City bosses recruit more £700-a-day stand-ins - social care said to be in "meltdown" after resignations - opposition demand answers

Council chief executive Kersten England

Cllr Paul Doughty: residents deserve transparency

Updated in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

COUNCIL chiefs in York have come under fire for filling two more top jobs with people on temporary contracts on combined pay of £1,450 a day.

The two interim assistant director posts in adult social care at City of York Council follow the appointment of Sarah Tanburn, on £700 a day for a year to work four days a week as interim director of city and environmental services (see June 18 story).

Opposition Conservative councillors say adult social care in the city is in "meltdown" following the departure of Kathy Clark and Graham Terry, who have resigned as assistant directors in adult social care.

Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

The council has said the £1,450 combined payment is for a maximum of 203 days over the next year. The council will not pay tax, National Insurance, pensions, sick pay or any payment for days they are absent.

Conservative leader Chris Steward, said: "I'm extremely concerned and unhappy that more and more interims on ridiculous money are being taken on by the chief executive under delegated powers rather than the decision taken by elected councillors."

Tory councillor Paul Doughty, who is vice chairman of the council’s health scrutiny committee, said: “Adult health and social care appears to be in chaos. Despite repeated questions from myself and Conservative group leader Chris Steward asking for clarification of the problems within this department, the chief executive of this Labour administration refuses to divulge any information, and we believe the residents of York are entitled to transparency when it comes to such an important council function."

The council's latest financial report, to be discussed by the cabinet on Tuesday, shows the health & wellbeing department overspent by £1.391 million, although the council overall underspent its budget by £314,000.

Mrs England, said: “It is a matter of fact, communicated to all group leaders and lead spokespersons for adult social care, that two assistant directors have resigned for unrelated and personal reasons. A cross-party member briefing session took place on Monday about the service."

Paul Edmondson-Jones, director of public health, said: "Adult Social Care departments across the country are facing unparalleled challenges as a result of an ageing population and reducing national budgets, combined with a statutory duty to provide care.

"In making appointments to the two interim assistant director posts our absolute priority has been to ensure that we recruited highly experienced individuals who would be able to help the council meet the challenges ahead. Value for money has, as always, been a key driver in the recruitment process."

Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area."

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:18pm Fri 27 Jun 14

trailblazer says...

bit rich of the conservatives saying
we believe the residents of York are entitled to transparency when it comes to such an important council function."
when they sided with labour to keep secret any finding by Persimmons and the Council when carrying out the archaeological dig on the construction of the Germany Beck access road.
There again it is a private profit making company involved, could they be hoping for a political donation later.
bit rich of the conservatives saying we believe the residents of York are entitled to transparency when it comes to such an important council function." when they sided with labour to keep secret any finding by Persimmons and the Council when carrying out the archaeological dig on the construction of the Germany Beck access road. There again it is a private profit making company involved, could they be hoping for a political donation later. trailblazer
  • Score: 15

5:36pm Fri 27 Jun 14

anistasia says...

Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be. anistasia
  • Score: 33

5:44pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Anna Gramme says...

anistasia wrote:
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Write in English.
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.[/p][/quote]Write in English. Anna Gramme
  • Score: -48

5:52pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Dave Taylor says...

Anistasia: Labour members will not vote themselves out of office. All the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and Independents voting together cannot out-vote Labour at this time.
Anistasia: Labour members will not vote themselves out of office. All the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and Independents voting together cannot out-vote Labour at this time. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 24

6:14pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

love the last part of the story, "This is not political " you bet it is. and very very strange 2 bosses in the same department leave under different reasons, bet more like Secret Squirrel Squad at work, never ever have I heard 2 bosses leave their posts at the same time and its not connected.
As for 700 an hour hope their working 26 hours a day and paying full tax at top rate .

This council transparency is like a 3 foot granite wall .
love the last part of the story, "This is not political " you bet it is. and very very strange 2 bosses in the same department leave under different reasons, bet more like Secret Squirrel Squad at work, never ever have I heard 2 bosses leave their posts at the same time and its not connected. As for 700 an hour hope their working 26 hours a day and paying full tax at top rate . This council transparency is like a 3 foot granite wall . Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 33

6:22pm Fri 27 Jun 14

jonrim says...

complete incompetence just a group of friends leading other friends to the trough filled with public money .
complete incompetence just a group of friends leading other friends to the trough filled with public money . jonrim
  • Score: 46

7:03pm Fri 27 Jun 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

this is horrendous - crisis management and complete incompetence. Surely the people of York have suffered enough of this. We have a council that is supposed to work for us and we have elected people who are supposed to represent residents views. NEITHER is functioning.
In a household there is some money - you may not always be able to budget successfully so you prioritise. Should be the same in the local government areas and in the greater scheme national government too. This labour council appears to have pi""ed off too many key workers and doesn't know what to do. Someone recently wrote along the lines of when Jimmy goes will he leave a note saying 'all the money has gone'. Let's remember that is how it started.......did he not ask for a sub from Ms England on acquiring the position. And did it not used to be the case that those representing us had to be financial stable. Time for massive changes
this is horrendous - crisis management and complete incompetence. Surely the people of York have suffered enough of this. We have a council that is supposed to work for us and we have elected people who are supposed to represent residents views. NEITHER is functioning. In a household there is some money - you may not always be able to budget successfully so you prioritise. Should be the same in the local government areas and in the greater scheme national government too. This labour council appears to have pi""ed off too many key workers and doesn't know what to do. Someone recently wrote along the lines of when Jimmy goes will he leave a note saying 'all the money has gone'. Let's remember that is how it started.......did he not ask for a sub from Ms England on acquiring the position. And did it not used to be the case that those representing us had to be financial stable. Time for massive changes thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: 39

7:14pm Fri 27 Jun 14

York Castle says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
anistasia wrote:
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Write in English.
Anna Gramme, I would like to ask you if you think Anastasia's comment isn't written in the English Language, then exactly which language do you think it is displaying? In the unlikely event that you are commenting on some other aspect of her observation, then please remember that one of these days we may be examining your own written work very closely indeed. At that point we will feel minded to be equally as frank in our comments on your contribution.
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.[/p][/quote]Write in English.[/p][/quote]Anna Gramme, I would like to ask you if you think Anastasia's comment isn't written in the English Language, then exactly which language do you think it is displaying? In the unlikely event that you are commenting on some other aspect of her observation, then please remember that one of these days we may be examining your own written work very closely indeed. At that point we will feel minded to be equally as frank in our comments on your contribution. York Castle
  • Score: 33

8:22pm Fri 27 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
anistasia wrote:
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Write in English.
You are obviously Simply-Wrong or one of the other idiots in the local labour group! My money is on Simply-Wrong! Simple English for you.. Recall! We the tax paying residents want to be able to recall elected councillors! We pay your wages, we should be able to say enough is enough! Dat simple enough for you, doh??
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.[/p][/quote]Write in English.[/p][/quote]You are obviously Simply-Wrong or one of the other idiots in the local labour group! My money is on Simply-Wrong! Simple English for you.. Recall! We the tax paying residents want to be able to recall elected councillors! We pay your wages, we should be able to say enough is enough! Dat simple enough for you, doh?? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 26

8:23pm Fri 27 Jun 14

eeoodares says...

Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy was laid bare today after it was revealed a former minister left his successor a note that said 'there was no money left'. In a stark message left in a Treasury desk, outgoing Labour chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.'

Looks like Labour in York are trying to to the same, spend ALL the money and more. This lot are truly inept.
Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy was laid bare today after it was revealed a former minister left his successor a note that said 'there was no money left'. In a stark message left in a Treasury desk, outgoing Labour chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' Looks like Labour in York are trying to to the same, spend ALL the money and more. This lot are truly inept. eeoodares
  • Score: 26

8:30pm Fri 27 Jun 14

jay, york says...

