Yet another bit of the Trowers and Hamlins legal advice with a commentary from a top bod (aka the Mole in the Hole) who understands what this all means (unlike me). Enjoy
Hi Rog
The legal advice identifies 3 options to ensure that continued employment by the council is maintained for roles that cannot be outsourced. The third option is to retain individuals in employment by the Council but managed by the private sector. This is a complicated and unnecessary way to run a service so why even consider it?
It really does seem from the legal advice the lawyers have been told to find a way to outsource no matter the cost to the taxpayer (whom this is meant to benefit).
Going back to the planning department example, it is difficult to imagine the management of the planners never being involved in their decisions or wanting to influence them. Some planning and enforcement decisions have significant financial implications for the department and the Council as a whole,they can be challenged and potentially open to cost applications. Planning committees have the biggest attendance of any committee meetings.
If the private company management cannot get involved in those difficult decisions then the existing Council-employed management team would have to remain. The outsourcing exercise would have resulted in nothing more than the introduction of another layer of management to the department. This is surely the last thing residents want. Only senior management want to see more layers of bureaucracy.
It is becoming clear that the press have latched on to the fact that Barnet Council is an authority to watch when looking for barmy Council stories. You would think that someone, somewhere at Barnet would realise that it is time to actually read the legal advice, rather than think of ways to circumvent it.
The legal advice identifies 3 options to ensure that continued employment by the council is maintained for roles that cannot be outsourced. The third option is to retain individuals in employment by the Council but managed by the private sector. This is a complicated and unnecessary way to run a service so why even consider it?
It really does seem from the legal advice the lawyers have been told to find a way to outsource no matter the cost to the taxpayer (whom this is meant to benefit).
Going back to the planning department example, it is difficult to imagine the management of the planners never being involved in their decisions or wanting to influence them. Some planning and enforcement decisions have significant financial implications for the department and the Council as a whole,they can be challenged and potentially open to cost applications. Planning committees have the biggest attendance of any committee meetings.
If the private company management cannot get involved in those difficult decisions then the existing Council-employed management team would have to remain. The outsourcing exercise would have resulted in nothing more than the introduction of another layer of management to the department. This is surely the last thing residents want. Only senior management want to see more layers of bureaucracy.
It is becoming clear that the press have latched on to the fact that Barnet Council is an authority to watch when looking for barmy Council stories. You would think that someone, somewhere at Barnet would realise that it is time to actually read the legal advice, rather than think of ways to circumvent it.
It would be a strange career structure for a Barnet Council Planner, would it not!
ReplyDeleteGain lots of experience, keep your nose clean, understand planning functions in depth, and some day... you merely hit the concrete ceiling. where those higher up are not Senior Council Planners, so p*@@ off!