33 Million of Cost/Savings Per Annum

[JustMe]

seriously.

the council and trust have been paying the leckybills. why. yes they folks are old and infirm/vulnerable but so are those in the community in their own homes. they have spent the equivalent of 2.1 million on these 200 homes. i wonder if the other elderly folks would have liked an extra 500 quid a year.

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6401-sheltered-housing-tenants-shocked-by-cut

 

we must wonder what other gifts like this are going on. that saving alone would cover the freefield centre.

Not quite true. The council and the charitable trust had a scheme where tenants of sheltered houses paid a sum towards their electricity bills and the council paid the actual bill. In my case I calculate the "subsidy" was around £2 a week although it must have been higher for others. Not a vast fortune either way but I guess the thinking was that the council did not want sheltered housing tenants freezing to death as they were afraid to run up big electricity bills.

[paulb]

indeed im sure that was the reasoning. however the elderly in there own homes will dies just as easy.

 

however whatever they spend on the elderly is peanuts compared to their inability to simply do their jobs with latest mess up costing 4 million. funnily the same as they are trying to save from the education budget.

 

their mis management has cost shetland 200 million. think of it as every single person in shetland losing 10 thousand pounds. its such as vast amount it beggers belief.

 

you really do have to ask why it was never taken out of their hands before it got to this state.

 

now the call for social care cuts in staffing. who are they planning to cut the home care packages to. you need a certain number of staff to cover the client base. you really do have to ask why were they not charging for the service before now.

 

i still think it would be cheaper if the council was just the service commissioner and not the provider.

[MuckleJoannie]

Mismanagement caused SIC cash crisis

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6733-poor-money-management-created-sic-crisis

 

SHETLAND Islands Council would not have to close schools or cut ferry services if it had managed its reserves sustainably over the past 13 years, a new report has confirmed.

 

SIC finance director James Gray says that if budgets had been handled properly, the council would have an extra £8 million to spend each year into the future, instead of having to cut spending by £30 million over five years.

 

The report is can be found on the SIC committee schedule -Audit and Standards Committee Agenda - 09 May 2013-Review of Council Spending 2003-2013

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/Agenda.asp?meetingid=3763

[Urabug]

So one mans loss is another mans gain---who gained

[Shoogler]

??

No sure wit you mean?

[daveh]

All of the additional staff taken on by the SIC were gainers.

[Urabug]

Shoogler-- It is a very old saying ,but very true. One mans loss is anothers gain.

 

The council has lost millions which I am sure has found it's way to many pockets.

 

The Question is,who has benifited from the councils mis-management ?

[Carlos]

If you try to decide the overall effect on the Shetland ecconomy of the money from the extra jobs.... I'd guess you'd have to make so many assumptions that it's hard to tell?

If you look at one off items then the money flow is clearer but the cost/benefit is still to be argued - the report highlights the spend on North Isles ferries, and you can argue whether that was a good decision or not, but the council still gained an asset for the money it spent.

If you have something more direct in mind.... maybe more hints needed?

[ll]

Reflecting on his time in office, Mr Goodlad pointed to what he feels were his main successes over a decade in office, choosing primarily to flag up non-headline grabbing things like keeping the organisation within its financial and budgetary framework and maintaining the delivery of high quality services to the people of Shetland. He believes that when successor David Clark steps into the hot seat on Monday morning he will find in front of him a “strong base†from which to take the community forward.

 

 

The NAFC, likewise was left on a 'strong base' and needed nearly £5 million a year from SIC to fill black hole left by former principle.

 

Seems something the same, but on a much larger scale was rolled out on a larger scale at SIC.

[shetlander]

The Question is,who has benifited from the councils mis-management ?

 

I'd argue just about everybody in Shetland has either directly or indirectly. The public have benefitted from enjoying years of gold plated levels of service and infrastructure provision far in excess of what is laid on by councils elsewhere, local businesses and voluntary organisations have benefitted from financial assistance in the way of grants and loans and folk of working age have benefitted from large numbers of available council jobs, all of which has led to more money being generated in the local economy.

[daveh]

^^

That is based on a completely flawed financial budget.

 

Up here, the "gold plated levels of service and infrastructure provision" have only been provided by spending way beyond our means and has only been achieved by eating into our dwindling capital each year.

 

Way down south, the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary public sector jobs, the seemingly unchecked welfare and defence budgets etc, were only achieved by the rubbish Labour government borrowing more and more money and racking up a huge deficit. Gordon Brown must be the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in history, surely. When it came to finance, he was a total incompetent.

 

The "levels of service" and levels of SIC staff here are totally unsustainable and the likes of Brian Smith up here need to wake up and realise it before it is too late.

[shetlander]

^^

That is based on a completely flawed financial budget.

 

Up here, the "gold plated levels of service and infrastructure provision" have only been provided by spending way beyond our means and has only been achieved by eating into our dwindling capital each year.

 

The "levels of service" and levels of SIC staff here are totally unsustainable and the likes of Brian Smith up here need to wake up and realise it before it is too late.

 

As someone who has been a critic of the councils inability to make difficult decisions about its spending for years, I agree with you entirely. I was merely responding to urabug's question as to who has benefitted from the mismanagement of council funds - as opposed to supporting the way in which those funds have been spent.

[Urabug]

Shetlander- you are correct we have all benifited in one way or another,but it is unnecessary use of outside consultants,legal fees,& compensation ect; that has probably cost the council most.

 

As to Daveh --the unions have done a good job in getting better working conditions for there members ,but they have to be careful and not go back to the good old days when hey killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

If the cost of labour gets to much then employers will find alternative means .

 

We know what happened to the car industry,ship building, merchant navy. coal industry ect.

[shetlandpeat]

The use of consultants is generally because there is not the specific expertise within the council, this folly that councils should be totally expert in all matters goes against folks comments about staffing levels.

On that matter, there will be a minimum number of staff required, it is difficult to argue against that as no matter how few islanders there are, there still has to be the correct levels. Perhaps folk should consult those who know, though the common practice of saying ones thoughts rather than any research can retard any due process. The swinging cuts in staff levels has now started to reveal other problems. Sickness has started to increase and time off work has been reduced by the pressure put on staff. Those on flexi time are getting to the point where the additional duties they now have to do makes it impossible to continue doing their original role, hence this can only impact on quality. This is why there is need for trades unions. Otherwise, folk will just be run into the ground and will eventually be dismissed under the sickness policy or cost the tax payer for long term recovery. Where the freck folk think that council officers and staff are less human than themselves and should be treated as such because they draw a salary from the public purse is quite reprehensible.

Yup, the large industries you speak of were killed off, there was involvement of the trades unions with this, but, they were representing their members. Remember, Scargill was re-elected, Thatcher was ousted. It is impossible for the trades unions to act the way they did back then generations ago, they are still, under the TUC, the largest constituted group of tax payers. Because of this, it is the members who vote on matters.

Folk have to look at what they can contribute to ease the situation we are under. With the anomalies being reported in the tax system, the misrepresentation of figures, the ideology and the unelected representation of the country and its issues, we have to be guarded against the stigma being forced upon folk. We hear more of suicides, starvation, mistreatment and neglect during one type of administration than another.

This has a very long term impact on the future of folks, this generation which some are in need of help will have to be looked after later. Sales of fruit and veg are down, the biggest worry over food is the cost and there seems little hope of any improvement, hence adding to the stress folk are already experiencing. Of course, damaging the health and well being of folk.

[Infiltrator]

The Question is,who has benifited from the councils mis-management ?

 

I'd argue just about everybody in Shetland has either directly or indirectly.

 

And I've said for years that I believe the councils strategy from way back is all based around a fear of depopulation of the isles once the oil business finally fades away.

 

The sheer amount of well paid council funded jobs and gold plated infrastructure projects can only be sustainable with a sizeable income from outside the isles - e.g. oil and gas, or the Viking windfarm.