Petition for resignation of SIC

[Colin]

Once this is known we will all know where the money goes

With a wage bill kicking the ass out of £100 million, it seems pretty obvious where most of the money goes.  There just don't seem to be enough 'front line' staff to justify anything more than a minor percentage of the expenditure therefore, it must be spent in the 'back office'.

 

A classic example of just how out of control SIC staffing is occurred a few weeks ago (and I'm surprised that no one commented on it) when the Director(?) of Social Work could not explain to councillors how she managed to 'employ' more than 900 people.

Obviously seeing this as a bit embarassing, she then set about reducing the numbers and, a couple of weeks after that, proudly annouced that she had reduced staffing levels by (can't remember the exact number) 300 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT staff.

That is, the highly qualified(?) 'seat polishers' and 'paper shufflers' had been saved(?) so that they could pursue their careers of endless meetings, coffee breaks, 'talking the talk' etc. whilst the 'bum wipers', 'nose wipers' and other, mainly part time, staff who do the real work in the community had been elbowed.

If you want to kill a 'monster' you cut off it's head, not it's hands.

 

In reality, chopping low wage part time jobs that contribute to the well being of the community is going to save sausage all whilst nothing is being done about the expensive end of the wage bill. 

 

Time indeed for our councillors to get to grips with their staffing levels.

[JustMe]

Time also for the Chief Executive to be told to make the council efficient.......and hope that if he tries then there will be no pressing reasons found for him to depart.  Yes I know I am talking about people's jobs but surely this is as good as time as any to trim the admin side of the council down to size.

[paulb]

re the social care they reduced the number of carers. at last count there were 14 bed blockers in the hospital. cant be discharged to no care package.

 

in most of the rest of the uk each delayed discharged is billed to the social services at 100 a day luckily for sic they dont have to pay  the 0.5 million that this could cost them. is it not strange that they cant meet the basic  level of care yet have a massive wage bill. some thing is not right in the sic.

 

re the education vaila in a meeting at aith made it clear that the closing of schools was purely money driven. all this waffle on quality is garbage. its being used to push through her and the officers agenda which is to have just 2 high schools, 

Edited June 8, 2014 by paulb

[JustMe]

re the education vaila in a meeting at aith made it clear that the closing of schools was purely money driven. all this waffle on quality is garbage. its being used to push through her and the officers agenda which is to have just 2 high schools, 

Whose agenda?.  It is all right for elected councillors to have an agenda especially in those councils where party politics are the basis of the elections but councillors are meant to set the agenda and officials to carry out the councillors wishes.  Well as long as those wishes are legal.  And every time council officials mention school closures they tell us how much will be saved!.  Since that is not meant to be any part of the decision making process for closing schools why do they mention it?.

[Wheelsup]

I don't think the councillors can hide behind the officials. Don't think that the officials want to close schools or care homes. Glad I am not part of it but it must be a nightmare jumping through hoops to try and appease the councillors who generally back down and change their minds.as soon as a few angry voters  threaten to throw them out at the next election. What we need is the SNP to goosestep in and take over the town hall. 

[brian.smith]

With a wage bill kicking the ass out of £100 million, it seems pretty obvious where most of the money goes.  There just don't seem to be enough 'front line' staff to justify anything more than a minor percentage of the expenditure therefore, it must be spent in the 'back office'.

 

A classic example of just how out of control SIC staffing is occurred a few weeks ago (and I'm surprised that no one commented on it) when the Director(?) of Social Work could not explain to councillors how she managed to 'employ' more than 900 people.

Obviously seeing this as a bit embarassing, she then set about reducing the numbers and, a couple of weeks after that, proudly annouced that she had reduced staffing levels by (can't remember the exact number) 300 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT staff.

That is, the highly qualified(?) 'seat polishers' and 'paper shufflers' had been saved(?) so that they could pursue their careers of endless meetings, coffee breaks, 'talking the talk' etc. whilst the 'bum wipers', 'nose wipers' and other, mainly part time, staff who do the real work in the community had been elbowed.

If you want to kill a 'monster' you cut off it's head, not it's hands.

 

In reality, chopping low wage part time jobs that contribute to the well being of the community is going to save sausage all whilst nothing is being done about the expensive end of the wage bill. 

 

Time indeed for our councillors to get to grips with their staffing levels.

 

This is the kind of thing that should be investigated considering the later post about bed blocking due to lack of care packages

I wonder how many are employed in transport balanced off against ferry crews etc

Edited June 8, 2014 by brian.smith

[Colin]

Time also for the Chief Executive to be told to make the council efficient.......and hope that if he tries then there will be no pressing reasons found for him to depart.  Yes I know I am talking about people's jobs but surely this is as good as time as any to trim the admin side of the council down to size.

 

Last time that was tried, the man didn't last long.  To many vested interests in the upper echelons.

 

As for jobs, what a pity.  No private employer thinks that it has a duty to provide (almost) unlimited employment so, why should the SIC.

 

I said 20 years ago the the SIC was a very high spending authority and that, one day, the gravy train wouldn't just hit the buffers, it would smash them.

 

Department Heads should be told that 20% (arbitrary figure) of the seat polishers have to go and that they should concentrate on providing 'front line' services such as Public Toilets, Bus Waiting Rooms, Rural Skips etc.  After all, that is what WE are paying for.

[Colin]

I don't think the councillors can hide behind the officials. Don't think that the officials want to close schools or care homes. Glad I am not part of it but it must be a nightmare jumping through hoops to try and appease the councillors who generally back down and change their minds.as soon as a few angry voters  threaten to throw them out at the next election. What we need is the SNP to goosestep in and take over the town hall. 

I think that the main problem is (lack of) communication.  Everything either seems to be 'confidential' or 'a secret' that cannot be divulged to the electorate. 

Makes you wonder why we vote for them in the first place.  Also, can't wait for one of them to break ranks and start informing us of the what's, why' and wherefore's.  They can't be the only people blessed(?) with sufficient intelligence to make an informed decision.

 

As for the SNP 'goosestepping' into Shetland, if that happens, then I will go into open revolt.

[shetlandpeat]

I see the petition is cracking ahead, why are only 100 signatories needed?

[Kavi Ugl]

Hmm, are there paper copies in the shops?.

 

I suspect(and I don't mean any offence) that many of the older generation would probably sign that as they're not "wint" with the internet.

 

I'm not sure why it only needs 100 online signatures though.

 

Can anybody tell me where some of the paper copies are?.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Kavi Ugl

[trowie246]

I'm swithering about whether to sign this petition or not.

 

Many people are signing it purely as a protest.  They know nothing will happen but it is another way of making councillors aware of the strength of feeling against what is happening in Shetland. If I do sign it I would be doing so on that same principle. The problem is that I feel completely discouraged following the response from the education support march.

 

This was more than likely the largest turn-out at a march in Shetland ever, with an initial estimate of over 600 people, to the Shetland Times estimate of nearer a thousand.  I understand that someone filmed the whole thing and then went back over the video and counted heads. This should have been a massive message to councillors and I am so disappointed that councillors did not stand up in the Town Hall on Monday and call a halt to all consultations until at least the new AHS is built.  School closures have rumble on for 10 years now, everyone is weary, including I would imagine, the education department. The SIC has closed 7 schools and they say saved £7 million from the Children and Families budget yet it is never enough.

 

Many councillors may have been unhappy that we did the march but they have to understand that they are there for one reason and one reason only and that is to pay attention to what the people of Shetland, their constituents, want. I think the people of Shetland spoke loud and clear last Saturday and they would do well to remember that.  The next election is 3 years away but we won't forget the ones who have listened to the people and the ones who think they know best.

[crofter]

100 is the current target, it will likely jump up to a new target if 100 people sign.  There are paper copies in some shops,  

[Colin]

Many councillors may have been unhappy that we did the march but they have to understand that they are there for one reason and one reason only and that is to pay attention to what the people of Shetland, their constituents, want. I think the people of Shetland spoke loud and clear last Saturday and they would do well to remember that.  The next election is 3 years away but we won't forget the ones who have listened to the people and the ones who think they know best.

 

Who the hell cares whether they are happy on not?  As you correctly pointed out, they are there to abide by the wishes of their electorate and, not to represent the wishes of SIC officials.

 

If they choose to ignore the protests of 600+ people then they SHOULD resign as it would be pretty obvious that they DO NOT, in this instance, have the support of the community.

 

Unfortunately, for some councillors, there seems to be a bit of arrogance associated with winning a seat and, for some other councillors, there was a bit of arrogance there to start with.

The days of 'doffing your hat' to those in 'authority' and 'doing as you are told' have gone and assuming that the electors believe that they (councillors) know best have also gone.

They only have 'authority' because  WE gave it to them.  It's a pity that we do not also have the power of ReCall so that they could be sacked just as easily as they were elected.  That might just concentrate a few minds.

[shetlandpeat]

Does this mean that the petitioner already has folk in mind who will do his bidding, if not, who exactly will stand to replace these present day councillors that you voted in. According to Colin, he voted them all in, and they should do his bidding which he hopes others will go along with. One thing that puzzles me, have you ever tried to go against the Local Gov Boundary Commission?

The petition is a vague as the accusations being made..

 

Really, the best way this could be addressed is, instead of petition, stand for election on that. Let the voters decide (yup, those same ones that voted the incumbants in)

[Ghostrider]

Really, the best way this could be addressed is, instead of petition, stand for election on that. Let the voters decide (yup, those same ones that voted the incumbants in)

 

If you want to kill a monster you cut its head off, not a limb.

 

The monster within the SIC is the management structure and procedures. The greatest sin committed by Councillors is, for whatever reason, not grasping the mettle and rebuilding, or at least reforming the monster in their midst in to something they control, rather than it controlling them.

 

Yes, voting in yet another new lot *might* work, but it hasn't on the previous attempts. I can appreciate why some might want to give it one more try though, hence the current demand for a mass resignation - it might not entirely be a bad thing, the current lot have had plenty of chance to put dynamite under enough of the worst of the SIC empire for it to be noticed, but it hasn't happened. However, I'm tending to lean towards the alternative option, of heavily pressurising them by making it abundantly clear that unless the electorate sees clear evidence of the elected members taking back the power they are there to have and exercise, from the management who are sitting cosy, having wheedled it off them bit by bit for more than two decades, not one of them has buckley's chance of being re-elected next time around.

 

New blood runs a high risk of being nobbled by the "system" before they have a chance to do much, those who are currently there have had a chance to get to know the system well enough to know how to penetrate the chinks in its armour, all those in its ranks who are not entirely happy about a public service career as a rubber stamping (wo)man needs to start fighting is for the electorate to be a bigger flea in their ear and threat to them than the management they have to tangle with while on council business.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Ghostrider