I would like to ask how ms england is actually able to have "delegated power" to agree to spend almost half a million pounds within a metter of weeks in engaging only 3 people to work for york labour council for no more than 4 days a week over a year.
I am glad that this scandalous waste of "our" money (not hers) on such a grand scale has come into the public domain - but the real question is, what on earth is she responsible for behind closed doors that we do not know about?
It sounds to me like her pure desparation tactics before the "you know what" finally does hit the fan (either that or little jimmy trying to distant himself from yet another disaster).
I would like to ask how ms england is actually able to have "delegated power" to agree to spend almost half a million pounds within a metter of weeks in engaging only 3 people to work for york labour council for no more than 4 days a week over a year. I am glad that this scandalous waste of "our" money (not hers) on such a grand scale has come into the public domain - but the real question is, what on earth is she responsible for behind closed doors that we do not know about? It sounds to me like her pure desparation tactics before the "you know what" finally does hit the fan (either that or little jimmy trying to distant himself from yet another disaster). jay, york
  • Score: 22

8:33pm Fri 27 Jun 14

JasBro says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
anistasia wrote:
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Write in English.
Anistasia's comment was quite obviously in English, and quite easily understandable.
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.[/p][/quote]Write in English.[/p][/quote]Anistasia's comment was quite obviously in English, and quite easily understandable. JasBro
  • Score: 22

8:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

AnotherPointofView says...

eeoodares wrote:
Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy was laid bare today after it was revealed a former minister left his successor a note that said 'there was no money left'. In a stark message left in a Treasury desk, outgoing Labour chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.'

Looks like Labour in York are trying to to the same, spend ALL the money and more. This lot are truly inept.
Agreed. There are patterns of behaviour common to both the Brown led Labour government and this lot we have in York.

Towards the end of Gordon Brown's period, they abandoned all attempts at fiscal responsibility and threw (our) money at everything, leaving the country in parlous the state it was - leading to Liam Byrne's note.

Jimmy A's lot looks to be as bereft of any fiscal restraint in just the same way. They know they are going to lose next year and don't care about spending (our) money.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Labour's gross mismanagement of the economy was laid bare today after it was revealed a former minister left his successor a note that said 'there was no money left'. In a stark message left in a Treasury desk, outgoing Labour chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' Looks like Labour in York are trying to to the same, spend ALL the money and more. This lot are truly inept.[/p][/quote]Agreed. There are patterns of behaviour common to both the Brown led Labour government and this lot we have in York. Towards the end of Gordon Brown's period, they abandoned all attempts at fiscal responsibility and threw (our) money at everything, leaving the country in parlous the state it was - leading to Liam Byrne's note. Jimmy A's lot looks to be as bereft of any fiscal restraint in just the same way. They know they are going to lose next year and don't care about spending (our) money. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 18

8:44pm Fri 27 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl
y!!!!!!!
If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl y!!!!!!! piaggio1
  • Score: 21

9:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

A.P.Feeders says...

The labour council to save money closed beckfield lane tip then pay all this money in wages for these type of jobs.come the next election I will be first in line to vote these waste of spaces out I don't think they realiize how unpopular they really are and I still get that Carlos valderrama lookalike delivering leaflets at my house
The labour council to save money closed beckfield lane tip then pay all this money in wages for these type of jobs.come the next election I will be first in line to vote these waste of spaces out I don't think they realiize how unpopular they really are and I still get that Carlos valderrama lookalike delivering leaflets at my house A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 16

9:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Y.I.P. says...

gizza job !!
gizza job !! Y.I.P.
  • Score: 8

9:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

JasBro says...

piaggio1 wrote:
If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl

y!!!!!!!
Come on then, you big tease, spill the beans.

What are this lot up to, allegedly?
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl y!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Come on then, you big tease, spill the beans. What are this lot up to, allegedly? JasBro
  • Score: 5

10:53pm Fri 27 Jun 14

jay, york says...

piaggio1 wrote:
If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl y!!!!!!!
I am quite sure that it will all be revealed and a lot of people will probably be shocked. But for those of us who have their finger on the pulse with this labour lot, it will be just something else to add to their list of disasters. It will also prove that they are grossly underhand and incompetant at doing their job in an open and honest way to benefi the residents of York and outlying areas that they are paid to represent. All they do is spend an extortionate amount of money in pursuing their own pet schemes and political ideals.
As far as social care in York is concerned, the council has cut their involvement and support to such an extent and farmed out community care to private care firms, it is an absolute discrace!
The sooner they are out, the better.
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: If someone!!!dug a little deeper.you would be stunned by what this lot are up to.and it go.s back a few years......alledgedl y!!!!!!![/p][/quote]I am quite sure that it will all be revealed and a lot of people will probably be shocked. But for those of us who have their finger on the pulse with this labour lot, it will be just something else to add to their list of disasters. It will also prove that they are grossly underhand and incompetant at doing their job in an open and honest way to benefi the residents of York and outlying areas that they are paid to represent. All they do is spend an extortionate amount of money in pursuing their own pet schemes and political ideals. As far as social care in York is concerned, the council has cut their involvement and support to such an extent and farmed out community care to private care firms, it is an absolute discrace! The sooner they are out, the better. jay, york
  • Score: 13

11:06pm Fri 27 Jun 14

andyjon12 says...

Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place. andyjon12
  • Score: -2

11:24pm Fri 27 Jun 14

jay, york says...

andyjon12 wrote:
Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
So labour have wasted even more of OUR money on these so called "deals"!
[quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.[/p][/quote]So labour have wasted even more of OUR money on these so called "deals"! jay, york
  • Score: 6

1:07am Sat 28 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

'Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area."

'Play politics?' What planet is this girl on?
'Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area." 'Play politics?' What planet is this girl on? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 12

1:33am Sat 28 Jun 14

Pinto1978 says...

Surly if 2 people hand in there notice in such high positions it obvious it's the way of the chef executive of cyc. and the pressures just to hand in resignations like this in such tough times. WHAT IS NEXT THAT IS THE SCARY PART!!
What a circus is this or is it just the ring master not in control.
It's just 1 thing after another & they all forget ultimately We pay these ridiculous bills. It's now time to stop and take account of ones actions and take responsibility and the consequences !!!
But we all know they will not :/
Surly if 2 people hand in there notice in such high positions it obvious it's the way of the chef executive of cyc. and the pressures just to hand in resignations like this in such tough times. WHAT IS NEXT THAT IS THE SCARY PART!! What a circus is this or is it just the ring master not in control. It's just 1 thing after another & they all forget ultimately We pay these ridiculous bills. It's now time to stop and take account of ones actions and take responsibility and the consequences !!! But we all know they will not :/ Pinto1978
  • Score: 3

8:09am Sat 28 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

Is the mark down mongrel on holiday????
Prob trekkin in cambodia first class like...
Is the mark down mongrel on holiday???? Prob trekkin in cambodia first class like... piaggio1
  • Score: 2

8:31am Sat 28 Jun 14

acomblass says...

The sad thing is that it appears to be the whole Council in meltdown. It is good to know that we do have some investigative journalists at Minster FM who broke this story first. Bet your bottom dollar there's more to come.
The sad thing is that it appears to be the whole Council in meltdown. It is good to know that we do have some investigative journalists at Minster FM who broke this story first. Bet your bottom dollar there's more to come. acomblass
  • Score: 16

9:18am Sat 28 Jun 14

Cheeky face says...

There are too many posts in the council at senior/middle manager level.

(Regarding Coppergate and Lendal Bridge I have had several employees/councilors replying to me (or not replying); and those schemes are still under scrutiny by me and the traffic adjudicators).

The cost per day seems high but is mirrored by other councils in the UK.

Such expenditure should not be devolved to one individual.

The truth will come out in the passage of time (on those who left their posts).
There are too many posts in the council at senior/middle manager level. (Regarding Coppergate and Lendal Bridge I have had several employees/councilors replying to me (or not replying); and those schemes are still under scrutiny by me and the traffic adjudicators). The cost per day seems high but is mirrored by other councils in the UK. Such expenditure should not be devolved to one individual. The truth will come out in the passage of time (on those who left their posts). Cheeky face
  • Score: -13

9:44am Sat 28 Jun 14

James Venamun says...

