What a bunch of cuts, WBC's budget simulator Options

[Simon Kirby]

I think Spartacus makes a fair point. This isn't about the dedication and efficiency of public sector workers.

I share Bofem's concern that it's not in the interests of the WBC mandarins to make service cuts painless. Quite the opposite. For a senior manager, the bigger the Council, the more important you are, and the more you earn, so you want to make service cuts as painful as possible to protect your self-interest. Bofem's digging out some useful specifics, but without much more like that we're stuck trusting the Council mandarins.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

Mrs Bill1 here.

A friend has just pointed out a way for WBC to save a few grand

http://www.budgetsimulator.com/info/pricing

All rather reminds me of Great Britain Ltd, my fave BBC Micro game in the 80s (I was rubbish at Chuckie Egg).

[Bofem]

Of course, I may have it completely wrong on the Education Department.

They're committed to merging several local schools, which gets rid of half a dozen headteachers saving £50k a time.
[can't find the doc just now, but from memory it's....
John Rankins J&I
St Nix/St Johns
Parsons Down J&I

NB when they did this to Winchcombe, it went into special measures.

Moving on...they're nearly done with farming out Castle School pupils onto other sites, freeing up the Love Lane site for sale to a developer (apparently a big retailer is interested).

[Richard Garvie]

Re. Mr Jones and other councillor's costs, they are available here http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5805 together with all other councillor expenses. Mr Jones received £23,720 in allowances and expenses in the financial year 2009/10. Unfortunately the document doesn't show the total but basic allowance costs appear to be about £360,000 and special responsibility and travelling and subsistence allowances adds another £160,000 based on a quick tally so presumably 25% of that half million or so will be saved.

It's around £650k a year for members.

[Richard Garvie]

Mrs Bill1 here.

A friend has just pointed out a way for WBC to save a few grand

http://www.budgetsimulator.com/info/pricing

All rather reminds me of Great Britain Ltd, my fave BBC Micro game in the 80s (I was rubbish at Chuckie Egg).

So we've spend almost £8k on a simulator that gives us no real detail of what we're "cutting"... Did you know that this is an online only consultation too? True democracy at work!!!

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

So we've spend almost £8k on a simulator that gives us no real detail of what we're "cutting"... Did you know that this is an online only consultation too? True democracy at work!!!

Where does the actual price paid become sufficiently clear on a corporate website to know the fee WBC paid?
Is it the only method of 'consultation', or just one of several (so those without 'puters are not disadvantaged)?

It is a bit of a weak tool for serious budgeting, but a reasonable way of letting people who 'know what to do' get an indication of the downsides to their point of view - which a written documents would struggle with. Also, assuming the license endures beyond the current exercise, maybe even £8k is not an OTT sum....

[Guest_noobree_*]

It's around £650k a year for members.

Ah, thanks. Well I'm sure that it will be easy enough to save 25% of that. Many of the councillors - particularly the Conservative ones - seem pretty well heeled and I'm sure could easily manage without claiming their allowances. We really should be looking at reducing their numbers as well. I'm confident that's already being looked at - it's very popular elsewhere: http://goo.gl/6jsPA

[Guest_noobree_*]

Here's another money saving idea.

I seem to remember that there was talk of getting rid of the Market Street offices some time ago. This should be pursued asap - I'm sure as a prime town centre location the office and its huge car park, right next to the station, would attract a good price and there are many sites on our local trading estates which could easily be taken over by the few remaining councillors and staff. I'm thinking of warehouses which, with the addition of some cubicles, could house staff at low cost: lots of companies do this as some quick Googling will reveal.

In the meantime, why doesn't the District Council abandon it's very plush council chamber immediately and instead meet in halls around the district? This might not save a lot in the short term but it would save having to build a replacement chamber once the officers relocate to their converted warehouse and it would send a great signal to the electorate. It would make council meetings - which could be held in village halls, churches, school halls and so on - much more accessible to those in rural areas and in the more far flung parts of the district. In the summer they could even be held in the open air saving even more money and marking a return to the ancient idea of a 'moot', held near or on a suitable landmark: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_hill

Tradition, cost saving and open democracy - a triple whammy! Feels like a Do-It-Now idea to me Mr Jones!

[user23]

There are 60 in the Policy and Communications team. Their job is (largely) to bring in Whitehall targets at local level, plus preparing agendas and reports for councillors, and consultations.
Do we need that many now so much regulation is falling away?

Not sure this estimate is entirely correct but as it's rumoured they're planning to centralise West Berkshire's CCTV that's perhaps a few numbers away already given the 10 or so camera operators would be included in your inflated figure.

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Here's another money saving idea.

