Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark

[paulb]

^

Mr Clark said that while his main experience was with private enterprise, he also was familiar with the procedure of local authority as he had worked as a senior manager within both Westminster City and Lambeth councils.

 

"Whilst I do come very much from a private sector background, I have about four years of direct experience of being in a senior role within local authority. There is not going to be a learning gap from that point of view; it is not as though local authorities are alien to me," he said.

 

taken from here http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/June/news/New%20SIC%20chief%20promises%20cultural%20change.htm

 

he was never employed by the westminster or lambeth council he was part of a group of companies that help upgrade there housing stock.

[unlinkedstudent]

Icepick/Paulb

 

In my experience, I have found that several Councils do now tend to lend themselves towards what in the past may have been regarded as "private sector" operations.

 

Not all Councils are "safe". I was employed (or was I Paulb?) as a temporary worker on several long term assignments for various LAs within London and the Home Counties, one of which being Hackney. Now Hackney Council was bankrupt and under the control of the Government for their spending.

 

I have more than one client at present providing services to LAs, usually in a locum capacity where positions cannot be filled. In the past, many of my colleagues worked primarily within the private sector from a range of backgrounds (Architects, Surveyors, Accountants, Solicitors, etc.) before taking up 1 year contracts within the public sector.

 

Therefore, whilst in the past (say 25+ years ago?) you may regard private/public as being like "chalk and cheese", I believe the situation is changing. Granted, there is still some way to go but I don't believe you can tarnish all LAs with the same brush.

[paulb]

being a sub contractor of a main contractor does not give him council leadership experiance. if he had years of said council experiance then he would have know what he was walking into. anyway this is just what was said in may so there is no point in repeating it again.

 

if mr clark was with the above company for 10+years then he has been in money troubles at least 3 times. unlink you have a look at the list from company house does it look healthy to you..

[unlinkedstudent]

unlink you have a look at the list from company house does it look healthy to you..

 

The extract you provided is for EXAMPLES of documents available from Companies House.

[snow]

Aww c,mon...We know that the said Mr Clark is talking through a hole that A proctologist would be interested in....

\it seems to me tht until the rest of the bods get to grips with that we will get nowhere...Is it that the others are afraid that they will be penniless if they are forced to leave what seems to be a very lucrative post ...

A wee song that come to mind

I,m looking for a job

Wi a sky high pay

A four day wee and a 2 hour day

Maybe it,s because I,m inclined that way

That I never could stand being idle !!!!

[paulb]

unlink you have a look at the list from company house does it look healthy to you..

 

The extract you provided is for EXAMPLES of documents available from Companies House.

yep sorry withdrawn

[icepick239]

Is the Chief Executive still doing his weekly 'Meet the Press'?

[Spinner72]

^^ Such a shame the various "players" have ensured such sensible policies are, for now it seems (for obvious and understandable reasons), under hiatus. Fingers crossed normal service will be resumed soon.

 

I've enjoyed reading back through this thread, it really helps get a grasp on the evolution of recent (and now not so recent) issues.

 

Quality quote here:

On Radio Shetland he gave the impression of being a hard man who could bring in projects under budget, which I think is something the SIC sorely needs. I hope his people skills are up to scratch and he doesn't alienate the staff and councillors in the process.

 

and another here:

Just be thankful there's a new broom in the Town Hall and give the guy a chance, under the exiting incumbent we've had a bridge too far to Bressay, a share in a white elephant boat, numerous fish company, floating dock etc fiascos, all of which have swallowed rather scarey sums of our money.

 

Its long past time the mould was broken, and someone with different talents outlook and perspective started steering the ship.

 

Ironically, again reading back, "he" hasn't alienated anybody, he has simply done the only thing he could do, in the circumstances, and generally kept his mouth shut.

 

As for the circumstances, let me make sure it's not a case of my "alleged" (temptation to go on "alleged" rant pacified for now) bias by referring to another, now even more accurate, post:

 

I see that Jonathan Wills is getting stuck into the new Chief Exec over his appointment of some chap he has had previous dealings with to conduct an "independant" review of the new AHS project.

 

.http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/June/letters/Open%20letter%20to%20Dave%20Clark,%20chief%20executive%20of%20Shetland%20Islands%20Council.htm

 

I'm not quite sure why it is but if JW presented a case that black was black and white was white I'd probably feel compelled to argue against him. He's obviously a clever and able bloke but he just can't help being a sanctimonious no bend.

 

Anyone who states "I told you in an email at 3.09pm today" followed by "your announcement at 5.07pm today" is probably chocker full of self-importance. He goes on to make reference to the Nolan Principles (perm any 4 from 6?) which are designed to make sure everything happens at infinitesimally slow Council speed. He was once a bit of a reactionary, maybe even a revolutionary, but he is now swimming, it would seem, in the same treacle that tends to paralyse decision making across the land.

 

Oh - and anyone who writes an "Open letter to........." in the local paper is as interested in self promotion as in the the cause they are fighting for.

 

So, nothing has changed, we had the chance, maybe we still do, but untill all the councillors do their job, which is at the most fundimental level, to unconditionally back any decision made by the council whether they personally agree or not, no CE, nor anyone else, will, or can, truely make a difference.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

But what if the council members are split 50/50 on a decision and the Convener casts his deciding vote for the proposition. Are the councillors on the losing side to give UNCONDITIONAL approval to this decision by one member?

 

edited to correct spelling

[Spinner72]

^^ Unquestionably. No matter how narrow the margin nor how many/few are present to vote it is still a decision made by the full council and should be backed as such.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

I disagree. When a committee is split 50/50,unless it is essential that the matter be decided that day,the chairman should declare the motion void,thus permitting it to be raised again at a future meeting.

[icepick239]

^^ Unquestionably. No matter how narrow the margin nor how many/few are present to vote it is still a decision made by the full council and should be backed as such.

^ ^ ^

 

I disagree. When a committee is split 50/50,unless it is essential that the matter be decided that day,the chairman should declare the motion void,thus permitting it to be raised again at a future meeting.

 

Claudias, I agree.

What we are getting it seems, may not be true democracy, but only a facade.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Unquestionably. No matter how narrow the margin nor how many/few are present to vote it is still a decision made by the full council and should be backed as such.

 

Why should those opposed be expected to back such a decision?

 

Certainly, given our alleged democratic system, those opposed should be expected to accept and go along with the decision as it is the majority will, until and unless information comes to light that merits fresh examination.

 

Not putting pointless obstacles in the way of, and allowing those who support it to get on with it is one thing, to do otherwise would only be being spiteful. However to be expected to suddenly change sides and further that which you believe is wrong is IMHO asking too much, and in effect having your nose rubbed in it.

 

I would question the principles and integrity of a councillor who could one day fight vigourously against a proposal, but if the proposal carried they were pushing as hard to further it tomorrow. Lawyers behave in such a way by definition of their profession, and their collective reputation is well known. On a national level politicians do it, largely as a result of being party member and toeing the party line, its hypocritical and something politics on a local level, where as yet we have managed to evade the vagaracies of party politics, IMHO we can well do without. Its a shambles enough anyway before we start having crowds of "yes (wo)men" forcing proposals though just because the party hierachy tells them to.

[unlinkedstudent]

^ ^ ^

 

I disagree. When a committee is split 50/50,unless it is essential that the matter be decided that day,the chairman should declare the motion void,thus permitting it to be raised again at a future meeting.

 

And how many times do you propose such a stalemate is allowed to continue for?

[EM]

Are the councillors on the losing side to give UNCONDITIONAL approval to this decision by one member?

I think that is a somewhat dubious statement, indeed it sounds like spin. Such 50% + 1 decisions are certainly feeble, but the act of casting the final deciding vote does not make that individual the sole decider. Following the decision the votes of all the pro 50% people should be considered just as responsible, or vice-versa for rejected motions.