It could just be that Mr Terry and Ms Clark did resign for their own reasons , and that these may have been completely unrelated to any shenanigans with the handling of Adult Social Care in York by Kersten England and her senior team. It could be. I just think the timing of it raises a lot of suspicion.Clark and Terry were two well established figures in CYC, maybe they'd had enough and colluded to depart at the same time to maximise the damage? What is happening in York with hiring of temporary (and expensive) cover staff to prop up services is happening around the country. No doubt Kersten and her acolytes in the CYC media team will as usual spin some sort of credible explanation, but I must say Cllr Steward is right to highlight the situation as regards Adult social Care in York, it has been on a slippery slope for a good 3 years now and is at crisis point. Those of you with vulnerable or elderly relatives in the hands of CYC services need to be alert to what is going on.
It could just be that Mr Terry and Ms Clark did resign for their own reasons , and that these may have been completely unrelated to any shenanigans with the handling of Adult Social Care in York by Kersten England and her senior team. It could be. I just think the timing of it raises a lot of suspicion.Clark and Terry were two well established figures in CYC, maybe they'd had enough and colluded to depart at the same time to maximise the damage? What is happening in York with hiring of temporary (and expensive) cover staff to prop up services is happening around the country. No doubt Kersten and her acolytes in the CYC media team will as usual spin some sort of credible explanation, but I must say Cllr Steward is right to highlight the situation as regards Adult social Care in York, it has been on a slippery slope for a good 3 years now and is at crisis point. Those of you with vulnerable or elderly relatives in the hands of CYC services need to be alert to what is going on. James Venamun
  • Score: 8

10:07am Sat 28 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

andyjon12 wrote:
Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website.
Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k.
There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law.
http://www.york.gov.
uk/downloads/file/13
387/cycpayments2014-
04pdf
[quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.[/p][/quote]Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website. Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k. There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/13 387/cycpayments2014- 04pdf inthesticks
  • Score: 19

10:08am Sat 28 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

inthesticks wrote:
andyjon12 wrote:
Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website.
Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k.
There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law.
http://www.york.gov.

uk/downloads/file/13

387/cycpayments2014-

04pdf
So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.[/p][/quote]Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website. Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k. There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/13 387/cycpayments2014- 04pdf[/p][/quote]So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess. inthesticks
  • Score: -8

10:20am Sat 28 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
'Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area."

'Play politics?' What planet is this girl on?
Linsay Cunningham-Cross is about 15 years old with no real experience in life (but she can speak Chinese)

as for playing politics, every opportunity in this her profile on here is "playing politics"

http://www.yorklabou
r.org.uk/people/lyns
aycunninghamcross.ph
p
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: 'Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area." 'Play politics?' What planet is this girl on?[/p][/quote]Linsay Cunningham-Cross is about 15 years old with no real experience in life (but she can speak Chinese) as for playing politics, every opportunity in this her profile on here is "playing politics" http://www.yorklabou r.org.uk/people/lyns aycunninghamcross.ph p oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -6

10:44am Sat 28 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 9

11:08am Sat 28 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Yup.
I`m intrigued by tinkerbell`s post earlier.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Yup. I`m intrigued by tinkerbell`s post earlier. inthesticks
  • Score: -13

11:23am Sat 28 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

inthesticks wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Yup.
I`m intrigued by tinkerbell`s post earlier.
Absolutely right, standard practice to escort them off the premises, don't return to your desk, no last email, no contact with other staff.

Looks like a classic compromise deal so they won't be saying what really happened.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Yup. I`m intrigued by tinkerbell`s post earlier.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right, standard practice to escort them off the premises, don't return to your desk, no last email, no contact with other staff. Looks like a classic compromise deal so they won't be saying what really happened. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -5

11:25am Sat 28 Jun 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Cheeky face wrote:
There are too many posts in the council at senior/middle manager level.

(Regarding Coppergate and Lendal Bridge I have had several employees/councilors replying to me (or not replying); and those schemes are still under scrutiny by me and the traffic adjudicators).

The cost per day seems high but is mirrored by other councils in the UK.

Such expenditure should not be devolved to one individual.

The truth will come out in the passage of time (on those who left their posts).
The truth may well come out later but by then KE will have wasted a huge chunk of our money.

If the expenditure is justified then so be it but if not it will be too late and the council will have wasted lots of our money (again) and it would be unrecoverable. If wasted money had to come from councillors own pockets they wouldn't be so free and easy at spending it!
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: There are too many posts in the council at senior/middle manager level. (Regarding Coppergate and Lendal Bridge I have had several employees/councilors replying to me (or not replying); and those schemes are still under scrutiny by me and the traffic adjudicators). The cost per day seems high but is mirrored by other councils in the UK. Such expenditure should not be devolved to one individual. The truth will come out in the passage of time (on those who left their posts).[/p][/quote]The truth may well come out later but by then KE will have wasted a huge chunk of our money. If the expenditure is justified then so be it but if not it will be too late and the council will have wasted lots of our money (again) and it would be unrecoverable. If wasted money had to come from councillors own pockets they wouldn't be so free and easy at spending it! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -8

12:16pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Think the truth is seeping out, re the 2 directors or what ever they were. so we (residents) pick up the bill for Severance/Hush Monies of 140, and pick up the tap of 140 for replacements .

As for "Transparency" there is NON, not one peek. Its like the Berlin Wall. Get there Master of C**K UPS back of his holidays as those left (so called ) in charge cant organize the preverble P**s up the the Brewery
Think the truth is seeping out, re the 2 directors or what ever they were. so we (residents) pick up the bill for Severance/Hush Monies of 140, and pick up the tap of 140 for replacements . As for "Transparency" there is NON, not one peek. Its like the Berlin Wall. Get there Master of C**K UPS back of his holidays as those left (so called ) in charge cant organize the preverble P**s up the the Brewery Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -8

12:23pm Sat 28 Jun 14

andyjon12 says...

inthesticks wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
andyjon12 wrote:
Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website.
Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k.
There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law.
http://www.york.gov.


uk/downloads/file/13


387/cycpayments2014-


04pdf
So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess.
It's hard to believe that Kathy Clark jumped on her own accord as she had completed 13 years service with City of York Council. Incidentally, Clark's Linkedin page suggests she was working in two different posts for the LA at the same time from July 2011-2012. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that adult social care in York really is at a "crossroads", with the department constantly treading water in their attempts at keeping unavoidable rising costs down. Therefore, maybe Kathy Clark felt that she simply could not carry on in her role with certain drastic cuts looming, maybe her consiouns told her to go?

My understanding is City of York Council are very shortly going to "have" to announce a major change in the level of need threshold criteria - for adults who qualify for social care support. The threshold is going to be changed from only having to meet substantial needs - to critical needs. This will exclude thousands of adults from social care; this is already happening in some parts of the country. I understand this is likely to affect mainly vulnerable adults with learning disabilites. This area accounts for about 40% of the adult social care budget in York; apparently, other local authorities are spending much less on these vulnerable people. Presumably this is due to them raising the threshold - which York is sadly also going to be doing. The council will say these soon to be announced drastic cuts are unavoidable - because of unsustainable Tory led government cuts. Incidentally, money given from central government accounts for most of York's total budget - more than money raised from council tax. When the cuts happen - thousands of vulnerable disabled people in York will be abandoned by social care through no fault of their own; this is political, because the council's leaders know that they are likely to loose far less votes at next years council elections by picking on these vulnerable people. Learning disabled people are far less likely to vote, whereas, other service users such as the elderly (and their relatives) are far more likely to hurt the council at the ballot box. This is disgraceful.

