Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 6

Cllr Bill Davies said it was on record the length of time spent on caution. Cllr Chris Blakeley said the time limit over improvement was not twelve months, but this could be withdrawn if it was the will of committee. He said we want to see in action how it operates over twelve months. He … Continue reading “Standards Committee 29/9/2011 Part 6”

Cllr Bill Davies said it was on record the length of time spent on caution.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said the time limit over improvement was not twelve months, but this could be withdrawn if it was the will of committee. He said we want to see in action how it operates over twelve months. He said they’d been promised before, but they accept it’s wrong. He used the word “appalling”. He said if his resolution sends a message then its end is achieved.

Cllr Les Rowlands said he appreciates the comments, but he needed to know the ramifications. He said they need to send a message that it’s no longer acceptable. The legal ramifications could be discussed in Council. He said it was “continuously on the back burner”. He said it will be corrected and was a “broken system”.

Cllr John Salter said he was new on this committee and that he had not been involved in taking somebody to this committee, but will do soon as other councillors had abused the system. He said they should “give Bill a chance”. If it had been adopted in February/March then they would’ve had six months of the new system. He said what’s put before us they should accept.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a reason they had not adopted the timescales.

Cllr Pat Williams said she was happy to support and agree the timescales, excluding the reference to the Chief Executive as she needed to know the legal implications.

Cllr Chris Blakeley said he was happy to consider a friendly amendment, however he wanted to send the message loud and clear that this was “no longer acceptable” and there were “no further excuses”. He was happy to give a trial period.

Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee Wirral Council 27th September 2011 You Choose Budget simulator Part 3

Cllr Brighouse, Vice-Chair said that he had no problems with the £14 million & £25 million issue, however said that what they were “asking the public to do is right”. He talked about what Wirral Council did with the results and its effect on decisions. He said the majority were looking for a bigger reduction, with the average resulting in a -3% Council Tax change. The public were “looking for cuts” and “lower Council Tax”. He asked if council employees had been asked?

Cllr Gilchrist mentioned the Redbridge conversation. Cllr Ron Abbey said, he was not hung up on a like for like comparison between Wirral Council and the London Borough of Redbridge. He said they didn’t know Redbridge’s GDP or catchment area.

Cllr Gilchrist about the report to Cabinet on the 8th December. Ian Coleman replied by saying that was the intention. Cllr John Hale asked when the item was over, would there be copies of how people responded? Cllr John Salter said people could “sit all day putting anything in” and said it was “open to corruption”. Cllr Gilchrist said Cllr Salter’s explanation was “frank”. Cllr James Keeley asked if it was a dangerous exercise, as it implied the only way to balance the Budget was to cut council services? Cllr Ron Abbey said something about the human cost. Cllr Gilchrist said that councillors should address remarks to the Chair. He noted potential drawbacks. He thanked people and looked forward to a more detailed analysis and a report to all councillors. Ian Coleman said “once results are available”. Cllr Phil Gilchrist asked about the Cabinet paper. Ian Coleman said it would be an open report. Cllr Gilchrist thanked Peter Molyneux.