A friend has passed me a copy of the Nantwich Town Council newsletter, and my eye was caught by an article announcing that the Leader of Cheshire East Council (Wesley Fitzgerald) recently "visited Nantwich to see the town's major sites".
Now this is not a dig at Cllr Fitzgerald, and I realise this may have been in the nature of an "official" visit, but it did set me thinking about how much of an awareness of the character and needs of the different parts of Cheshire East the "men at the top" [and they are overwhelmingly men - but that's another issue!] can possibly have.
I wonder how many times Cllr Fitzgerald (or the Council Chief Executive)have actually visited Nantwich (or Crewe) since taking up their roles. And I don't mean to attend a council meeting or function, but shopping, to a pub or restaurant, or just to walk around? And I wonder how many ordinary Nantwich or Crewe people they have met?
In the "maybe not so bad old days" of Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council I often saw councillors, senior officers (and their families) doing ordinary things around the area - in the shops; the pubs; the parks etc. Can that still happen in such a huge authority?
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Well Done Cheshire East No. 1
Let it not be said that I cannot be nice about Cheshire East when appropriate!
This is a comment which should have appeared a few weeks ago, but didn't for reasons already explained.
Well done all those staff who kept East Cheshire's roads cleared, gritted and so on during the foul winter weather. It cannot be much fun driving round for hours on end, largely after dark, in unpleasant conditions, on a gritter. And then turning out to do the same again, day after day.
So well done all the lads and lasses who kept the job moving!
This is a comment which should have appeared a few weeks ago, but didn't for reasons already explained.
Well done all those staff who kept East Cheshire's roads cleared, gritted and so on during the foul winter weather. It cannot be much fun driving round for hours on end, largely after dark, in unpleasant conditions, on a gritter. And then turning out to do the same again, day after day.
So well done all the lads and lasses who kept the job moving!
Apologies
My apologies for the break in posting. I was a bit poorly in early February, and then had to catch up on all the things that didn't get done while I was ......
You get the picture!
You get the picture!
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Making allowances
The councillors on Cheshire East receive - if I am correctly informed - a basic allowance of around £11,000 per annum.
This is very substantially more than we used to get on the old Borough Council (which I seem to recall was around £4,200), but that's supposed to reflect the much heavier workload on the new authority.
Problem is .....
On the Borough Council I used to expect 2-3 meetings per month, say 25 per year. And figures from Cheshire East show that in the past six months Crewe councillors have been required (on average) to attend 13.6 meetings, or 27 per year. In other words - much the same as on the old Borough Council, but with almost three times the allowances!
And there's a huge range, with some councillors attending as few as 5 or 6 meetings in the past six months. At least we get decent value for money from Terry Beard, who managed to fit in 19 meetings (and a 100% attendance as already noted).
This is very substantially more than we used to get on the old Borough Council (which I seem to recall was around £4,200), but that's supposed to reflect the much heavier workload on the new authority.
Problem is .....
On the Borough Council I used to expect 2-3 meetings per month, say 25 per year. And figures from Cheshire East show that in the past six months Crewe councillors have been required (on average) to attend 13.6 meetings, or 27 per year. In other words - much the same as on the old Borough Council, but with almost three times the allowances!
And there's a huge range, with some councillors attending as few as 5 or 6 meetings in the past six months. At least we get decent value for money from Terry Beard, who managed to fit in 19 meetings (and a 100% attendance as already noted).
Working for you?
Cheshire East publishes the attendance records of councillors - something the old Borough Council never did. It's a policy which has advantages, but also drawbacks.
Of course, we should be told whether councillors attend the meetings they're meant to attend BUT there are possible drawbacks :
1. Councillors can miss meetings through illness, clashes with other commitments etc which can create a false impression;
2. A lot of a councillor's work can be done away from meetings - taking up local and individual casework, keeping in touch with voters etc. This work cannot be assessed easily.
3. Who is doing the better job? Somebody who turns up to every meeting, but never says a word and just sticks their hand up when told to by the whips? Or somebody who attends fewer meetings, but asks important questions when there?
Anyway, setting those drawbacks aside I DO feel that attendance at meetings IS important. After all, the right to attend and vote at meetings is the main point of being a councillor and so - with all relevant health warnings - how have Crewe's twelve councillors done over the past six months?
Step forward, and top marks to Councillors Terry Beard (19/19 = 100%) and Roy Cartlidge (12/12 = 100%) for their perfect attendance records.
Close behind - missing just a single meeting - David Cannon (11/12 = 92%) and Peggy Martin (7/8 = 88%).
Pretty good - missing just two meetings each - Jackie Weatherill (12/14 86%), John Jones (11/13 85%), and Steve Conquest (6/8 75%). Dorothy Flude had a heavier workload, her 14/18 record gives a percentage of 78%.
So that's eight of the twelve councillors accounted for - all attending at least three-quarters of their meetings.
That leaves four councillors. All missed at least a third of their booked meetings; two attended under half their meetings. I'm not going to name them - you can check their records on www.cheshireeast.gov.uk under councillors. The reason I'm not naming them is that they may have good reasons - illness perhaps. BUT if I was one of their constituents, perhaps I would be asking them to explain their attendance records ... and pondering whether to support them in future elections if there aren't signs of improvement .....
Of course, we should be told whether councillors attend the meetings they're meant to attend BUT there are possible drawbacks :
1. Councillors can miss meetings through illness, clashes with other commitments etc which can create a false impression;
2. A lot of a councillor's work can be done away from meetings - taking up local and individual casework, keeping in touch with voters etc. This work cannot be assessed easily.
3. Who is doing the better job? Somebody who turns up to every meeting, but never says a word and just sticks their hand up when told to by the whips? Or somebody who attends fewer meetings, but asks important questions when there?
Anyway, setting those drawbacks aside I DO feel that attendance at meetings IS important. After all, the right to attend and vote at meetings is the main point of being a councillor and so - with all relevant health warnings - how have Crewe's twelve councillors done over the past six months?
Step forward, and top marks to Councillors Terry Beard (19/19 = 100%) and Roy Cartlidge (12/12 = 100%) for their perfect attendance records.
Close behind - missing just a single meeting - David Cannon (11/12 = 92%) and Peggy Martin (7/8 = 88%).
Pretty good - missing just two meetings each - Jackie Weatherill (12/14 86%), John Jones (11/13 85%), and Steve Conquest (6/8 75%). Dorothy Flude had a heavier workload, her 14/18 record gives a percentage of 78%.
So that's eight of the twelve councillors accounted for - all attending at least three-quarters of their meetings.
That leaves four councillors. All missed at least a third of their booked meetings; two attended under half their meetings. I'm not going to name them - you can check their records on www.cheshireeast.gov.uk under councillors. The reason I'm not naming them is that they may have good reasons - illness perhaps. BUT if I was one of their constituents, perhaps I would be asking them to explain their attendance records ... and pondering whether to support them in future elections if there aren't signs of improvement .....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)