Secret location for drug and alcohol centre - Page 8

Neil · 06-03-2009, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

No you are quite right. The reason it was taken back though was it was a failing service. eg. Gullies to be emptied 4 times a year on main roads, once a year elsewhere. None of this was happening.

So instead of sacking the incompetent staff who were allowing the department to fail I suspect they moved them back from Hyndburn to LCC to carry on as if nothing had happened.

If LCC were committed to devolved power should they not have assisted Hyndburn solve there issues and not just take it from them?

This is the problem with Council's. The staff don't appear to be held accountable for there actions, or more likely lack of action.

If the same thing happens where I work someone would have been out of a job. One of the top managers parted company with us only a few months ago as it was decided he did not fit in with the current working strategy. He was replaced shortly afterwards with a new chap.

jaysay · 06-03-2009, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

All political groups jaysay as you well know have group decisions, which are voted on in their respective groups. I think I remember that incident you mention. I can't remember who the councillor was though. It wasn't me.

You have a very short memory

g jones · 06-03-2009, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So instead of sacking the incompetent staff who were allowing the department to fail I suspect they moved them back from Hyndburn to LCC to carry on as if nothing had happened.

Those responsible were sacked. Hyndburn Borough Council. They had been syphoning money out and not supervising the work correctly.

When they lost the contract Brian Walmsely said LCC were taking £45,000? out of the Council Budget. Of course this was an admission they had been cross subsidising other services (siphoning off).

The works dept at election times were inundated with demands from certain areas. From 3 gully wagons the Council left themselves with one broken down one (18 weeks is al they got out of it in 2006 - spent more on repairs) and had to pay a private firm from Lancaster to empty the gullies but they had no chance of meeting their contractual obligations.

Road maintenance wasn't really being supervised and street lighting was a poor service. These have both improved dramatically under LCC and staff in the department are a lot happier (to be working for LCC instead) when you speak to them.

Neil · 06-03-2009, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Those responsible were sacked. Hyndburn Borough Council. They had been syphoning money out and not supervising the work correctly.

So who was sacked for the poor service then?

claytonender · 06-03-2009, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So who was sacked for the poor service then?

I think if you read Graham's reply you will see that LCC sacked Hyndburn Borough Council because LCC had been giving the money to HBC to provide the Highways maintenance and HBC had been using some of the money to subsdise other areas of their expenditure. Graham quoted Brian Walmsley as saying a figure had been taken out of HBC's budget by LCC taking the service back in house.

Bagpuss · 06-03-2009, 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So who was sacked for the poor service then?

I doubt anyone was actually sacked just HBC lost the contract.

Neil · 06-03-2009, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by claytonender

I think if you read Graham's reply you will see that LCC sacked Hyndburn Borough Council because LCC had been giving the money to HBC to provide the Highways maintenance and HBC had been using some of the money to subsdise other areas of their expenditure. Graham quoted Brian Walmsley as saying a figure had been taken out of HBC's budget by LCC taking the service back in house.

Should LCC not have assisted HBC with there problems instead of just pulling the rug out from under them?
Or did LCC just not like having control over what was done and where with highways issues?

I would be more interested to understand who it was that decided to spend the money on something other than Highways and what the agreements were between LCC and HBC.

Neil · 06-03-2009, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

I doubt anyone was actually sacked just HBC lost the contract.

HBC did not have the contract for doing the work for LCC. It was a devolution of power from LCC to HBC.

Bagpuss · 06-03-2009, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

HBC did not have the contract for doing the work for LCC. It was a devolution of power from LCC to HBC.

If HBC where receiving money for work to be done I would call that a contract.

g jones · 06-03-2009, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So who was sacked for the poor service then?

Councillors. District ones !

g jones · 06-03-2009, 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

I doubt anyone was actually sacked just HBC lost the contract.

That is spot on. Neil used the word 'sacked' but it was actually a loss of contract and the transfer of workers.

g jones · 06-03-2009, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

HBC did not have the contract for doing the work for LCC. It was a devolution of power from LCC to HBC.

No it wasn't it was a contractual arrangement. Workers were tupe'd from HBC to LCC when LCC took the contract back in house.

LCC have promised over 10 years they will clear the gully backlog.

Neil · 06-03-2009, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

If HBC where receiving money for work to be done I would call that a contract.

No it is not suppose to work like that. HBC were supposed to manage the highways. Devolution is not like a contractor doing work for LCC.

Maybe I am seeing this all wrong.

Graham, could you please explain what is meant by the term devolution of power and what this meant with regard to LCC's devolution of highways to HBC?

Neil · 06-03-2009, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

No it wasn't it was a contractual arrangement. Workers were tupe'd from HBC to LCC when LCC took the contract back in house.

LCC have promised over 10 years they will clear the gully backlog.

So Highways was not an example of devolution then?

g jones · 08-03-2009, 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So Highways was not an example of devolution then?

It was devolution in a way because Local District Councillors were in control of services in Hyndburn. That element was important to County but clearly HBC could not be allowed to run the contract. So middle management and blue collar workers were transferred as the contract was ended. In effect sacking the senior management and councillors at HBC.

'Hyndburn Local' was then set up, a public forum and decision making committee maade up of the 6 Hyndburn County Councillors to fulfill the devolution/local decision making. 6 District Councillors were invited but the Tories refuse to go or send anyone. Childishly too, The Tories stopped 'Hyndburn Local' hosting any meetings in Hyndburn Council buildings.