Finally, you can't help but notice - Kersten England openly admits to having links to COMMON PURPOSE - according to her Linkedin page. Chatham House rules - say no more.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.[/p][/quote]Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website. Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k. There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/13 387/cycpayments2014- 04pdf[/p][/quote]So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess.[/p][/quote]It's hard to believe that Kathy Clark jumped on her own accord as she had completed 13 years service with City of York Council. Incidentally, Clark's Linkedin page suggests she was working in two different posts for the LA at the same time from July 2011-2012. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that adult social care in York really is at a "crossroads", with the department constantly treading water in their attempts at keeping unavoidable rising costs down. Therefore, maybe Kathy Clark felt that she simply could not carry on in her role with certain drastic cuts looming, maybe her consiouns told her to go? My understanding is City of York Council are very shortly going to "have" to announce a major change in the level of need threshold criteria - for adults who qualify for social care support. The threshold is going to be changed from only having to meet substantial needs - to critical needs. This will exclude thousands of adults from social care; this is already happening in some parts of the country. I understand this is likely to affect mainly vulnerable adults with learning disabilites. This area accounts for about 40% of the adult social care budget in York; apparently, other local authorities are spending much less on these vulnerable people. Presumably this is due to them raising the threshold - which York is sadly also going to be doing. The council will say these soon to be announced drastic cuts are unavoidable - because of unsustainable Tory led government cuts. Incidentally, money given from central government accounts for most of York's total budget - more than money raised from council tax. When the cuts happen - thousands of vulnerable disabled people in York will be abandoned by social care through no fault of their own; this is political, because the council's leaders know that they are likely to loose far less votes at next years council elections by picking on these vulnerable people. Learning disabled people are far less likely to vote, whereas, other service users such as the elderly (and their relatives) are far more likely to hurt the council at the ballot box. This is disgraceful. Finally, you can't help but notice - Kersten England openly admits to having links to COMMON PURPOSE - according to her Linkedin page. Chatham House rules - say no more. andyjon12
  • Score: -4

12:35pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back. bill bailey
  • Score: -8

1:09pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

andyjon12 wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
andyjon12 wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.
Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website. Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k. There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/13 387/cycpayments2014- 04pdf
So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess.
It's hard to believe that Kathy Clark jumped on her own accord as she had completed 13 years service with City of York Council. Incidentally, Clark's Linkedin page suggests she was working in two different posts for the LA at the same time from July 2011-2012. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that adult social care in York really is at a "crossroads", with the department constantly treading water in their attempts at keeping unavoidable rising costs down. Therefore, maybe Kathy Clark felt that she simply could not carry on in her role with certain drastic cuts looming, maybe her consiouns told her to go? My understanding is City of York Council are very shortly going to "have" to announce a major change in the level of need threshold criteria - for adults who qualify for social care support. The threshold is going to be changed from only having to meet substantial needs - to critical needs. This will exclude thousands of adults from social care; this is already happening in some parts of the country. I understand this is likely to affect mainly vulnerable adults with learning disabilites. This area accounts for about 40% of the adult social care budget in York; apparently, other local authorities are spending much less on these vulnerable people. Presumably this is due to them raising the threshold - which York is sadly also going to be doing. The council will say these soon to be announced drastic cuts are unavoidable - because of unsustainable Tory led government cuts. Incidentally, money given from central government accounts for most of York's total budget - more than money raised from council tax. When the cuts happen - thousands of vulnerable disabled people in York will be abandoned by social care through no fault of their own; this is political, because the council's leaders know that they are likely to loose far less votes at next years council elections by picking on these vulnerable people. Learning disabled people are far less likely to vote, whereas, other service users such as the elderly (and their relatives) are far more likely to hurt the council at the ballot box. This is disgraceful. Finally, you can't help but notice - Kersten England openly admits to having links to COMMON PURPOSE - according to her Linkedin page. Chatham House rules - say no more.
Within the following FOI response from CYC (on What do They Know), the council state which officers have attended Common Purpose training paid for by the council:-

https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/p
ayments_to_common_pu
rpose_and_n#comment-
46944

Note that this includes Graham Terry!

In this WDTK FOI response, the council says,

"Lastly the Chief Executive has explained that she is not a Common Purpose “graduate” but a member of the Common Purpose advisory board, which operates by teleconference; and that the council has never paid for her to undertake Common Purpose activities."

https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/c
ommon_purpose_153

How can a person not be Common Purpose and serve on an advisory board? Answer: You cannot.

Interestingly, just after the top FOI had been answered, Kersten England removed two Common Purpose links on her LinkedIn profile. A couple of months later, after the fuss had died down, she reinstated them....

http://uk.linkedin.c
om/pub/kersten-engla
nd/27/4b8/963

Anyone wishing to see them, should check quickly, as no doubt the council's comms team will be telling KE to remove them again. They are there now as i have just checked.

Finally, anyone wanting to know what Common Purpose are about, and the connections with marxists who also have links with the council (including Nesta chief executive Geoff Mulgan), should look atthe following youtube talk by Brian Gerrish...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-3DmnovmB
IA
[quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: Unless someone can tell me what salaries Clark and Terry were on, then this is a NON-STORY. My guess is that they were probably "earning" more or less the same as their replacement temps are on - after taking account of all their perks etc. I suppose we will never find out what remunerative packages they were on - or why they resigned; no doubt they have both been paid off handsomely and gagged with confidentiality agreements in place.[/p][/quote]Info about salaries is in the public domain. All directors and A/D`s available on COYC website. Terry was on 73k p/a. Clark on 70k. There are severance and redundancy payments on the top 4 lines of this payments list for April amounting to nearly 70k also, names redacted as per DP law. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/13 387/cycpayments2014- 04pdf[/p][/quote]So that does beg the question, did they jump or were they pushed I guess.[/p][/quote]It's hard to believe that Kathy Clark jumped on her own accord as she had completed 13 years service with City of York Council. Incidentally, Clark's Linkedin page suggests she was working in two different posts for the LA at the same time from July 2011-2012. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that adult social care in York really is at a "crossroads", with the department constantly treading water in their attempts at keeping unavoidable rising costs down. Therefore, maybe Kathy Clark felt that she simply could not carry on in her role with certain drastic cuts looming, maybe her consiouns told her to go? My understanding is City of York Council are very shortly going to "have" to announce a major change in the level of need threshold criteria - for adults who qualify for social care support. The threshold is going to be changed from only having to meet substantial needs - to critical needs. This will exclude thousands of adults from social care; this is already happening in some parts of the country. I understand this is likely to affect mainly vulnerable adults with learning disabilites. This area accounts for about 40% of the adult social care budget in York; apparently, other local authorities are spending much less on these vulnerable people. Presumably this is due to them raising the threshold - which York is sadly also going to be doing. The council will say these soon to be announced drastic cuts are unavoidable - because of unsustainable Tory led government cuts. Incidentally, money given from central government accounts for most of York's total budget - more than money raised from council tax. When the cuts happen - thousands of vulnerable disabled people in York will be abandoned by social care through no fault of their own; this is political, because the council's leaders know that they are likely to loose far less votes at next years council elections by picking on these vulnerable people. Learning disabled people are far less likely to vote, whereas, other service users such as the elderly (and their relatives) are far more likely to hurt the council at the ballot box. This is disgraceful. Finally, you can't help but notice - Kersten England openly admits to having links to COMMON PURPOSE - according to her Linkedin page. Chatham House rules - say no more.[/p][/quote]Within the following FOI response from CYC (on What do They Know), the council state which officers have attended Common Purpose training paid for by the council:- https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/p ayments_to_common_pu rpose_and_n#comment- 46944 Note that this includes Graham Terry! In this WDTK FOI response, the council says, "Lastly the Chief Executive has explained that she is not a Common Purpose “graduate” but a member of the Common Purpose advisory board, which operates by teleconference; and that the council has never paid for her to undertake Common Purpose activities." https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/c ommon_purpose_153 How can a person not be Common Purpose and serve on an advisory board? Answer: You cannot. Interestingly, just after the top FOI had been answered, Kersten England removed two Common Purpose links on her LinkedIn profile. A couple of months later, after the fuss had died down, she reinstated them.... http://uk.linkedin.c om/pub/kersten-engla nd/27/4b8/963 Anyone wishing to see them, should check quickly, as no doubt the council's comms team will be telling KE to remove them again. They are there now as i have just checked. Finally, anyone wanting to know what Common Purpose are about, and the connections with marxists who also have links with the council (including Nesta chief executive Geoff Mulgan), should look atthe following youtube talk by Brian Gerrish... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=-3DmnovmB IA Badgers Drift
  • Score: -7

1:16pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

bill bailey wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.
But this isn't a private business, it's a public service, funded by public money, which OUR business!
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.[/p][/quote]But this isn't a private business, it's a public service, funded by public money, which OUR business! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Sat 28 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Well done York press! i see the censorship nazi as been on again!
Please have the decency to explain why you removed my first comment?

I gather it was because i said 2 of the York council execs ( k.e. and p.e.j )were not worth 1% of their wage packet?
Well done York press! i see the censorship nazi as been on again! Please have the decency to explain why you removed my first comment? I gather it was because i said 2 of the York council execs ( k.e. and p.e.j )were not worth 1% of their wage packet? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 3

2:32pm Sat 28 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

bill bailey wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.
I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say).

I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.[/p][/quote]I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say). I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -4

3:41pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area."


What a silly remark, which totally misses the point.

The issue here is appointments being made solely by Kersten England, who is supposed to be politically neutral, but, who everyone knows, is not.

In addition there is the concern that the council are mismanaging social services, with senior staff from that department leaving under mysterious cicumstances, with no explanations.

It is being suggested that it is related to government cuts, but, meanwhile the council, is pushing forward with kersten england's pet project of 'rewiring' involving spending £10m over the next five years on a social media type system for York residents to engage with the council. this digital disruptive democracy initiative is also being driven by dubious charitiesand a think-tank, wgho are collaborating with the council. One of these is Nesta, run by the founder of marxist think tank Demos, and where Kersten england is a trustee. The other organisations involved are the Young Foundation and FutureGov. It is all highly controversial and has a sinister objective.
[quote] Labour's Cllr Linsay Cunningham-Cross, said: "I am saddened that the Conservatives have chosen to play politics with such important services. There is nothing political about this situation. I do hope that they will fully engage in the cross-party work in this area." [/quote] What a silly remark, which totally misses the point. The issue here is appointments being made solely by Kersten England, who is supposed to be politically neutral, but, who everyone knows, is not. In addition there is the concern that the council are mismanaging social services, with senior staff from that department leaving under mysterious cicumstances, with no explanations. It is being suggested that it is related to government cuts, but, meanwhile the council, is pushing forward with kersten england's pet project of 'rewiring' involving spending £10m over the next five years on a social media type system for York residents to engage with the council. this digital disruptive democracy initiative is also being driven by dubious charitiesand a think-tank, wgho are collaborating with the council. One of these is Nesta, run by the founder of marxist think tank Demos, and where Kersten england is a trustee. The other organisations involved are the Young Foundation and FutureGov. It is all highly controversial and has a sinister objective. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -11

4:50pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.
I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say).

I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence.
Badgers Drift was right the difference its our money I'm only too aware of that,
And you Youwilldoasisay o I have known a few that have COME BACK into the fold for pension reasons , they were given a golden hand shake ,enhanced pension years then re-employed to consult and back into the pension system again, also a redundancy pay off ,I don't know about you I wouldn't mind keeping my mouth shut on those terms.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.[/p][/quote]I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say). I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence.[/p][/quote]Badgers Drift was right the difference its our money I'm only too aware of that, And you Youwilldoasisay o I have known a few that have COME BACK into the fold for pension reasons , they were given a golden hand shake ,enhanced pension years then re-employed to consult and back into the pension system again, also a redundancy pay off ,I don't know about you I wouldn't mind keeping my mouth shut on those terms. bill bailey
  • Score: -16

5:06pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Dr Brian says...

Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed?

She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with.

Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?
Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York? Dr Brian
  • Score: 2

6:44pm Sat 28 Jun 14

pault42 says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
anistasia wrote:
Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.
Write in English.
Are you racist as well as stupid I wonder?
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: Can't we have a vote of no confidence get them out earlier.it worked with Thatcher in general government should be easier for local government.sooner there out better york will be.[/p][/quote]Write in English.[/p][/quote]Are you racist as well as stupid I wonder? pault42
  • Score: -30

6:50pm Sat 28 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

bill bailey wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons".

Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.
Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.
I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say).

I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence.
Badgers Drift was right the difference its our money I'm only too aware of that,
And you Youwilldoasisay o I have known a few that have COME BACK into the fold for pension reasons , they were given a golden hand shake ,enhanced pension years then re-employed to consult and back into the pension system again, also a redundancy pay off ,I don't know about you I wouldn't mind keeping my mouth shut on those terms.
Bill, yes people do get re-employed to consult after taking redundancy and pension pay off. But there is a major difference between redundancy and a compromise agreement, the latter being a legally binding contract of silence for those who are no longer wanted on any terms.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Council chief executive Kersten England made the new appointments under delegated powers after the pair left the organisation for "unrelated and personal reasons". Unrelated and personal reasons is usually the cover story for compromise deal. We don't like you or your opinions, you leave with this payment or you will find life difficult to the point at which we sack you. If you choose to leave it will be for personal reasons and here is some hush money as part of the compromise deal.[/p][/quote]Im afraid it happens in all business , Hush money, have a bit of garden leave then come back doing a bit of on the side, on the same rate, But Don't Tell Them What We Have Been Up Too, Every one scratches each others back.[/p][/quote]I agree Bill it does happen, I guess the reasons why are the importent factors,(difference of opinion, not conforming, not doing what I say). I have never known anyone invited back after a compromise agreement, they are usually not welcome and generally seen as a risk to senior management authority. Hence the paid for legally binding contract of silence.[/p][/quote]Badgers Drift was right the difference its our money I'm only too aware of that, And you Youwilldoasisay o I have known a few that have COME BACK into the fold for pension reasons , they were given a golden hand shake ,enhanced pension years then re-employed to consult and back into the pension system again, also a redundancy pay off ,I don't know about you I wouldn't mind keeping my mouth shut on those terms.[/p][/quote]Bill, yes people do get re-employed to consult after taking redundancy and pension pay off. But there is a major difference between redundancy and a compromise agreement, the latter being a legally binding contract of silence for those who are no longer wanted on any terms. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 3

7:17pm Sat 28 Jun 14

andyjon12 says...

BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY.
BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY. andyjon12
  • Score: -11

7:46pm Sat 28 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

andyjon12 wrote:
BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY.
YES it means only 2 driving around in empty council lorries instead of 3. or is the CEO demoted to fill in holes in the road ?
[quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY.[/p][/quote]YES it means only 2 driving around in empty council lorries instead of 3. or is the CEO demoted to fill in holes in the road ? bill bailey
  • Score: -5

8:45pm Sat 28 Jun 14

andyjon12 says...

bill bailey wrote:
andyjon12 wrote:
BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY.
YES it means only 2 driving around in empty council lorries instead of 3. or is the CEO demoted to fill in holes in the road ?
You can mock! By the way, are the council lorries empty or do they have 2 or 3 people in them?
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyjon12[/bold] wrote: BREAKING NEWS! FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SHOCK CITY OF YORK COUNCIL RESIGNATION THIS COMING WEEK. THIS IS GOING TO SEND SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE CITY.[/p][/quote]YES it means only 2 driving around in empty council lorries instead of 3. or is the CEO demoted to fill in holes in the road ?[/p][/quote]You can mock! By the way, are the council lorries empty or do they have 2 or 3 people in them? andyjon12
  • Score: -10

9:21pm Sat 28 Jun 14

only human says...

