If you apply for a job, check for typos and include your phone number when using the contact email for information. That's what I didn't do.
Anyway I asked the contact about being an "independent person", on condition I could do something about the lack of criteria for sacking council members, and have no response.
The job is almost a volunteer job but has up to a few hundred quid in expenses that might be more than I could earn in other ways in the time. A bit like being a school governor, paid not-a-lot to nod.
The job does not come with a forensic or detictive budget. There is no money for finding-out the contradictory stories behind what the "independent person" is told on a committee about a council member who is faced with this stuff. It looks as though the council member thing is just a lure go get someone to attend staff disciplinary meetings and be hoodwinked, if that is the right word. It looks as though the "independent person" will end-up on a lot of staff disciplinary committees, with the same lack of budget for forensic work.
About council members. There is nothing to say where the boundary lies.. So if a councilor says "Councillor right", and I think
"Councillor wrong", thi
there is no case law, no text, no links list, no nothing. Which is daft because there are loads of things anyone might think wrong that are perfectly legal, If a council member does something tabloid-ish and bizarre, I might approve and others might disapprove. If a council member - or several in committee - cut core services to fund street furniture that people notice more - is that wrong? I think so, but there is no point turning-up on a committee after the event to tell someone with the opposite opinion, and then maybe be over-ruled by a committee, all for expenses. I think that people like Latfur Rahman and Shirley Porter got caught-out eventually for this kind of stuff, but not by any independent person on comittees at Tower Hamlets or Westminster Councils.
The headline is about judging Councillors who have crossed the line into badness according to the Localism act 2011 and local detail as laid-out in the Richmond Constitution, which just repeats introductory words like "good" and no more. No links to detail. Nothing like "same as local government association", or "same as Birmingham" or "same as ministerial code". Nothing about the Councillor who does a number of bad things I could list. It's obvious. Pushing for contracts to be done by members of your family is the oldest one, I think. Pushing for members of groups who talk to each other and their associated organisations to get lots of grants and approvals is another. That's what Latfur Rahman did in Tower Hamlets before being found guilty of trying to use public spending in order to fix an election. He wasn't pushed out by the Independent Person in Tower Hamlets, whoever that was, who must have known what was happening. No such system existed in at Westminster City Council when Shirley Porter did things before emigrating and trying to avoid summonses. I forget what she did, bit minimizing the core insurance-like services that are trusted to local government and maximizing the obvious services like street furniture were part of the deal.
I wrote that I would apply if there is a chance to write the section of Richmond's constitution that covers conduct of Councillors.
There is an odd thing about the job that it starts by talking about Councillors, but it looks as though you'll be roped-in to staff disciplinary meetings instead if you apply.
I added something about the union recognition agreement, to make sure that union members (like people with legal insurance or anyone else - it's a long story) get the same kind of help as dismissing managers get from their human resources department. Things like help going to the government's Advisory Conciation and Arbitration Service would be good. The current system is that most unions and legal insurers want to get commission off a no-win no-fee tribunal lawyer, so there is no way for the parties to try and settle the real problems via ACAS.
Anyway, if anyone wants to apply for the volunteer job of independent person, as not-described, this is the link
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/independent_person
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I asked the contact about being an "independent person", on condition I could do something about the lack of criteria for sacking council members, and have no response.
The job is almost a volunteer job but has up to a few hundred quid in expenses that might be more than I could earn in other ways in the time. A bit like being a school governor, paid not-a-lot to nod.
The job does not come with a forensic or detictive budget. There is no money for finding-out the contradictory stories behind what the "independent person" is told on a committee about a council member who is faced with this stuff. It looks as though the council member thing is just a lure go get someone to attend staff disciplinary meetings and be hoodwinked, if that is the right word. It looks as though the "independent person" will end-up on a lot of staff disciplinary committees, with the same lack of budget for forensic work.
