Council expenditure cuts
The news that the Comhairle is facing the prospect of making £4.5m in cuts is not really news, more a belated public acknowledgement of some very hard facts.
With a revenue budget of around £100m, the plan is to force every department to find 4.5% in cuts, er savings, and not to prioritise the local authorities' expenditure between departments. Indeed, I am very reliably told that there is a move by some Councillors to agree the new budget behind closed doors, and then to present a united front, with all 31 voting together or the budget, without any debate or discussion.
"Collective responsibility", as Mrs Thatcher used to call her way of imposing her will on those who might want to air differing options.
The choices need to be discussed publicly and some form of prioritisation made, for the simple reason that 4.5% of cuts is damn near impossible to achieve without some hard decisions being made.
Nearly 65% of the budget is on salaries, and unless staffing is addressed then all you are doing is cutting small slices off small budgets. The staff may be retained, but will they have the resources to actually do their jobs? As someone who has had the responsibility for finding some cuts in earlier years, I am also only too aware of how slowly the entire process of making savings moves, and how difficult decisions take forever to happen.
The Council - and that means all Councillors - need to look carefully at everything that the organisation does, and decide if the Comhairle should still undertake that function and if so, at what scale?
This is particularly important as the forecast is for no real growth in budgets for the next decade, as we dig the Government out of a hole.
Without decisive forward thinking, the prospect is for years of large cuts and staff demoralisation, or one very painful budget round.
But this is so major and so important, it must be done in public so that there is a clear message sent to the staff and public about the importance of the actions; how decisions about priorities were reached; and, how this situation came about.
Doing it all in darkened rooms will only bring the process into disrepute, and alienate staff and the council tax payers.
With a revenue budget of around £100m, the plan is to force every department to find 4.5% in cuts, er savings, and not to prioritise the local authorities' expenditure between departments. Indeed, I am very reliably told that there is a move by some Councillors to agree the new budget behind closed doors, and then to present a united front, with all 31 voting together or the budget, without any debate or discussion.
"Collective responsibility", as Mrs Thatcher used to call her way of imposing her will on those who might want to air differing options.
The choices need to be discussed publicly and some form of prioritisation made, for the simple reason that 4.5% of cuts is damn near impossible to achieve without some hard decisions being made.
Nearly 65% of the budget is on salaries, and unless staffing is addressed then all you are doing is cutting small slices off small budgets. The staff may be retained, but will they have the resources to actually do their jobs? As someone who has had the responsibility for finding some cuts in earlier years, I am also only too aware of how slowly the entire process of making savings moves, and how difficult decisions take forever to happen.
The Council - and that means all Councillors - need to look carefully at everything that the organisation does, and decide if the Comhairle should still undertake that function and if so, at what scale?
This is particularly important as the forecast is for no real growth in budgets for the next decade, as we dig the Government out of a hole.
Without decisive forward thinking, the prospect is for years of large cuts and staff demoralisation, or one very painful budget round.
But this is so major and so important, it must be done in public so that there is a clear message sent to the staff and public about the importance of the actions; how decisions about priorities were reached; and, how this situation came about.
Doing it all in darkened rooms will only bring the process into disrepute, and alienate staff and the council tax payers.
11 comments:
Its a forgot conclusion - where is the door - the lights are off
At least council cuts will have to be debated publicly. The most damaging cuts already happening are in HIE budget which have never been announced, explained or apologised for - least of all by MSP and MP. Now crofting grants are going to be run from Edinburgh, stand by for a few more million being lost to the Western Isles. When will these guys start standing up for the place?
"Doing it all in darkened rooms will only bring the process into disrepute, and alienate staff and the council tax payers. "
When have the council ever think about what people outside their circle ever think?
Windfarms - schools - budgets.
We all know this "council" bends the rules to fit their own ends, and that this "council" and "public consultation" dont go hand in hand...
Perhaps they will cut their drive for onshore renewables?
If not they can obviously borrow the cash from the rich folk in South Lochs who have £25million to splash out (sic).
Seriously how much cash of ours have they squandered on this since 2001 when Brian Wilson stood up and announced the dream? How many additional staff have been taken on? consultants hired? conferences attended? and carbon burned going to them? planners time spent? (but then ignored - cant do your professional morale much good when you keep getting shafted by a bunch of god fearing crofters)
There is more chance of finding Elvis in Engies than there is in them getting their dream. They must get semi's reading in the Gazette that they have voted another scheme through.
It is the blind leading the blind. Sandwick Road is an asylum for the dim witted, elderly, and bullies.
This lot couldnt cut a cake never mind a budget. Lets see how they fair.
You could cut 20% of the Council admin staff and never notice the loss. Dozen of people wonder the corridors of power daily just looking for some one to talk to to pass the time. Save £2M
How about a reduction in HR where little or no recruitment is undertaken! There must be 3 or 4 staff to 'admin' each and every vacancy. Save say £200K
Why are COU, now under Tech Services, running with TWO yes TWO sets of highly paid management teams. Loose 5 or 6 managers and the over inflated office staff and you could save 10% of £4.5M
Sack most of Finance they are bent anyway.
Stop immediately the use of consultants - if managers can not work out their own plans, projects and or procedures they should be sacked as they obviously cannot do their job.
Loose the canteen (subsidised) and staff can self cater as every one else has to do with a lunch box etc.
Make them all work their hours properly and in the place of work!
Scrap or reduce to single numbers Housing - WTF was HHP created to do.
Finally loose half the Councillors 31 yes 31! At that pro rata rate Glasgow would have nearly 2000 Councillors!!!
Finding £4.5M is simply dead easy in an over staffed Comhairle.
IS it not possible to share some of the common admin tasks with another region, say Highland or Borders.
I could never work out why each region has to have the same office staff and functions duplicated several times throughout Scotland, all at taxpayers expense
Side benefit would be that it would tend to reduce nepotism; likewise, the market in brown envelopes would collapse.
Yes, there are some departments which have struggled to find staff and have huge workloads, but there is also a broad core of employees that just drift along with the tide.
Maybe if they turned down the heating they would save a fortune.
I was in the Comhairle the other day and it was 24 degrees - when 18is the recommended. Looking around I thought most of them had enough blubber to keep them warm anyhow! Bloody Fat Cats.
Practice what you preach surley?
On that vain I was talking to someone the other day who is involved in the new school consultation. Apprently the architects was asked at a public meeting about solar, wind turbines etc for one of the new scholls.
The repy? We dont want to go down the renewables route as it is uneconomical. We might put in a small turbine to power a water feature in the playground!
Say no more.
3.56
the architects are s**t. they dont have to live with the giant sandstone-clad turd which they are proposing...
Why don't we sack all the a**e-lickers, the time-wasters and the jobsworths? Anyone who does a real job (school crossing patrol, cleansing, teachers, home care workers, librarians, streetsweepers) would be automatically protected.
The rest could fight it out with light sabers in the White House car park for the three remaining jobs: Council Tax collector, receptionist and Chief Executive.
Actually, two jobs: sack the Chief Executive and save £150k a year. (What - did you think he was paid in buttons?)
Shutting down the COU operation would save a fortune, then the Public would really be at the mercy of the sharks.
Firstly - tax payer - I think Angus was talking about cuts that they WOULD actually vote for, rather than ones we would! (love the picture of them fighting for jobs in the car park 6.46!)
Secondly, (feeling a bit pedantic, today) 3.56; unless the new solar panels were for the old women who lived in a shoe the word should be schools.) Finally, 8.28; last word should be fare. I humbly appologise in advance for the bad grammer in places on this letter!
Post a Comment