Some of these so called bosses have been in the same circle of talent at cyc for many years just doing the rounds and scaling the greasy pole regardless of which political party is doling out the cash in York.
The words complacency arrogance and ignorance come to mind.
When will people in power understand that they can only stay at the top if the little ones at the bottom continue to hold them up or if their bank rolling paymasters continue to throw good money after.
There was another female boss who was sidekick to mr terry and she too has parted company from cyc yet we havnt seen that name banded about on here,another from the ill fated adult services.
Adult services in York are in an absoloutely desperate state and we need a full change of management across the board.out with the old degree and qualification lot and in with the common sense hands on frontline care staff.
The public would be absoloutely shocked to discover how bad the system has been and how contracting care out to profit making private companies puts our most vulnerable people at greater risk of abuse and harm and neglect.
Just look at the stoy in last weeks press relating to minster grange.
Or take a look at the cqc website on care facilities in york,its been a catalogue of horror stories,poor quality care,standards below recommendations,staf
f levels inadequate.medicatio
n errors.the lot.
We need real people doing these most important jobs not pen pushers and tick box management.
So come on cyc get your act together,sack the lot of management right across the board and stat again with fresh real life fontline experienced staff.
Some of these so called bosses have been in the same circle of talent at cyc for many years just doing the rounds and scaling the greasy pole regardless of which political party is doling out the cash in York. The words complacency arrogance and ignorance come to mind. When will people in power understand that they can only stay at the top if the little ones at the bottom continue to hold them up or if their bank rolling paymasters continue to throw good money after. There was another female boss who was sidekick to mr terry and she too has parted company from cyc yet we havnt seen that name banded about on here,another from the ill fated adult services. Adult services in York are in an absoloutely desperate state and we need a full change of management across the board.out with the old degree and qualification lot and in with the common sense hands on frontline care staff. The public would be absoloutely shocked to discover how bad the system has been and how contracting care out to profit making private companies puts our most vulnerable people at greater risk of abuse and harm and neglect. Just look at the stoy in last weeks press relating to minster grange. Or take a look at the cqc website on care facilities in york,its been a catalogue of horror stories,poor quality care,standards below recommendations,staf f levels inadequate.medicatio n errors.the lot. We need real people doing these most important jobs not pen pushers and tick box management. So come on cyc get your act together,sack the lot of management right across the board and stat again with fresh real life fontline experienced staff. only human
  • Score: -6

11:13pm Sat 28 Jun 14

truthseeker2 says...

A few posts have mentioned a Marxist influence pervading! Others mention private sector profiteering! Both distract from the essential truth that the Cosltion's austerity cuts are really beginning to bite from here on in as public sector bodies have run out 'quick pickings'. As one poster wisely pointed out this is happening, to varying degrees across the land. When valuable public services have gone, they'll be gone for a generation or more, make no mistake
A few posts have mentioned a Marxist influence pervading! Others mention private sector profiteering! Both distract from the essential truth that the Cosltion's austerity cuts are really beginning to bite from here on in as public sector bodies have run out 'quick pickings'. As one poster wisely pointed out this is happening, to varying degrees across the land. When valuable public services have gone, they'll be gone for a generation or more, make no mistake truthseeker2
  • Score: 10

3:39am Sun 29 Jun 14

anistasia says...

We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power. anistasia
  • Score: -9

5:33am Sun 29 Jun 14

York1900 says...

York City Councillors of any party have every little control over the day to day running of the council the real power is with Council chief executive councillors are there only there to give the go ahead to some plans and what they want done and as we all know it is the councillors we hold responsible

The government keep pushing more and more responsibility for some services at the same time reducing the money coming in and ever since councils have had to out source services to the private sector councils have had little or no control over costs

I remember the days when the council had the own team of home helps but now its the private sector who are in it for profit meaning that they are only look at the bottom line and getting the job done as cheap as possible paying NMW zero hour contracts and not paying travel between jobs
So you get staff that are only going to do the minimum required to get to there next job

Until we can get away from the idea that the private sector can do such thing cheaper councils will always be short of money

The private sector is good at under cutting public service staff till the public service staff have been got rid of then the private sector pay day comes as it would cost too much for councils to set up there own work force to do the jobs with the on going contracts in the private sector
York City Councillors of any party have every little control over the day to day running of the council the real power is with Council chief executive councillors are there only there to give the go ahead to some plans and what they want done and as we all know it is the councillors we hold responsible The government keep pushing more and more responsibility for some services at the same time reducing the money coming in and ever since councils have had to out source services to the private sector councils have had little or no control over costs I remember the days when the council had the own team of home helps but now its the private sector who are in it for profit meaning that they are only look at the bottom line and getting the job done as cheap as possible paying NMW zero hour contracts and not paying travel between jobs So you get staff that are only going to do the minimum required to get to there next job Until we can get away from the idea that the private sector can do such thing cheaper councils will always be short of money The private sector is good at under cutting public service staff till the public service staff have been got rid of then the private sector pay day comes as it would cost too much for councils to set up there own work force to do the jobs with the on going contracts in the private sector York1900
  • Score: 14

9:18am Sun 29 Jun 14

julia brica says...

Another shock resignation from Cof Y C. ?????
These are the sort of shocks I enjoy.
Tally Ho.
Another shock resignation from Cof Y C. ????? These are the sort of shocks I enjoy. Tally Ho. julia brica
  • Score: -11

9:30am Sun 29 Jun 14

Art Baker says...

anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it. Art Baker
  • Score: -10

9:57am Sun 29 Jun 14

courier46 says...

Do these morons know what an insult to the majority of people in York these wages are ,why don't they just fill the gaps like the rest of us have to do with all the cutbacks going on.
Disgraceful waste of more money!
Do these morons know what an insult to the majority of people in York these wages are ,why don't they just fill the gaps like the rest of us have to do with all the cutbacks going on. Disgraceful waste of more money! courier46
  • Score: -9

10:48am Sun 29 Jun 14

Jonlogical says...

In my opinion the problem is with the voters.
When you vote in a local election, do not use this as a platform for national issues. Labour invariably are wasteful and badly run councils. For further evidence of this look at the shambolic Doncaster council.
In my opinion the problem is with the voters. When you vote in a local election, do not use this as a platform for national issues. Labour invariably are wasteful and badly run councils. For further evidence of this look at the shambolic Doncaster council. Jonlogical
  • Score: -3

10:54am Sun 29 Jun 14

A.P.Feeders says...

Jonlogical wrote:
In my opinion the problem is with the voters.
When you vote in a local election, do not use this as a platform for national issues. Labour invariably are wasteful and badly run councils. For further evidence of this look at the shambolic Doncaster council.
Very true and I was one of them but never again they are the party of corruption
[quote][p][bold]Jonlogical[/bold] wrote: In my opinion the problem is with the voters. When you vote in a local election, do not use this as a platform for national issues. Labour invariably are wasteful and badly run councils. For further evidence of this look at the shambolic Doncaster council.[/p][/quote]Very true and I was one of them but never again they are the party of corruption A.P.Feeders
  • Score: -2

12:42pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?
Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda.

KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace.

Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?[/p][/quote]Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda. KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace. Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -3

1:15pm Sun 29 Jun 14

blottie says...

Roll on 2015 and we can,hopefully,vote this lot out.York Council remind me of school-boys on a Saturday,they can't wait to get to the shops to spend their pocket money,trouble is though with the council it is public money
Roll on 2015 and we can,hopefully,vote this lot out.York Council remind me of school-boys on a Saturday,they can't wait to get to the shops to spend their pocket money,trouble is though with the council it is public money blottie
  • Score: -8

1:45pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Art Baker says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Dr Brian wrote:
Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?
Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda.

KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace.

Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire!
You would almost be funny if you were not so pathetic. Keep the tin foil hat on and knock out the next conspiracy theory with the head wand sad man. Remember, they are all descending on Durlston Drive to get you.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?[/p][/quote]Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda. KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace. Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire![/p][/quote]You would almost be funny if you were not so pathetic. Keep the tin foil hat on and knock out the next conspiracy theory with the head wand sad man. Remember, they are all descending on Durlston Drive to get you. Art Baker
  • Score: -5

3:39pm Sun 29 Jun 14

anistasia says...

Art Baker wrote:
anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
I'm not viz style or a moron I put my point forward and its about what the posting is about not having a go at someone's point of view.I suggested a vote of no confidence because if we let the council keep employing people on this rate of pay our council tax will rise to pay for their wages .if we had a vote on no confidence (a rebellion) against the council something would have to be done they can't lock everyone up.no body working no taxes being collected to line the pockets of those in charge.come on 2015.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I'm not viz style or a moron I put my point forward and its about what the posting is about not having a go at someone's point of view.I suggested a vote of no confidence because if we let the council keep employing people on this rate of pay our council tax will rise to pay for their wages .if we had a vote on no confidence (a rebellion) against the council something would have to be done they can't lock everyone up.no body working no taxes being collected to line the pockets of those in charge.come on 2015. anistasia
  • Score: -4

3:46pm Sun 29 Jun 14

anistasia says...

Thank you all for your support about my English.
Thank you all for your support about my English. anistasia
  • Score: 5

6:22pm Sun 29 Jun 14

rat scabies says...

Art Baker wrote:
anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
There's only one knuckle dragging idiot on here and its you 'old man' , or however many pathetic accounts you sign in on here TROLLING!
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.[/p][/quote]There's only one knuckle dragging idiot on here and its you 'old man' , or however many pathetic accounts you sign in on here TROLLING! rat scabies
  • Score: -4

8:09pm Sun 29 Jun 14

andyjon12 says...

Art Baker wrote:
anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
Well said Art Baker. You are right, some of the stuff posted on here is ludicrous and a load of rubbish. I think what some people are suggesting amounts to a "maximalist" democratic system. Unfortunately, for this to work properly, people need to be informed by some kind of expert knowledge - not populist tabloid newspapers like the Sun or TV shows like Coronation Street. Unfortunately, I believe that the people on here who are suggesting lets have a vote to decide everything really are living in cloud cuckoo land; I for one would not trust these idiots who are drip fed populist views (usually right wing), to then make crucial decisions around local government policies.

There has been some terrible examples of maximalist democracy in the USA - where it is used in many states. For example, this is why the death penalty will never be abolished there, because this has to be decided by brainwashed idiots sitting round a table - members of the public. Oh and not to mention gun control - or rather lack of it. We don't need this kind of knee-jerk populist so called democracy here in York. Now don't get me wrong - I am in no way condoning the disgraceful waste of money that our council is apparently throwing at pompous Common Purpose graduates right now.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.[/p][/quote]Well said Art Baker. You are right, some of the stuff posted on here is ludicrous and a load of rubbish. I think what some people are suggesting amounts to a "maximalist" democratic system. Unfortunately, for this to work properly, people need to be informed by some kind of expert knowledge - not populist tabloid newspapers like the Sun or TV shows like Coronation Street. Unfortunately, I believe that the people on here who are suggesting lets have a vote to decide everything really are living in cloud cuckoo land; I for one would not trust these idiots who are drip fed populist views (usually right wing), to then make crucial decisions around local government policies. There has been some terrible examples of maximalist democracy in the USA - where it is used in many states. For example, this is why the death penalty will never be abolished there, because this has to be decided by brainwashed idiots sitting round a table - members of the public. Oh and not to mention gun control - or rather lack of it. We don't need this kind of knee-jerk populist so called democracy here in York. Now don't get me wrong - I am in no way condoning the disgraceful waste of money that our council is apparently throwing at pompous Common Purpose graduates right now. andyjon12
  • Score: 7

10:23pm Sun 29 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money.
That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own.
Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money. That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own. bill bailey
  • Score: 6

10:59pm Sun 29 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

Yes it might be easy to spend taxpayers money bill...every party do.s it.....but an a BIG but..these lot ARE very nasty .......It will come out in time..just so happens the idiots will have moved on to another lucrative post.....like doncaster/ rotherham....tbey really are the scum of the earth...
Yes it might be easy to spend taxpayers money bill...every party do.s it.....but an a BIG but..these lot ARE very nasty .......It will come out in time..just so happens the idiots will have moved on to another lucrative post.....like doncaster/ rotherham....tbey really are the scum of the earth... piaggio1
  • Score: -9

12:03am Mon 30 Jun 14

Art Baker says...

anistasia wrote:
Art Baker wrote:
anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
I'm not viz style or a moron I put my point forward and its about what the posting is about not having a go at someone's point of view.I suggested a vote of no confidence because if we let the council keep employing people on this rate of pay our council tax will rise to pay for their wages .if we had a vote on no confidence (a rebellion) against the council something would have to be done they can't lock everyone up.no body working no taxes being collected to line the pockets of those in charge.come on 2015.
Scary if this isn't a wind up. Are you really that deranged?

Get on with the rebellion dear. We'll all enjoy the laugh.
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I'm not viz style or a moron I put my point forward and its about what the posting is about not having a go at someone's point of view.I suggested a vote of no confidence because if we let the council keep employing people on this rate of pay our council tax will rise to pay for their wages .if we had a vote on no confidence (a rebellion) against the council something would have to be done they can't lock everyone up.no body working no taxes being collected to line the pockets of those in charge.come on 2015.[/p][/quote]Scary if this isn't a wind up. Are you really that deranged? Get on with the rebellion dear. We'll all enjoy the laugh. Art Baker
  • Score: 8

12:38am Mon 30 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Art Baker wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Dr Brian wrote: Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?
Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda. KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace. Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire!
You would almost be funny if you were not so pathetic. Keep the tin foil hat on and knock out the next conspiracy theory with the head wand sad man. Remember, they are all descending on Durlston Drive to get you.
I'm sh*tting myself!
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Anybody able to tell me how long Kersten England has a job in York for and how can she be removed? She seems to be a professional meeting attender who rubber stamps all the stupid decisions Jimmy and his mates come up with. Genuine question how can we get rid of her and get someone who actually CARES about York?[/p][/quote]Its a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement between KE and JA, with both almost on the same leftist page/agenda. KE paves the way for JA's vanity projects, and JA supports KE's 'rewiring' initiative which includes the social innovation and Media City 'projects' which will cost over £12m. At the same time the 'Common Purpose' collaborations with dubious charity Nesta, think-tank the Young Foundation and NGO FutureGov increas apace. Meanwhile they both push us towards devolution for the Soviet State of Yorkshire![/p][/quote]You would almost be funny if you were not so pathetic. Keep the tin foil hat on and knock out the next conspiracy theory with the head wand sad man. Remember, they are all descending on Durlston Drive to get you.[/p][/quote]I'm sh*tting myself! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -7

8:30am Mon 30 Jun 14

julia brica says...

ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.
ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did. julia brica
  • Score: -15

12:26pm Mon 30 Jun 14

inthesticks says...

bill bailey wrote:
Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money.
That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own.
It isn`t about the money. It`s about the so called meltdown behind closed doors and the reason for the problems and it`s about jobs not being advertised, KE using her powers to employ whoever she wishes. Too much power for one person IMO. Even in private companies they have non-exec directors to make sure one person isn`t making huge errors of judgement.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money. That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own.[/p][/quote]It isn`t about the money. It`s about the so called meltdown behind closed doors and the reason for the problems and it`s about jobs not being advertised, KE using her powers to employ whoever she wishes. Too much power for one person IMO. Even in private companies they have non-exec directors to make sure one person isn`t making huge errors of judgement. inthesticks
  • Score: -11

1:57pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

inthesticks wrote:
bill bailey wrote: Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money. That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own.
It isn`t about the money. It`s about the so called meltdown behind closed doors and the reason for the problems and it`s about jobs not being advertised, KE using her powers to employ whoever she wishes. Too much power for one person IMO. Even in private companies they have non-exec directors to make sure one person isn`t making huge errors of judgement.
Listen to Kersten England speaking to MinsterFM...

http://www.minsterfm
.com/news/local/1327
634/four-more-temp-y
ork-council-bosses-o
n-hundreds-of-pounds
-a-day-but-chief-exe
c-defends-costs/

She refused to allow Coun Doughty to see CV's, which were shredded for reasons of 'confidentiality' - how dodgy is that?
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: Yummy, Yummy, Yummy. ALL of you on here are twofaced, not one man jack of you given the opportunity would turn down the job therefore the money. That doesn't mean I agree with it or I am a labour supporter. Just remember when the elections come around to clear out the RAT PACK. Then another rat pack will take their place that's how it works. Its easy to spend money when its not your own.[/p][/quote]It isn`t about the money. It`s about the so called meltdown behind closed doors and the reason for the problems and it`s about jobs not being advertised, KE using her powers to employ whoever she wishes. Too much power for one person IMO. Even in private companies they have non-exec directors to make sure one person isn`t making huge errors of judgement.[/p][/quote]Listen to Kersten England speaking to MinsterFM... http://www.minsterfm .com/news/local/1327 634/four-more-temp-y ork-council-bosses-o n-hundreds-of-pounds -a-day-but-chief-exe c-defends-costs/ She refused to allow Coun Doughty to see CV's, which were shredded for reasons of 'confidentiality' - how dodgy is that? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -4

3:37pm Mon 30 Jun 14

jay, york says...

julia brica wrote:
ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.
Not to mention counciller hoofshearted - and her many other user names. The tone of the language she uses is normally the giveaway - pig ignorant!
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.[/p][/quote]Not to mention counciller hoofshearted - and her many other user names. The tone of the language she uses is normally the giveaway - pig ignorant! jay, york
  • Score: -9

7:36pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MrATP1982 says...

Not all of the organisations providing privatised social care are profit making - several are non for profit charities: Wilf Ward, United Response, Mencap, The Avalon Group, St. Anne's to name a few non -for -profits. However, they are being squeezed by the profit making companies who are undercutting them and charging the council less but for a much poorer service.
Not all of the organisations providing privatised social care are profit making - several are non for profit charities: Wilf Ward, United Response, Mencap, The Avalon Group, St. Anne's to name a few non -for -profits. However, they are being squeezed by the profit making companies who are undercutting them and charging the council less but for a much poorer service. MrATP1982
  • Score: 12

7:59pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

julia brica wrote:
ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.
There's only one Buzzz Light-year.

How's your Italian, by the way?


(Interesting that so soon after I mention your multiple IDs you're suddenly on the attack on multiple threads with false accusations... It's pretty much an admission. Bravo!)
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.[/p][/quote]There's only one Buzzz Light-year. How's your Italian, by the way? (Interesting that so soon after I mention your multiple IDs you're suddenly on the attack on multiple threads with false accusations... It's pretty much an admission. Bravo!) Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 12

9:35pm Mon 30 Jun 14

jay, york says...

MrATP1982 wrote:
Not all of the organisations providing privatised social care are profit making - several are non for profit charities: Wilf Ward, United Response, Mencap, The Avalon Group, St. Anne's to name a few non -for -profits. However, they are being squeezed by the profit making companies who are undercutting them and charging the council less but for a much poorer service.
All to true I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]MrATP1982[/bold] wrote: Not all of the organisations providing privatised social care are profit making - several are non for profit charities: Wilf Ward, United Response, Mencap, The Avalon Group, St. Anne's to name a few non -for -profits. However, they are being squeezed by the profit making companies who are undercutting them and charging the council less but for a much poorer service.[/p][/quote]All to true I'm afraid. jay, york
  • Score: 15

11:47pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

jay, york wrote:
julia brica wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.
Not to mention counciller hoofshearted - and her many other user names. The tone of the language she uses is normally the giveaway - pig ignorant!
Pretty sure you've got the right person.....
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.[/p][/quote]Not to mention counciller hoofshearted - and her many other user names. The tone of the language she uses is normally the giveaway - pig ignorant![/p][/quote]Pretty sure you've got the right person..... Badgers Drift
  • Score: -13

11:49pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jay, york says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
julia brica wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.
There's only one Buzzz Light-year. How's your Italian, by the way? (Interesting that so soon after I mention your multiple IDs you're suddenly on the attack on multiple threads with false accusations... It's pretty much an admission. Bravo!)
Same as hoofshearted and even little jakey and justy have appeared again - different threads maybe - but the weirdo/ troll is still there!
Would be dangerous if had a brain!
Thing is - it cant resist just having a go - pathetric.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: ART BAKER going on and on and on just as BUZZ did.[/p][/quote]There's only one Buzzz Light-year. How's your Italian, by the way? (Interesting that so soon after I mention your multiple IDs you're suddenly on the attack on multiple threads with false accusations... It's pretty much an admission. Bravo!)[/p][/quote]Same as hoofshearted and even little jakey and justy have appeared again - different threads maybe - but the weirdo/ troll is still there! Would be dangerous if had a brain! Thing is - it cant resist just having a go - pathetric. jay, york
  • Score: -3

3:44pm Wed 2 Jul 14

garethjv says...

Art Baker wrote:
anistasia wrote:
We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.
I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups.

I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes.

The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business.

Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.
I'm sure you could have made your point without being so offensive and puerile. Other than that I agree with your point.
[quote][p][bold]Art Baker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: We as tax payers should have a say if employing these two people cause our council tax to raise to pay for them. my earlier comment about vote of no confidence was not political party against political party I meant the general public the tax payer should have the right to vote against local councils as a no confidence vote.if councils know then they could be voted out anytime they might be more open about their policies. and we would not have to suffer the same council for 4 or 5 years in power.[/p][/quote]I can only assume comments such as this one and many others on here are Viz style Top Tips wind ups. I cannot believe there are knuckle dragging idiots who really believe every decision they do not agree with should be the subject of a public vote with no confidence outcomes. The same morons would be the first to moan when their Council tax doubles to support the costs of endless votes. No doubt every dispute over emptying bins or changing car parking would be delayed by months while a referendum was arranged. Still, at least they could call a vote of no confidence for the cost of arranging a vote of day to day Council business. Think it through then make a comment. In a city of 200,000 people you cannot please all the people all the time. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I'm sure you could have made your point without being so offensive and puerile. Other than that I agree with your point. garethjv
  • Score: -10

3:43pm Thu 3 Jul 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

Having looked at this it doesn't seem like these consultants are members of staff so probably can be sacked at any time - surely a benefit vs redundancy costs. If several directors and assistant directors leave it makes sense to review senior management positions / remits so maybe these are "temporary" job whilst that review is carried out?

£700/day does seem an extravagant salary, however. I make that about £150k a year based on the reported four days a week. If these are companies they will pay company taxes etc themselves so I don't know what that works out as. Are there defined key outputs in the consultants contracts so it is clear whether or not these companies are performing? Has there been an assessment of cost against those outputs? From the little I know about procurement these contracts should have been advertised across the European market so only receiving six proposals seems odd! I want to know how the companies were chosen, what their overall costs were, what their proposals were and how proper comparison of the different bids was carried out by the senior managers. Knowing that would at least help to allay fears of "jobs for the boys" (or in this case for the girls!) based on who knows who and what political allegiances are there. Does CYC had a document retention policy for keeping proposals from companies? Why would someone's CV/proposal be destroyed - surely that is asking for trouble and look suspect even if innocent! Bethany.
Having looked at this it doesn't seem like these consultants are members of staff so probably can be sacked at any time - surely a benefit vs redundancy costs. If several directors and assistant directors leave it makes sense to review senior management positions / remits so maybe these are "temporary" job whilst that review is carried out? £700/day does seem an extravagant salary, however. I make that about £150k a year based on the reported four days a week. If these are companies they will pay company taxes etc themselves so I don't know what that works out as. Are there defined key outputs in the consultants contracts so it is clear whether or not these companies are performing? Has there been an assessment of cost against those outputs? From the little I know about procurement these contracts should have been advertised across the European market so only receiving six proposals seems odd! I want to know how the companies were chosen, what their overall costs were, what their proposals were and how proper comparison of the different bids was carried out by the senior managers. Knowing that would at least help to allay fears of "jobs for the boys" (or in this case for the girls!) based on who knows who and what political allegiances are there. Does CYC had a document retention policy for keeping proposals from companies? Why would someone's CV/proposal be destroyed - surely that is asking for trouble and look suspect even if innocent! Bethany. BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 11

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