About council members. There is nothing to say where the boundary lies.. So if a councilor says "Councillor right", and I think
"Councillor wrong", thi
there is no case law, no text, no links list, no nothing. Which is daft because there are loads of things anyone might think wrong that are perfectly legal, If a council member does something tabloid-ish and bizarre, I might approve and others might disapprove. If a council member - or several in committee - cut core services to fund street furniture that people notice more - is that wrong? I think so, but there is no point turning-up on a committee after the event to tell someone with the opposite opinion, and then maybe be over-ruled by a committee, all for expenses. I think that people like Latfur Rahman and Shirley Porter got caught-out eventually for this kind of stuff, but not by any independent person on comittees at Tower Hamlets or Westminster Councils.
The headline is about judging Councillors who have crossed the line into badness according to the Localism act 2011 and local detail as laid-out in the Richmond Constitution, which just repeats introductory words like "good" and no more. No links to detail. Nothing like "same as local government association", or "same as Birmingham" or "same as ministerial code". Nothing about the Councillor who does a number of bad things I could list. It's obvious. Pushing for contracts to be done by members of your family is the oldest one, I think. Pushing for members of groups who talk to each other and their associated organisations to get lots of grants and approvals is another. That's what Latfur Rahman did in Tower Hamlets before being found guilty of trying to use public spending in order to fix an election. He wasn't pushed out by the Independent Person in Tower Hamlets, whoever that was, who must have known what was happening. No such system existed in at Westminster City Council when Shirley Porter did things before emigrating and trying to avoid summonses. I forget what she did, bit minimizing the core insurance-like services that are trusted to local government and maximizing the obvious services like street furniture were part of the deal.
I wrote that I would apply if there is a chance to write the section of Richmond's constitution that covers conduct of Councillors.
There is an odd thing about the job that it starts by talking about Councillors, but it looks as though you'll be roped-in to staff disciplinary meetings instead if you apply.
I added something about the union recognition agreement, to make sure that union members (like people with legal insurance or anyone else - it's a long story) get the same kind of help as dismissing managers get from their human resources department. Things like help going to the government's Advisory Conciation and Arbitration Service would be good. The current system is that most unions and legal insurers want to get commission off a no-win no-fee tribunal lawyer, so there is no way for the parties to try and settle the real problems via ACAS.
Anyway, if anyone wants to apply for the volunteer job of independent person, as not-described, this is the link
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/independent_person
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply to be an Independent Person, promoting standards in public life
We are looking for Independent Persons to assist in promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct amongst elected councillors and co-opted members of both the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, and Wandsworth Councils.
About the councils
Both councils are supported by a single officer team, but remain sovereign with their own members and decision making. We are therefore seeking potential candidates who can serve either one, or potentially both councils.
About the role
The role of the Independent Person is to support the work of the Councils’ Standards Committees and, on occasions, to consider complaints against members and advise members and officers on appropriate action to be taken in respect of the complaints.
The Independent Person may also be involved in disciplinary matters in relation to the dismissal of the councils’ statutory officers.
Attributes and experience
Successful candidates will be able to demonstrate:
Experience of reviewing information to reach evidence based conclusions
Strong personal ethics
High standards of probity
Good committee skills
Strong communication skills
Experience of mediation or dispute resolution would be helpful, as would knowledge of public sector ethical governance issues.
Who should not apply
Current and former (within the last 5 years) councillors, co-opted members or employees of Richmond Council and/or Wandsworth Council, or their close relatives, are not eligible to be appointed to these positions.
As this is an independent position, you should not be a member of any political party.
Payment
The Independent Person is not a salaried position but an allowance of £300 to £400 per annum is offered to those who wish to claim.
How to apply
Please read the full information pack (pdf, 227 KB) before submitting your application (MS Word, 124 KB).
The closing date for applications is Tuesday 29 May 2018. Interviews will take place in June.
Contact
For more information, contact:
Paul Evans, Monitoring Officer for Richmond Council and Head of the South London Legal Partnership
Phone: 020 8545 3338
Email: paul.evans@merton.gov.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment