man of kent Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 Reading parts of this ongoing story of council inefficiency and conflicts of interest, I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been a revolt in Lerwick. The Charitable Trust should be independent of the Council, how can you have so many of the same people involved in supposedly seperate organisations. I believe that the job role required for the Charitable Trust is totally different from the skills required to act on the council. How can things get better if its the same people at the head of both organisations and then wont make any changes. I agree with you lot, dont vote them back in. Unfortunately that could be a while before the elections are due, but good luck. I think I'll move back home and stand for the council, at least I do have the good of Shetland at heart, even though I dont live there any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunnered Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 The worry is that after everything that has gone on with this lot, we may find that very few capable people are willing to put themselves forward at the next election. And if that happens, we'll be stuck with the same old same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 There will be a lot of them not standing for the SIC next time around...Their eyes will of course be fixated on the SCT (new Rules) instead....That's why I think it should be prudent and sensible for a provision preventing Ex-Councillors standing for the SCT for 3 YEARS from their time of leaving the Council...I just wonder why John Scott didn't insert that in his submission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 There will be a lot of them not standing for the SIC next time around...Their eyes will of course be fixated on the SCT (new Rules) instead....That's why I think it should be prudent and sensible for a provision preventing Ex-Councillors standing for the SCT for 3 YEARS from their time of leaving the Council...I just wonder why John Scott didn't insert that in his submission No!, No!, No!, ten thousand times no!. When I eventually get to vote for who sits on the Charitable Trust I expect freedom to vote for whoever I think is the best person for the job and not have to pick from a reduced list of candidates because ex councillors have been excluded. In fact if the elections are held at the same time I think people should be able to stand for both and be able to decide which office they will take up if elected to both. This of course is based on having some sort of PR or List system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 I just wonder why John Scott didn't insert that in his submission Perhaps because he is worried a similar restriction is proposed against former appointed representatives of the crown standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 I think you will find that JS would be quite happy not to be appointed to SCT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 There will be a lot of them not standing for the SIC next time around...Their eyes will of course be fixated on the SCT (new Rules) instead....That's why I think it should be prudent and sensible for a provision preventing Ex-Councillors standing for the SCT for 3 YEARS from their time of leaving the Council...I just wonder why John Scott didn't insert that in his submission No!, No!, No!, ten thousand times no!. When I eventually get to vote for who sits on the Charitable Trust I expect freedom to vote for whoever I think is the best person for the job and not have to pick from a reduced list of candidates because ex councillors have been excluded. In fact if the elections are held at the same time I think people should be able to stand for both and be able to decide which office they will take up if elected to both. This of course is based on having some sort of PR or List system.The object in future is 'to keep distance' between SIC and SCT. It seems what you are saying, is more or less what we currently have and where they serve on both institutions and have to argue with themselves. Perhaps you are finding it too dark up there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 I think people should be able to stand for both and be able to decide which office they will take up if elected to both. this would mean that we will get a lot of second bests in both instutions, not really ideal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunnered Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 ^^Second bests, as opposed to what we have at the moment, which is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 In all honesty, I really don't have a problem with serving councillors serving on the board of the Charitable Trust. As far as I am concerned, the positions should be filled by the most capable, able, talented and engaged individuals that are available in Shetland - mind you, exactly the same criteria applies for the council. To my mind, the biggest issues are that the board members be individually elected to the position by the electorate, and the candidates stand specifically for that position. With the necessary governance, protections and recourse to ensure that they do their job well, or that the electorate has a mechanism to remove them (ahead of a scheduled election) should the need arise, this board will be independent and accountable for a very substantial stake in Shetland's long term future. The larger issue is that the Charitable Trust is co-opted from the council, and a major conflict of interest potentially arises within the combination of roles. What is proposed here, is a very real opportunity to reform the management and operation of the trust and ensure that the budgeting and goals of the council are clearly separated from the keys to the treasure chest to make up shortfalls, or chase the flavour of the day. The council is here to SERVE the people of Shetland to the very best of their abilities, whether it is the employees, or elected members. Somehow this seems to be getting lost in the political machinations of an organization that appears to spend more time dealing with it's internal affairs, politics and ego than it does with the business of running Shetland for the people of Shetland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2 Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Would SCT elections attract different canddiates from the SIC? Would it be better for the elections to be between SIC elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 ^^ Thats the problem I have with an independant setup. If someone truely wants to serve the community of shetland, why would they show a preference to one body over the other? I used to support the independance Idea, but as time goes on it is making less and less sense. Opposition to changes in legislation is nothing new, and natural recourse in many instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2 Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 but presumably we don't want Sandy and pals to be running NHS Shetland too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Would SCT elections attract different canddiates from the SIC? Would it be better for the elections to be between SIC elections? Yes, I believe it would. I think that many people underestimate the demands that are put on councillors, including many that run for the position. Being a councillor is a full time, and often thankless job. It is vastly underpaid and their efforts and commitment are often grossly undervalued by the public. That said, they cannot shirk or hide from their duties in managing the group as a whole. Whilst the regular council activiites are a full time occupation, being on the board of the SCT is a much less demanding, although extremely responsible, position. The role of the board is to determine the direction, policy and governance of the SCT. The SCT executive is extremely well managed and operated, by highly talented and capable individuals that are paid to execute and manage the decisions of the board. If the SCT board were to be run independently, I believe it would appeal to many individuals across a broad range of expertise, knowledge and commitment and attract some incredible talent that is beyond the political interests or ambitions of those currently running it. It would also attract many who simply are unable to to commit to the demands of performing the role of a councillor. Shetland has some incredible brains, experience and capabilities within it's confines - and with that I include everyday people, not just highly qualified professionals. The Charitable Trust holds the foundation for sustaining change and development for the long term benefit of all Shetlanders, and I believe that these positions will attract people who share those common goals. The idea of staggering the elections away from the general council elections is also a good one. Let's focus on one thing at a time; pick the best people, measure their performance and hold them accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 The issue of governance of the SCT needs addressing for sure, the control of available community funds deserves and needs better care and attention than being a side job for folk that were elected first and foremost to provide local public infrastructure and services. But, to my mind at least, the Shetland public firstly needs to be made fully aware of where all of the "oil money" is right now, and how it is administered right now. SCT funds form, I believe the lion's share, however there are things like SLAP and the EDU which, I believe previously was the Development Trust, and also govern community funds. I certainly don't know for sure, and neither it seems does most of the folk I speak to, just where and how these funds fit in to the big picture. Lets not forget that it was Development Trust investments that have accounted for most of the bigger investment disasters, and which probably forms the greater part of the drive to see community funds better managed than as per the present arrangement. Councillors should be elected solely as councillors, there's a great deal wrong with the status quo, so a reduced workload, I would have thought, woud have been welcomed by them as it would give them more time to work at getting their core responsibilities right. The "Oil Money" in its entirity should be in the hands of elected trustees for the majority, co-opted trustees are fine, but I'd say keep their number to a minimum, and only allow them where there is an agreed lack of knowledge/experience among the elected trustees. An SIC councillor also being a trustee I have no problem with, if they were elected to both bodies in entirely seperate elections. Bottom line as I see it, combined councillor/trustee roles/elections fail on the grounds that a suitable person to decide how best to spend a variety of pots of money for the best good of the local community, that magically appear annually from a Government rate Support Grant and local Council Tax. Is highly unlikely to be the same person who is suitable to make judgement calls on where to invest community funds to attain the best possible return, or to judge which "high risk" local developments are worth taking a gamble of for the good of the community, and which are simply pouring good money after bad in to something that is already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.