The full council meeting of 27/09/20 12 as I said in my previous post reminded me of the bad old days of snp opposition,
in case anyone thinks that their clowning around is funny I want to mention that in my previous article about the council meeting I forgot to mention the costs.
This meeting; had it been conducted in the appropriate manner would have been over in about two and a half hours, it took more than double that because of the conduct of the snp and this has a serious cost to the tax payer. About 10 years ago when the snp did this kind of thing constantly I asked the director of finance for the council to put a cost figure on these proceedings by the hour, he suggested between 6 and 7 hundred pounds. If it is reasonable to say that 6 or 7 hundred pounds was the hourly cost 10 years ago I think it is quite reasonable to say that that figure will have risen now to approx. £1,000 per hour or more by now.
Thursday's meeting cost approx. £5,500 pounds when it should have cost approx. £2,750 that additional cost of £2,750 or bill to the tax payer has been sent to you by Renfrewshire snp councillors. Over the years the snp have cost the people of Renfrewshire tens of thousands of pounds because of their outrageous behaviour. It now looks certain that the snp intend to behave like this for the next 4 and a half years again with you the people of Renfrewshire picking up the bill.
With approx. 9 or more full council meetings a year that makes 39 meetings before the next election and by my reckoning and based on Thursday's snp behaviour that would amount to an additional cost of around £107,250. If we take in to consideration the fact there are many many more council board meetings where the snp will have the opportunity to disrupt the meetings and waste costly time and tax payer's money it becomes nothing short of scandalous and an example if any more examples were needed of the contempt that the snp have for the people of Renfrewshire.
I urge members of the public who share the outrage of many at this snp waste of your money to write to the snp councillors involved as well as Cllr. McCartin and tell them to start doing their jobs properly and to stop squandering your money.
But Councillor, where the chaps -and any chappesses- are being paid a salary, the Council would be paying that whether they were sat in a meeting going on for hours, or sat in an office having a cuppa and a Hob-nob while up-dating their blogs. Correct?
In terms of the hourly cost that you mention, can you give a rough make up of what this cost consists of.
It would appear to be wildly exaggerated to me.
The normal costs to run a meeting such as heating and lighting the chamber, and the payment of people attending for 5+ hours.
Councillors, Officers, Stewards, clerks etc.
Byeck said...Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:40:00 PM
This meeting used up approx. 2.5 hours of time unnecessarily, productive work could have been done and wasn’t during this time, that is a waste of time resources and money. I left home this morning on council business at 8.30am and arrived back home at 13.30pm I am now answering comments while having a cup of tea and a hobnob. I will be back on council business later on.
Kelly @ 12.46
But Councillor, is it not the duty of an Opposition to hold the ruling party and Council Officers to account. I'm sure you did this during your time in the wilderness.
By the by,the Council business that demanded your presence 'later on,'this afternoon.Did it expand into the evening, resulting in extra payments for those attending?
Byeck said...Kelly @ 12.46
“But Councillor, is it not the duty of an Opposition to hold the ruling party and Council Officers to account”
“Did it expand into the evening, resulting in extra payments for those attending?”
Kelly @ 12.46
I like the New,Improved,Ultra, Kelly..straight Yes/No answers at last! Well done, have another Hobnob.
As a new, but welcome, recruit, to the Value-for- Money-for Council Tax-Payers movement, will you now explore how many folk on the Council payroll are working full-time on Union, rather than Council business?
I believe they're called'Pilgrims.'
Byeck said...Kelly @ 12.46Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:56:00 PM
I’m only aware of one but I’m sure the council would tell you if you asked them.
Kelly @ 5.53
One is one too many, Councillor, please get on the case.
You can't do anything about the SNP costing the tax payers of fair Renfrew oodles of money, but this is closer to home..Go get 'em Tiger.
Byeck said...Kelly @ 5.53 Friday, October 05, 2012
Unions and their members have always strived to avoid strikes and one of the ways of doing this is to have proper union representation in the work place.
In the case of councils run by wise Labour councillors like me this includes those with a large enough workforce to justify the practice of having a full time officer paid for (gladly) by the council.
This should cheer you when you hear that it has proved a money saver and good for morale and when morale is good production is also good, it may well not have reached you yet but it is called progress.
Kelly @ 7.49
Councillor, you got me that time. I was about to go into hysterical rant mode, when I realised you'd linked 'Labour Council' and 'Productivity' in your reply.
You were winding me up, you rascal, weren't you.
Byeck said...Kelly @ 7.49Sunday, October 07, 2012 2:15:00 PM
Ah the old public V private thing again. I have a straight forward take on that. Any time I have to choose between them I choose public because I can’t trust private to treat me fairly; that's because they care about their own private profit first.
Kelly @ 3.30
After mature reflection, a simple question for you, Councillor... If someone works for a Union, why shouldn't the Union pay them?
Byeck said...Kelly @ 3.30Monday, October 08, 2012 5:54:00 PM
He works for the Council on union affairs and the council want things that way, it makes sense.
Rollocks Councillor, the Council is there to serve the folk of Renfrew, he/she is there to serve union members...a clear conflict of interest.
Byeck said...Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:37:00 AM
The Union members are council employees and are there to serve the public, they share the same goal as the council and there is no conflict of interest.
Post a Comment