the handful of poor souls on here giving up their time to try and educate the keyboard pundits who think an internet connection and an anonymous username somehow gifts them with the right to spread misinformation and folly. I was wrong on this occasion to think that we could leave high school economics out of this.

I need to learn more tolerance towards those with a less secure grip on how the world around them actually functions. My bad.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot![/p][/quote]We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.[/p][/quote]As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.[/p][/quote]Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers. So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there.[/p][/quote]Only someone with absolutely no experience of large organisations would keep harping on about heating a room and giving her a computer. I am talking about the up-cost of EMPLOYING SOMEONE, not keeping them fed and warm. Even so....... 20% for gas, electric and a desk?? That's taken as a percentage of salary is it? So the more you earn the more gas and electric you use? Wow - if 20% of MY salary was used on gas and electric I'd be buying shares in British Gas tomorrow, trust me. Telling the truth isn't craving approval. If I was craving approval I'd post a thicko comment along the lines of "that's obscene, how many dustbin men could we employ for that???". If you throw comments open to the public you'll get 95% of them getting it WRONG. The smart money would go with the handful of poor souls on here giving up their time to try and educate the keyboard pundits who think an internet connection and an anonymous username somehow gifts them with the right to spread misinformation and folly. I was wrong on this occasion to think that we could leave high school economics out of this. I need to learn more tolerance towards those with a less secure grip on how the world around them actually functions. My bad. holden79
  • Score: -4

4:19pm Fri 20 Jun 14

meme says...

I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution
The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali
sed /gave up/took the blame for things then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains.
I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!!
I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things [I don't know which is right] then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!! meme
  • Score: 7

4:33pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

meme wrote:
I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!!
Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen.

Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench.

Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive?

Time to get real.

Time to smell the stench of politicisation!
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things [I don't know which is right] then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!![/p][/quote]Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen. Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench. Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive? Time to get real. Time to smell the stench of politicisation! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
meme wrote:
I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!!
Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen.

Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench.

Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive?

Time to get real.

Time to smell the stench of politicisation!
A smell you are all too familiar with, Captain Dogma.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things [I don't know which is right] then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!![/p][/quote]Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen. Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench. Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive? Time to get real. Time to smell the stench of politicisation![/p][/quote]A smell you are all too familiar with, Captain Dogma. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -4

6:41pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration.

As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists!

He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day!
Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul.
"He" and "His"
Really?

You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are.
Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him.

Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc.

Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen!
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.[/p][/quote]BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day![/p][/quote]Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul. "He" and "His" Really? You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are. Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him. Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc. Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen! Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -5

6:45pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Cheeky face says...

If high wage/salary owners only claimed what they were truly worth many would be extremely disappointed.

I bet she knows a good deal about tax avoidance!

Compared to other high earners (£700 a day) it could be a good deal! Footballers on £250,000 a week is an example.

Market forces have driven these contracts to vast financial amounts.
If high wage/salary owners only claimed what they were truly worth many would be extremely disappointed. I bet she knows a good deal about tax avoidance! Compared to other high earners (£700 a day) it could be a good deal! Footballers on £250,000 a week is an example. Market forces have driven these contracts to vast financial amounts. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

6:51pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Cheeky face says...

If FOI requests are the only we can gather facts on costs./expenditure by this council then the council leaders/directors etc should be ashamed.

Now we hear the cost of each FOI request is £137 , and not £700 the York council told the media.
If FOI requests are the only we can gather facts on costs./expenditure by this council then the council leaders/directors etc should be ashamed. Now we hear the cost of each FOI request is £137 , and not £700 the York council told the media. Cheeky face
  • Score: 12

11:43pm Fri 20 Jun 14

wallman says...

how many of our so-called councillors were born and grew up in York they aren't interested in York only their future in the council;
how many of our so-called councillors were born and grew up in York they aren't interested in York only their future in the council; wallman
  • Score: 10

11:58pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
meme wrote: I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!!
Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen. Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench. Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive? Time to get real. Time to smell the stench of politicisation!
A smell you are all too familiar with, Captain Dogma.
You do talk some tripe!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: I made a comment which was removed about how I don't begrudge her salary IF she actually makes a positive contribution The reason it was removed was because I said that her predecessor had turned up full of promise ,took a huge salary, became politicised/demorali sed /gave up/took the blame for things [I don't know which is right] then left to go to The Orkneys I think having made no real contribution to CoYC. I hope Ms Tanburn is made of stronger stuff and can make a difference, as if she is then her wages are worth it as York certainly need improving as everyone I know who deals with them complains. I never hear a good word to be said about any department. I wish I did!![/p][/quote]Sorry to disappointyou meme, but, that ain't going to happen. Darren Richardson was weak and outnumbered, so capitulated (bottled it) and then quit, getting as far away as he could from the stench. Ms Tanburn is made of different stuff - she's a political sympathiser - her tweets are evidence of that. She will willingly be complicit in the agenda. Why else do you think she was chosen by the chief executive? Time to get real. Time to smell the stench of politicisation![/p][/quote]A smell you are all too familiar with, Captain Dogma.[/p][/quote]You do talk some tripe! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 4

12:01am Sat 21 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day!
Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul. "He" and "His" Really? You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are. Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him. Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc. Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen!
Tosh talking twerp!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.[/p][/quote]BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day![/p][/quote]Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul. "He" and "His" Really? You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are. Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him. Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc. Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen![/p][/quote]Tosh talking twerp! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

9:21am Sat 21 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.
BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day!
Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul. "He" and "His" Really? You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are. Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him. Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc. Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen!
Tosh talking twerp!
Just calling me names and being unable to deny or refute.
Cheers for that.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well, we tried to play bingo. I only got "champange socialist" There was no "snouts" or "trough" and "profligacy" was in the article, so just one point for me. No jackpot. Having read all this, it's clear that York would be better off with a thousand champagne socialists or Sarah Tanburns than even just one conspiracy-theory wielding Paul S Cordock.[/p][/quote]BTW, it was Paul S Cordock's FOI which revealed the truth about Sarah Tanburn's remuneration. As usual he deals in FACTS, not wild, inaccurate assertions like the council apologists! He does his research for nowt, whilst others get paid £700/day![/p][/quote]Hah! Don't make us laugh, Paul. "He" and "His" Really? You are such a great researcher, uncovering all these scams and plots and hidden agendas and stuff for the good of the people of York. What a people's champion you are. Who'd have thought that all you have to do to be a top discoverer is to trawl Twitter all day? Boy did Neo miss a trick. He would've found Morpheus and Trinity so much quicker if he'd had you around to help him. Y'know I've been doing some research myself. Turns out that the one who calls herself Beyonce Knowles is using humanitarian causes to promote her music. You should see who she follows on Twitter and what they have foisted on the public. Word is she's in cahoots with someone called Jay-Z. Of all people! It's a dangerous cabal seeking to undermine... blah blah etc etc. Yes people of York, you will thank me! For the research I do for free and for the public benefit and not at all politicised or driven by personal grudges against administrations or single councillors or for any kind of vengeance for the longest-standing grudge you have ever seen![/p][/quote]Tosh talking twerp![/p][/quote]Just calling me names and being unable to deny or refute. Cheers for that. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -5

1:50pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Yorkkeiyyer says...

This is fair value for money, give the woman a chance! Banking, Energy and FTSE strategists, IT Consultants all well over £1K a day. You get what you pay for.

Hopefully Sarah will be supported with an online means of publishing local plan 'In Progress'

If the work is done properly future proofing York, it should pave the way for a huge amount of investment in York that will benefit business, Jobs, etc.

Getting the local plan right is like getting the education system right, it sets up the next generations. Perhaps even make it a permanent role and keep local plan in progress, dynamic and flexible.

For info consider Milton Keynes smart project, Barcelona rated 5th smartest city in Europe -
http://www.vilaweb.c
at/noticia/4175829/2
0140226/ten-reasons-
why-barcelona-is-sma
rt-city.html
How much do you think these cost?
How much could this benefit industry and tourism?
This is fair value for money, give the woman a chance! Banking, Energy and FTSE strategists, IT Consultants all well over £1K a day. You get what you pay for. Hopefully Sarah will be supported with an online means of publishing local plan 'In Progress' If the work is done properly future proofing York, it should pave the way for a huge amount of investment in York that will benefit business, Jobs, etc. Getting the local plan right is like getting the education system right, it sets up the next generations. Perhaps even make it a permanent role and keep local plan in progress, dynamic and flexible. For info consider Milton Keynes smart project, Barcelona rated 5th smartest city in Europe - http://www.vilaweb.c at/noticia/4175829/2 0140226/ten-reasons- why-barcelona-is-sma rt-city.html How much do you think these cost? How much could this benefit industry and tourism? Yorkkeiyyer
  • Score: -5

2:04pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Yorkkeiyyer says...

Has anyone ever thought about limiting comments to similar chars to twitter, could make them more user friendly,....
Has anyone ever thought about limiting comments to similar chars to twitter, could make them more user friendly,.... Yorkkeiyyer
  • Score: -5

7:54pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jay, york says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
wallman wrote: If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council.
That will depend on your political ideology, and your gender?!!!
And agreeing totally with absolutely everything ms england says and not to question any of her decisions - no matter what sort of other "business interests" and associations she may have!
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: If I say please will you give me a nice job Ms. England without telling the council.[/p][/quote]That will depend on your political ideology, and your gender?!!![/p][/quote]And agreeing totally with absolutely everything ms england says and not to question any of her decisions - no matter what sort of other "business interests" and associations she may have! jay, york
  • Score: 2

8:05pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jay, york says...

nearlyman wrote:
holden79 wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.
The majority of York residents will not notice an iota of difference as a result of her efforts and I reluctantly imagine that if you gave it to little Jimmy to do as a saturday job/project the same outcome would be achieved.
Yes consultants do cost a lot of money - but some people get sucked in because of that title or because of "associations with people/ companies they are involved with.
If a consultant has a proven track record and success rate in a particular area, they propbably are worth a large percentage of their money. But if they have no proven track record or success rate in the particular area,in question, they are just ripping off gullible people (eg. ms england and holden79).
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Wake up everyone - this is the real world. Consultants cost money. Expertise costs money. Comparing the cost of this resource to the cost of paying a nurse is just a waste of bandwidth. "How many hospitals could we build if we didn't build nuclear submarines..?" Well I am sorry but the world is a more complicated place. £700/day really isn't that expensive for an external consultant of her calibre, it is just the world we live in. All the other UK cities against which we unfavourably compare our own beautiful York will no doubt have hired in a resource like this at some point to deliver the goods. Nothing to see here, move along.[/p][/quote]The majority of York residents will not notice an iota of difference as a result of her efforts and I reluctantly imagine that if you gave it to little Jimmy to do as a saturday job/project the same outcome would be achieved.[/p][/quote]Yes consultants do cost a lot of money - but some people get sucked in because of that title or because of "associations with people/ companies they are involved with. If a consultant has a proven track record and success rate in a particular area, they propbably are worth a large percentage of their money. But if they have no proven track record or success rate in the particular area,in question, they are just ripping off gullible people (eg. ms england and holden79). jay, york
  • Score: 2

8:08pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jay, york says...

spragger wrote:
'Labour and City of York Council defended the position' I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money? Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems
But they will once the spy car gets banned, apart from its original intended use!
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: 'Labour and City of York Council defended the position' I bed they did, as they are all on the same gravy train. What is it with Labour & spending other peoples money? Dare they ever complain again about having financial problems[/p][/quote]But they will once the spy car gets banned, apart from its original intended use! jay, york
  • Score: 3

8:32pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jay, york says...

holden79 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Stevie D wrote:
nowthen wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City !
A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.
Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.
yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot!
We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.
As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.
Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers. So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there.
Only someone with absolutely no experience of large organisations would keep harping on about heating a room and giving her a computer. I am talking about the up-cost of EMPLOYING SOMEONE, not keeping them fed and warm. Even so....... 20% for gas, electric and a desk?? That's taken as a percentage of salary is it? So the more you earn the more gas and electric you use? Wow - if 20% of MY salary was used on gas and electric I'd be buying shares in British Gas tomorrow, trust me. Telling the truth isn't craving approval. If I was craving approval I'd post a thicko comment along the lines of "that's obscene, how many dustbin men could we employ for that???". If you throw comments open to the public you'll get 95% of them getting it WRONG. The smart money would go with the handful of poor souls on here giving up their time to try and educate the keyboard pundits who think an internet connection and an anonymous username somehow gifts them with the right to spread misinformation and folly. I was wrong on this occasion to think that we could leave high school economics out of this. I need to learn more tolerance towards those with a less secure grip on how the world around them actually functions. My bad.
You sound just llike little jimmy - ignorant and slanging off the public.
One thing you are right about though, is that (just like little jimmy) you do need to learn more tolerance - to everyone who has the right to be heard and respected without having to face this tirade from you!
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: A spokesman for the ruling Labour group on the council also defended the decision, claiming the interim appointment in reality costs less than the permanent post it has replaced. So according to Labour £130,000 costs less than £102,000 ! and these people are running ( ruining ) our City ![/p][/quote]A salary of £100k might well cost the council more than consultancy rates of £130k, once you factor in national insurance, accrued benefits and other associated on-costs that the council won't have to pay to someone working as a freelance consultant. It does sound slightly off, I would have expected a £100k salary to cost about the same as a £120–£125k consultancy, but it's not as daft a statement as it sounds.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Stevie D. The cost of employing someone is usually much more than the cost of simply paying them.[/p][/quote]yes you have the desk, office space, pc... computer systems etc blah blah... but she will use all of these? the only saving is on tax and pensions and for the term we are talking about it wouldn’t work out as a saving. Unfortunately the government has said be more efficient, so the councils said ok lets sack people that will save money then we can just bring in contractors on a day rate and not declare it on the books. Therefore meeting their target and hiding the costs in projects etc.... They have to do something now PFI has been found out. Shame it isn't looking at the way they do things or wasteful areas... of which there are a lot![/p][/quote]We're not talking about her being given a computer to use. There is a business cost to having someone on the books as staff. Most medium to large size organisations will have a standard overhead that is factored in. In additional to that you have annual leave, pension, sick pay....... None of which you have to consider with an external contractor.[/p][/quote]As of 11:36pm this has -8 votes. Yet every word I wrote was true. None of it was opinion or conjecture. On an exam paper it would get full marks. This consultant is costing each York resident less than 1.5p per week, based upon 200,000 residents. The appointment and remuneration of such a person simply cannot be left to the kind of people that waste time arguing against basic factual norms. There is a reason important decisions aren't left to the public. Like I said, nothing to see here, move on.[/p][/quote]Yes it is true in part? But you are getting things a tad mixed up. The council pay someone’s salary which is taken out of a pot, you are correct this pot does contain overhead too, usually gas, electric desks etc and is usually around 20% pp..... So if you are paying someone 50k per year they would in fact be costing us 60k per year. . But the overhead also covers all the equipment she needs, her desk, her food (after all consultants get expenses on top of day rate) so in your wisdom how on earth is she cheaper then employing someone? How much of that 20% will she indeed be costing? She will be in an office, she will have a computer provided, she will indeed want to be warm and have the lights on... So while she costs £700 per day (which for consultants is cheap but that’s maybe because she is sh@te and has a horrible track record) she actually costs us more then £700 per day? So factor around 10% on top of her wage and that’s the true cost to us. After all the new offices aren’t self sufficient form Alexander’s magic powers. So your exam question would get about 6 out of 10... you didn’t look into alternative costs that she brings in on top of just her salary. However if I was the teacher (or marker) I’m mark it lower for craving approval and thinking you are right when in fact you were half way there.[/p][/quote]Only someone with absolutely no experience of large organisations would keep harping on about heating a room and giving her a computer. I am talking about the up-cost of EMPLOYING SOMEONE, not keeping them fed and warm. Even so....... 20% for gas, electric and a desk?? That's taken as a percentage of salary is it? So the more you earn the more gas and electric you use? Wow - if 20% of MY salary was used on gas and electric I'd be buying shares in British Gas tomorrow, trust me. Telling the truth isn't craving approval. If I was craving approval I'd post a thicko comment along the lines of "that's obscene, how many dustbin men could we employ for that???". If you throw comments open to the public you'll get 95% of them getting it WRONG. The smart money would go with the handful of poor souls on here giving up their time to try and educate the keyboard pundits who think an internet connection and an anonymous username somehow gifts them with the right to spread misinformation and folly. I was wrong on this occasion to think that we could leave high school economics out of this. I need to learn more tolerance towards those with a less secure grip on how the world around them actually functions. My bad.[/p][/quote]You sound just llike little jimmy - ignorant and slanging off the public. One thing you are right about though, is that (just like little jimmy) you do need to learn more tolerance - to everyone who has the right to be heard and respected without having to face this tirade from you! jay, york
  • Score: 9

10:46pm Thu 26 Jun 14

vax2002 says...

She probably sells Socialist Worker on the fifth day...
She probably sells Socialist Worker on the fifth day... vax2002
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Older Sometimes Wiser says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
I have worked with many consultants over the years and apart from specialist engineering consultants have not found one yet who is worth more than 50p per day. My experience of them is that they come in mooch around picking everybody's brains taking their ideas, They then translate these into a glossy report, as they have so much time and nothing else to do, then present the ides as their own which are quickly taken up by the people who hired them. They then disappear and when it all goes horribly wrong the management who are the ones being paid to make the decisions they hired the consultant to make can say twas not us twas the consultant. So worth every penny then if you can avoid doing your job and taking responsibility for your decisions.
This seems a fair analysis,no doubt we will have some idea by the election next year.
I am still waiting for the knowledgeable, intelligent, apolitical candidates willing to stand for York City Council ; capable of spending the reduced sums provided by Central Government etc. to the best advantage of ALL its residents.
Does York have anyone to meet the challenge?
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I have worked with many consultants over the years and apart from specialist engineering consultants have not found one yet who is worth more than 50p per day. My experience of them is that they come in mooch around picking everybody's brains taking their ideas, They then translate these into a glossy report, as they have so much time and nothing else to do, then present the ides as their own which are quickly taken up by the people who hired them. They then disappear and when it all goes horribly wrong the management who are the ones being paid to make the decisions they hired the consultant to make can say twas not us twas the consultant. So worth every penny then if you can avoid doing your job and taking responsibility for your decisions.[/p][/quote]This seems a fair analysis,no doubt we will have some idea by the election next year. I am still waiting for the knowledgeable, intelligent, apolitical candidates willing to stand for York City Council ; capable of spending the reduced sums provided by Central Government etc. to the best advantage of ALL its residents. Does York have anyone to meet the challenge? Older Sometimes Wiser
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree