Waste management

[shetlandpeat]

If you do not get involved, then as far as you are concerned, there is no community involvement. That could be the problem.

There are large number of groups who directly benefit from CCs (community councils) without the need to go through the County Council. These are your deserving. I would disagree that it would be cost effective to scrap them. For one, the involvement of communities will still need to happen, it is the link between the individual or group and the council (SIC).

 

As for being a carer, the term was a loose one but generally directed at those who are facing cuts to their service. Which is far more important, not just to the carer, but the fabric of social care.

 

I cannot see the benefit of isolating communities further, at the moment, those who want to be involved can be, those who don't, still benefit from a service being there when they need it. Adding more to the unemployed status is not helpful either.

 

Oh, good of you to list the money spent on CCs (community councils), sadly, the information is some what lacking. No real indication on how the £70k you say can be saved is there. You would have been far better splitting the costs to projects, clerks and meeting costs as well as off setting this with the benefits of the membership of the association. We may be able to have seen your point.

 

However, folk cannot be bothered to find out about their CC (community council) and then spout about how lacking they are.

 

When the remaining cuts hit, community involvement and cohesion will be important. If you do not get involved, you will of course lose the ability to have a say.

 

There has not been the groundswell of those who want the councils (CCs) scrapped, it is again down to the community. What ever you want from them, there has to be community involvement.

Edited October 5, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[Colin]

"We're lucky if the website containing the minutes gets updated every few months and there hasn't been a leaflet drop around the community since something like 2009.  The minutes are sometimes on display down the local post office.  So if you can't get down the local post office, you've no idea what they've been discussing and voting on until its too late.  They make decisions without consulting the community they supposedly represent and have their own pet projects.  Oh, and several of them voted regarding the VE community fund; again, without even consulting the very people they are meant to represent.9"

 

Ah, website syndrome..  They must have got it when the SIC were throwing money at everything.  Trouble is, they can cost a bit of money/time/effort to maintain.  Sounded like a great idea at the time but, if the CC doesn't have the technical ability on board, a non-runner in the long term as they are to expensive to maintain.  As for leaflet drops, they to require money/time/effort as well.

 

You might have noticed that said money/time/effort are in pretty short supply these days. 

During the last year that my wife was a CC clerk, the SIC was going to reduce the CC funding from £14,000pa to £9,000.  Not a great deal of money and barely enough to pay wages/meeting room rent/running expenses/small grants etc.

Little wonder that people are no longer willing to be part of a (financially) powerless 'talking shop'.

 

However, there is no excuse for NOT displaying Meeting Agendas in public places and for NOT making the minutes available for general access.  I believe the 'rule' is that the Meeting Agenda should be displayed not less than 14 days prior to a meeting and that the minutes should be available not more than 9 days after a meeting.

This would be the root cause of the "lack of consultation" you complain of.

 

This appears to be an identical situation to the one in Scalloway.

Maybe the overpaid(?) (and I would dispute this) clerk(s) need a boot in the proverbial..

 

"Have you seen the amount it costs to run a CC?  I was quite surprised at the amount a clerk gets paid; if our local CC is anything to go by, it certainly isn't value for money.  As to the comment about grants for local groups, where does a CC get the money from for such grants ... wouldn't be the SIC by any chance, would it?"

 

Yes, I have seen directly (and already quoted) what CC's get paid and, although my experience is 'historic' and limited to Scalloway CC, other CC's recieve similar amounts calculated on the population of their cachement area.  The only exception to this rule (as far as I know) is Mossbank CC which receives (or at least they used to) some extra funding direct from BP.

The local CC does indeed get it's grant money (what little there is of it) from the SIC but, it is important to note that the grants which they hand out, whilst being tiny compared to 'SIC grants', are not subject to the same constraints and are made to community groups and projects that would not qualify for SIC help.

As for the clerks wages part.  My wife was contracted to do 30 hours work per month (she actually did almost twice that with the excess being done for nothing).  Either way, not a great deal of money was involved.

 

"And there's some people who have been community councillors since the beginning; even if a couple of new councillors did get on the CC, they'd have no clout because the same old deadwood refuses to budge and change their ways; that's why so many aren't interested in standing from what I've heard.  Perhaps limit the number of years people can be community councillors?"

 

Well, instead of blaming general apathy for the demise of CC's, why don't you put yourself up for election?  It's one thing to complain of 'deadwood' but, if enough people (and if what you say is true, there are) could be encouraged to vote, you would soon shift them or, at least make them change their ways.  Suggesting that CC's be abolished altogether as a way of solving the problem is a bit like 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'

However, limiting the number of terms a councillor can serve sounds like a good idea..

 

"And judging by the minutes I have read, the SIC officials treat the CCs with the same amount of disdain they treat Joe Public with."

 

This is true, I believe, of SOME officials and also of SOME councillors but, certainly not all of them.

 

The only positive I can see from your comments is that if CC's were to be abolished then, you would be able to concentrate your efforts on the SIC.... <G>

[Colin]

And as for grants, why the hell are local community councils paying for road materials for non-adopted access roads?

Because that money is NOT available from the SIC.

[Colin]

What has Shetland gained from that £170k spend (thats £468 per day!) that wouldn't have been as easily and more cheaply provided from within the SIC machine? They might just have managed to cut the Admin and overheads from servicing all these talking shops by £70k if they did, which could have covered the cost of the skips, and we'd still have them.

 

Except that the CC's were responsible for the placing/recovery of the skips.....

[Colin]

 

Oh look, they voted on police officers routinely carrying firearms.  Was anything on the [invisible] agenda prior to the meeting?  Nope, per usual, they just did what the hell they thought; no consultation.

 

This I find quite alarming.... and, if ever an issue needed to be put to the community, this is one..

 

Personally, I don't mind police officers carrying fire arms PROVIDING WE CAN ALL CARRY FIRE ARMS otherwise, looks like we are heading into a police state...

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

 

Oh look, they voted on police officers routinely carrying firearms.  Was anything on the [invisible] agenda prior to the meeting?  Nope, per usual, they just did what the hell they thought; no consultation.

 

This I find quite alarming.... and, if ever an issue needed to be put to the community, this is one..

 

Personally, I don't mind police officers carrying fire arms PROVIDING WE CAN ALL CARRY FIRE ARMS otherwise, looks like we are heading into a police state...

 

 

They voted against but just one example of an issue they voted on without people knowing

 

Colin, I'm not voting to stand for something I believe should be scrapped in its present format.

[Colin]

 

Colin, I'm not voting to stand for something I believe should be scrapped in its present format.

 

Fair comment but, it's easier to fight from within than it is to stand back and do nothing.....

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Aaargh, that should have read "not going to stand".

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

And as for grants, why the hell are local community councils paying for road materials for non-adopted access roads?

Because that money is NOT available from the SIC.

 

 

I don't see why the money should be available out of public funds, be they local or national taxes, to ANY private landowner.  You want to maintain your own access road, you budget for it.

[shetlandpeat]

It keeps un-adopted roads safe, it is not just about access roads.

[Ghostrider]

It keeps un-adopted roads safe,.....

 

How in the name do you figure that one out?

 

....it is not just about access roads.

 

Now there's a royal oxymoron if there ever was one. Or do you know about something no-one else does, and Shetland has circuit hidden away someplace?

[shetlandpeat]

There is an interesting document called "Strengthening Community Involvement at theis Time of Change" It mentions some of the issues that councils (Community) have. When you are ripping services, taking away a means that can be redeveloped to include the community would be counter productive. After all, it is not just about the money, councils (SIC & CC) have obligations towards the Wellbeing of residents and a continuous link needs to be maintained. Sending the day to day running of community organisations back to a central feeder would feel just like further cuts. Isolating communities further than they may be or feel already would not be productive when it comes to community cohesion.

The health and wellbeing of a community are paramount, why should Lerwick get the better treatment because it is closer to the home of the administration. Removing community assets such as councils (CC) will not encourage folk to make the trip to Lerwick to make their point on day to day issues, if anything, it will limit options and opportunities. It would also prove expensive. Looking at minutes of CCs (councils) it is evident they are places where you can meet up with your elected representative as a community, meeting in such a way is far more beneficial. Folk will be able to comment and listen to others, they may even have solutions that can be installed without the need of the council (SIC & CC).

 

You know when the meetings are, it is up to you.

 

Just because you do not get your own way should be no reason to give up, and then just condemn. ***************************

Edited October 5, 2014 by trout
Personal attack removed. Read the T&C's!!

[Ghostrider]

There is an interesting document called "Strengthening Community Involvement at theis Time of Change" It mentions some of the issues that councils (Community) have. When you are ripping services, taking away a means that can be redeveloped to include the community would be counter productive. After all, it is not just about the money, councils (SIC & CC) have obligations towards the Wellbeing of residents and a continuous link needs to be maintained. Sending the day to day running of community organisations back to a central feeder would feel just like further cuts. Isolating communities further than they may be or feel already would not be productive when it comes to community cohesion.

The health and wellbeing of a community are paramount, why should Lerwick get the better treatment because it is closer to the home of the administration. Removing community assets such as councils (CC) will not encourage folk to make the trip to Lerwick to make their point on day to day issues, if anything, it will limit options and opportunities. It would also prove expensive. Looking at minutes of CCs (councils) it is evident they are places where you can meet up with your elected representative as a community, meeting in such a way is far more beneficial. Folk will be able to comment and listen to others, they may even have solutions that can be installed without the need of the council (SIC & CC).

 

You know when the meetings are, it is up to you.

 

Just because you do not get your own way should be no reason to give up, and then just condemn. ***************************

 

It is only when folk haven't been able to find a solution among themselves that things get as far as either CCs or the SIC, anyone with half a brain knows fine well that involving either will be a long, tedious and expensive journey for some kind of fudge solution. Its not worth the bother.

 

You're really not getting this are you Peat. In one six month period within the last year a CC received four grant applications, two to assist with firework displays, one to assist with buying equipment for the local UHA and one to assist with local Voar Redd Up activities, they approved three, rejected one. There's no good reason why the same service couldn't be provided through the existing grant assistance schemes run through the Development Dept, as easily, as accessibly, and at no more admin cost.

 

For over a year the items on the agenda have barely changed, the majority were there over one year ago and are still there, wholly unchanged. Whenever there's be anything to add on the subject, which has been rare, its just been a list of excuses why progress wasn't possible. Exactly the same answer as any Joe Public would have gotten much quicker from one phone call. Councillors and Council Depts etc are far better known and more easily accessible than Community Councillors, they're just a phone call, letter, or email away, and usually have answers available if pressed hard enough to find them, CCs do not.

 

In areas of high population concentration CCs maybe work better on account of the different geography and lifestyle, but out in the back of the boondocks they're superfluous, folk talk among themselves, take the initiative and get on with it if at all possible, or collar a Councillor or relevant department or agency and get something done about it, an additional layer to act as message boy is not necessary. CCs have been since inception and still are being leap-frogged over in both directions, I hope those without adequate candidates to be formed stay that way, as it'll prove in those areas that nothing changes without them.

 

A lot of good people have tried to make CCs work for 40 years, but despite their best efforts the only thing that's been proven is what the majority of folk believed from the start, that they have inadequate power or resources to influence or make a meaningful difference to anything.

 

Councillors are easily accessible and are involved at a level where differences can be made, there really is no need of purpose for any lower tier in government. You can cite whatever "Document" you like, but they're all written by some suit without a clue based on some academic theory they've been taught, and take no account of actual facts on the ground. Where a Community is clearly feeling isolated, unincluded and fragmented, an organisation, be it a CC or something else, to addreess that may well be beneficial, but when a community has never shown any such signs, and have largely ignored the fact a CC existed in their area throughout its existence, there's no case to have one. I'm sure if enough local issues arose that enough locals felt strongly enough about, they'd form an organisation of their own to address them, regardless whether there was a CC or not, until and unless such a time as those circumstances do occur, CCs are serving a need that doesn't exist, clearly evidenced by the already high and growing disinterest in them.

 

Quite frankly, whenever the rare occasion occured that CCs crept in to conversation, the inevitable, "well, they do organise the skips....and they're handy", was certain to follow quickly, and not much else. Now that CCs no longer have skips to organise, the public's opinion of the rest they are allowed to do is clearly demonstrated in the plea for more CC candidates in the media on Saturday.

Edited October 5, 2014 by trout
Personal attack removed from quote

[Colin]

 

 

And as for grants, why the hell are local community councils paying for road materials for non-adopted access roads?

Because that money is NOT available from the SIC.

 

 

I don't see why the money should be available out of public funds, be they local or national taxes, to ANY private landowner.  You want to maintain your own access road, you budget for it.

 

And that is a damned good answer..... 

If you have the money to budget for it.. 

Shouldn't have spent it all on a nice shiny 4x4 then.....

[fionajohn]

What i find annoying people outwith Shetland and have no concept of rural outlying areas spout opinions just to be noticed put them as far west in a remote area and let them spend a winter like 1947 and then ask them their opinion after living off rabbits and shellfish and if lucky reestid mutton ...tatties and point comes to mind  JOHN remembers the 47 snow