I seem to remember that there was talk of getting rid of the Market Street offices some time ago. This should be pursued asap - I'm sure as a prime town centre location the office and its huge car park, right next to the station, would attract a good price and there are many sites on our local trading estates which could easily be taken over by the few remaining councillors and staff. I'm thinking of warehouses which, with the addition of some cubicles, could house staff at low cost: lots of companies do this as some quick Googling will reveal.

In the meantime, why doesn't the District Council abandon it's very plush council chamber immediately and instead meet in halls around the district? This might not save a lot in the short term but it would save having to build a replacement chamber once the officers relocate to their converted warehouse and it would send a great signal to the electorate. It would make council meetings - which could be held in village halls, churches, school halls and so on - much more accessible to those in rural areas and in the more far flung parts of the district. In the summer they could even be held in the open air!

Feels like a Do-It-Now idea to me Mr Jones!

Moving the meetings around the district is attractive, but past experience suggests local involvement is somewhere around nil apart from those with an axe to grind or an agenda of their own. Then the halls have to be hired - nothing for nothing - and the Officers who have to attend in support can then claim expenses that do not apply when the meeting is at the centre (as it is their normal place of work). So a fair cost would ensue....

'Plush' Council Chamber? Luxury is subjective, but the WBC Chamber is far from plush in my opinion.

As for the site sale, I believe it is still on the agenda, but the commercial interest in building is reduced at the moment. I agree re the use of 'trading estate' facilities though - as per the Highways Offices. I don't believe facilities should be down-at heel or utilitarian, but function before form.

[Guest_noobree_*]

Moving the meetings around the district is attractive, but past experience suggests local involvement is somewhere around nil apart from those with an axe to grind or an agenda of their own.

Are you a councillor? Whether you are or you are, I'm sure you'll agree that councillors have to be seen to be sharing in the agony here. Leading from the front and all that.

And yes, the council chamber is plush in comparison with the village and school halls I'm proposing will be used in the future. Also I think you're ignoring the huge cost savings which will be made by not replacing the existing chamber when Market Street is vacated. These will easily offset the modest hire charges for local halls. Most councillors could easily afford a few pounds for petrol as I've already pointed out - the more energetic ones will cycle, of course.

Regarding officers, I think it's about time councillors started taking their own minutes, don't you? You can take turns. Alternatively the meetings could be recorded and transcribed during working hours. In the council meetings I've attended the officers barely say a word so I think so long as they're available via a mobile phone that will suffice (and will save yet more costs, of course).

Come on, NWN Reader, with the best will in the world you really aren't trying!

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Are you a councillor? Whether you are or you aren't, I'm sure you'll agree that councillors have to be seen as sharing in the agony here. NO!!!!! I agree entirely, but your measure will not deliver a cut in cost. Also, with the lack of community involvement, it will not improve representation

And yes, the council chamber is plush in comparison with the village and school halls I'm proposing will be used in the future. Also I think you're ignoring the huge cost savings which will be made by not replacing the existing chamber when Market Street is vacated. These will easily offset the modest hire charges for local halls. Most councillors could easily afford a few pounds for petrol as I've already pointed out - the more energetic ones will cycle, of course.I'm not ignoring a saving that could be made with a new council office facility. You need to be aware the Chamber is used for lots more than just the Council meetings.

Regarding officers, I think it's about time councillors started taking their own minutes, don't you, or the meetings could be recorded and transcribed during working hours. In the council meetings I've attended the officers barely say a word so I think so long as they're available via a mobile phone that will suffice.The Officers are there to do much more than take Minutes. If the Council wants to change the whole way it operates, then fine, but the situation is not so Meerkat

Come on, NWN Reader, with the best will in the world you really aren't trying!Many say I am very trying

I am all for reducing the operating cost of the Council, and I certainly agree Members allowances are there to cover costs, not as a target income. Same principle as MPs 'expenses'.

[Guest_noobree_*]

I'd like to see some actual data re. the comparative costs of a fixed rather than mobile council meetings, particularly post Market Street: neither of us has any data on this.

Don't agree with you re. the lack of public participation in meetings held outside Newbury - reasonable numbers of people used to attend the local forum meetings in Thatcham before Mr Jones scrapped them. Yes, most of those people had an 'axe to grind. Obviously. The meetings were poorly publicised.

However, my main point is that in the current climate we need to look closely at the costs of local democracy. To my mind the creation of district councils was an expensive luxury which we can no longer afford. We should certainly reduce the number of councillors dramatically, as many others have noted (see the google results above), and we should merge local district councils.

Shame that those options aren't included on the budget simulator but it's interesting for what it omits rather than what it includes. There's no option to raise taxes, for example, or to factor in increased revenues due to local economic/population growth.

FWIW, the whole idea of having party politics at a local level is farcical to me - the squabbling between the local parties is rather pathetic. We could jettison local parties and organise things far more efficiently while retaining accountability and good governance as other countries do, of course, but that's another story and there are too many vested interests here for it ever to happen.

[Jayjay]

Unsure how this can work.

How is this democratic? Not all West Berks residents have computers, so are voting forms being sent out to everybody, and if so at what cost?

Obviously residents who have posts within the council or supply the council in some way have a vested interest. What is to stop, say librarians, having multiple votes and voting themselves an increase?

I need far more information. For instance if we lose budget in Community Safety, how much crime have neighbourhood wadens prevented?

I know it is cynical, but I feel the council is protecting their own backs and devolving responsibility to the residents. I can hear the words 'dont blame us, you voted for it'. If they dont get paid for making the decisions, what are they there for?

[user23]

I know it is cynical, but I feel the council is protecting their own backs and devolving responsibility to the residents. I can hear the words 'dont blame us, you voted for it'. If they dont get paid for making the decisions, what are they there for?

This is a new one on me. Are you seriously saying there's too much democracy in West Berkshire and the officers should be making more decisions without asking residents?

[Guest_noobree_*]

Unsure how this can work.

How is this democratic? Not all West Berks residents have computers, so are voting forms being sent out to everybody, and if so at what cost?

It's just for 'fun'. The results won't be factored into WBC's spending decisions: they've already been made.

[spartacus]

Here's another money saving idea.

I seem to remember that there was talk of getting rid of the Market Street offices some time ago. This should be pursued asap - I'm sure as a prime town centre location the office and its huge car park, right next to the station, would attract a good

I'm not sure if you've driven along the M4 recently (when I say 'recently', I mean in the last 3 or 4 years )... I'm sure those companies that invested in those empty glass walled office blocks on Green Park,....you know, those buildings that have remained devoid of life since the day they became available to let... considered them to be prime locations too?

In the meantime, why doesn't the District Council abandon it's very plush council chamber immediately

I'm not sure if you're joking or just haven't actually stepped inside these supposedly plush chambers.... but when I went there for a presentation evening I was astounded at just how naff if was in there... The walls seemed to have this covering which had the look and feel of cheap hessian cloth. There were no 'grand chairs', elaborate woodwork, wood panelling, coat of arms .... nothing really. It looked a bit cheap and nasty in truth.... Even the picture of Her Maj' looked a bit old and tired... Are you sure you're not thinking of the Newbury Town Council Chamber or something?

Are you a councillor? Whether you are or you are,

I take it that the option of saying "You are not" is not permitted?

And yes, the council chamber is plush in comparison with the village and school halls I'm proposing will be used in the future

I'll have to look up the definition of 'Plush' again.... It's not a place I'd like to stay in any longer than necessary, let's put it that way....

Most councillors could easily afford a few pounds for petrol as I've already pointed out - the more energetic ones will cycle, of course.

A quick round of applause for Tony Vickers....

Don't agree with you re. the lack of public participation in meetings held outside Newbury - reasonable numbers of people used to attend the local forum meetings in Thatcham before Mr Jones scrapped them. Yes, most of those people had an 'axe to grind. Obviously. The meetings were poorly publicised.

Oh p..lease! 'Reasonable' numbers? Thatcham AF was well attended? How many times did you count the one man and his dog that turned up? These Area Forums were meant to be 'public forums'... The only people that regularly turned up with an axe to grind were the Ward Members.. Owen Jeffery and Keith Woodhams between the two of them could make the meeting last all evening despite the fact that there were no members of the public to perform in front of....

[Guest_noobree_*]

Good points Spartacus. Glad that to see that we agree on my main points: that we can merge some unitary authorities, slash the number of councillors, cut/eliminate the allowances of those who remain and sell off Market Street and its car park for development. The plushness or otherwise of the council chamber doesn't really bother me although I think I'm safe in saying that it is carpeted, unlike most parish and school halls. Everything is relative.

Anyway, how do you suggest the mergers and councillor number/allowances cuts are implemented? Presumably the council leadership will pick it up: as I say I'm sure both coalition parties will want to demonstrate that they can take pain as well as dish it out. A good way of deciding who should go would be to ask the voters. If fewer than, say, 20% of voters know the name of their councillor the councillor gets the chop. What could be fairer?

[Iommi]

This is a new one on me. Are you seriously saying there's too much democracy in West Berkshire and the officers should be making more decisions without asking residents?

So-long as they listen when they ask, al la the pavilion.

[blackdog]

So-long as they listen when they ask, al la the pavilion.

I would have thought the pavilion was a classic example of not listening. If they were listening they would have dropped the idea of building it on the park.