IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

11 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NTC - CEO's Christmas Market Decisions, Demoicracy Breaks Out
On the edge
post Oct 31 2013, 10:00 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Shock horror - CEO of NTC apparently exceeds his powers and lets the Christmas Market off paying its fees, without bothering to ask, or even let the Councillors know. When the Town Council meet, one of the ruling party leads raises a strong objection to the CEO exceeding authority and even abstains in the vote the ruling party held to sweep matters under the carpet. Well done Ruwan! - and if that's an example of how your new LiibDems to be, they've gone up in my estimation.

Someone does need a little chat in JS-H shell like, two and a half grand may be loose change to you, but it ain't to most of us Charge Payers, or indeed public servants who are about to loose their jobs in the latest round of cuts. Rather than coming up with sound bites, might be a better idea to work out a better method of managing the staff.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 31 2013, 11:12 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Yes, well done indeed. Cllr Uduwerage-Perera is doing an awful lot of good at the Town Council, and like you say it gives the Lib Dems and local politics generally some credibility that for me they'd lost. I think it'll be even more interesting when he gets elected to WBC.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 31 2013, 11:21 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



That's if he doesn't disappear under mysterious circumstances before then! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nerc
post Oct 31 2013, 12:59 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-November 11
Member No.: 8,319



Why should a company who wish to hold a Christmas Market be given FREE rent by the council?.
If this private company wish to bring something to the town then they must run the event using their own money.
With the amount of money they are charging for traders and the proposed size of the event then the private contractor should have done his homework.
Anyone planning an event would have agreed the rent payable to the council in advance and built this into the budget.
To leave the decision not proceed at this late stage unless they can have FREE rent is very bad management by the event organiser or a way of increasing the final profit that they can make.
The council should have said NO.
This whole thing sends warning signs up that there could be more requests to help fund this from the Council or the BID funds.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 31 2013, 01:07 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



It's a standard technique when negotiating with local authorities: get the town all excited, then pull the 'can't afford it' card at the last minute. They all do it, whether it is this, the racecourse or Parkway. It works every time! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Oct 31 2013, 05:01 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 31 2013, 10:00 AM) *
When the Town Council meet, one of the ruling party leads raises a strong objection to the CEO exceeding authority and even abstains in the vote the ruling party held to sweep matters under the carpet.


Why abstain. If he was against the motion then vote that way or would he offend his oppos in the party. This is what is wrong with local politics when the councillors cannot fully express their views because they are controlled by a pseudo Westminster party.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 31 2013, 05:23 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Oct 31 2013, 05:01 PM) *
Why abstain. If he was against the motion then vote that way or would he offend his oppos in the party. This is what is wrong with local politics when the councillors cannot fully express their views because they are controlled by a pseudo Westminster party.

It's a start, OK a small way, but hopefully he's broken the ring. A considered approach is rather more likely to work.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 31 2013, 05:27 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 31 2013, 10:00 AM) *
Shock horror - CEO of NTC apparently exceeds his powers and lets the Christmas Market off paying its fees, without bothering to ask, or even let the Councillors know. When the Town Council meet, one of the ruling party leads raises a strong objection to the CEO exceeding authority and even abstains in the vote the ruling party held to sweep matters under the carpet. Well done Ruwan! - and if that's an example of how your new LiibDems to be, they've gone up in my estimation.

Someone does need a little chat in JS-H shell like, two and a half grand may be loose change to you, but it ain't to most of us Charge Payers, or indeed public servants who are about to loose their jobs in the latest round of cuts. Rather than coming up with sound bites, might be a better idea to work out a better method of managing the staff.



It also says in the same paper - I am going by memory here - that WBC won't help fund the repairs of the Bowling club because of a lack of money. Not surprised as they can wave such charges.

Isn't the point of putting such events up so that it will benefit Newbury; by bringing money in? Who says they won't get it back?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 31 2013, 06:13 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 31 2013, 05:27 PM) *
It also says in the same paper - I am going by memory here - that WBC won't help fund the repairs of the Bowling club because of a lack of money. Not surprised as they can wave such charges. Isn't the point of putting such events up so that it will benefit Newbury; by bringing money in? Who says they won't get it back?

For the sake of accuracy, It's NTC, rather than WBC. I'm also sceptical that this market would benefit Newbury businesses. It could be argued that some might spend in the market rather than in town. I suspect the benefit would be mainly the stall holders and shoppers having more options of where to shop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 31 2013, 06:44 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 31 2013, 06:13 PM) *
For the sake of accuracy, It's NTC, rather than WBC. I'm also sceptical that this market would benefit Newbury businesses. It could be argued that some might spend in the market rather than in town. I suspect the benefit would be mainly the stall holders and shoppers having more options of where to shop.

The Town Council has no remit - so no legal power - to spend anything or incur any costs in support of Newbury businesses, so that argument is a non-starter.

If they are arguing that the Christmas Market would benefit the people of Newbury then they need to have a specific statutory power to allow them to spend money or incur cost, and I'm not sure what that would be.

The Market sounds like it might have been an interesting thing to have, and if the regular users of the Park aren't unreasonably inconvenienced by it going in the Park then fair enough, but it's only right that NTC should cover all of its administrative and maintenance costs because I can't see that it's something I'd actually want to be taxed for in order to provide it.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Oct 31 2013, 07:36 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



Newbury's Christmas Market last year was an embarrassment of stalls selling cheap crap and tat barely recognisable as anything to do with christmas or anything 'festive'... I'd rather have nothing than that **** again... Better off going to a town where they hold a PROPER Christmas Market.... (like anywhere in Germany for instance....)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 31 2013, 07:59 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 31 2013, 06:44 PM) *
The Town Council has no remit - so no legal power - to spend anything or incur any costs in support of Newbury businesses, so that argument is a non-starter.

If you read my statement again, you might see that I didn't say they were spending money to support local business, in fact I said the opposite.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 31 2013, 06:44 PM) *
If they are arguing that the Christmas Market would benefit the people of Newbury then they need to have a specific statutory power to allow them to spend money or incur cost, and I'm not sure what that would be.

They evidently don't need any specific statutory power, as they have just gone and done it anyway.

While you might be able to argue with reference to certain laws, it seems, life just goes on, so either you are mistaken, or the tenets you cite are impotent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 31 2013, 08:13 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 31 2013, 07:59 PM) *
While you might be able to argue with reference to certain laws, it seems, life just goes on, so either you are mistaken, or the tenets you cite are impotent.

Yup, that's for sure.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nerc
post Oct 31 2013, 09:10 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-November 11
Member No.: 8,319



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 31 2013, 06:44 PM) *
The Town Council has no remit - so no legal power - to spend anything or incur any costs in support of Newbury businesses, so that argument is a non-starter.

If they are arguing that the Christmas Market would benefit the people of Newbury then they need to have a specific statutory power to allow them to spend money or incur cost, and I'm not sure what that would be.

The Market sounds like it might have been an interesting thing to have, and if the regular users of the Park aren't unreasonably inconvenienced by it going in the Park then fair enough, but it's only right that NTC should cover all of its administrative and maintenance costs because I can't see that it's something I'd actually want to be taxed for in order to provide it.


If the CEO has made the decision off his own back then surely he should be bought to task and reprimanded for his decision.
I still think that a company who have decided to bring an event to the town should have done their homework first.
Having done some small research the company involved in this event was only incorporated approx 1 year ago and have no previous experience in this type of event and i would have thought that the council would have done some types of history checks prior to allowing this to go ahead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 31 2013, 10:05 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (nerc @ Oct 31 2013, 09:10 PM) *
If the CEO has made the decision off his own back then surely he should be bought to task and reprimanded for his decision.
I still think that a company who have decided to bring an event to the town should have done their homework first.
Having done some small research the company involved in this event was only incorporated approx 1 year ago and have no previous experience in this type of event and i would have thought that the council would have done some types of history checks prior to allowing this to go ahead.


Quite agree. This is a very serious issue and the vote by the Councillors did not resolve it. All they did was bring a failed process back into line.

There should be a thorough investigation because;-
Count 1, the CEO acted without authority,
Count 2, a substantial amount (in NTC finance terms) has been lost to the Council,
Count 3, a significant decision has been made; apparently with faulty due diligence.

Particularly given the regular kicking that the LibDems offer to the Tories at WBC, I am shocked that the opposition did little more than ask why!

A good many charge payers are likely to believe that if the operator was unable to stump up the long time known about rent almost immediately before the start date, then the right decision would have been to cancel. This demonstrates the event isn't well managed, which means it won't be good for Newbury.

Even more kudos for the one single voice who abstained.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nerc
post Nov 1 2013, 06:27 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-November 11
Member No.: 8,319



And who is going to pay for the probable repairs to the grass etc after all the stalls, vehicles etc are gone?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 1 2013, 06:58 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (nerc @ Nov 1 2013, 06:27 AM) *
And who is going to pay for the probable repairs to the grass etc after all the stalls, vehicles etc are gone?


We are!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 1 2013, 10:55 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



There are two issues here: one is that the town clerk is alleged to have exceeded his authority in making the decision to waive the £2.5k fee, and the other is whether the council were right to waive the fee.

Whether or not the town clerk exceeded his authority is a separate matter, but there's a legitimate discussion to be had about how the public interest is served by letting the Park for free, and I can't see how it is in the public interest for the council to let a commercial retail operation use Victoria Park for free.

There's obviously going to be damage to the Park at that time of year and it can't be right that the tax-payer pays for that, and you only have to look at the Council's previous experience of letting the Park to see that the cost of repairs for bogged-down lorries can be significant. It's also going to cost us a packet in administration, because the Council always makes a mountain out of every administrative mole-hill.

It also sets a precedent for any other commercial operation that wants to tout their wares on Council grounds to be allowed to do so gratis, because to charge them now would be blatant discrimination. I'm thinking in particular about the travelling fairs and circuses that at times pay to use the town's parks. It is clearly no less in the public interest to have a circus or fair than it is to have a Christmas Market, so the Council won't now be able to charge them for the use of their parks and won't be able to refuse them either. The Charter Marketeers will obviously now need to get their pitches free too.

If you look back through the Council minutes you'll see how the Council have pursued previous firms who have booked the Park for unpaid fees with the saga running on for years and costing the Council a heap in administration to chase it. It is simply perverse that the Council should now waive a £2.5k fee with such weak justification.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 1 2013, 11:18 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I think it is worth contrasting the Council's recent decision to waive £2.5 with a previous decision by the Council from three years ago and ask what has changed:
QUOTE
Bad debt. £1000.00 invoiced to Mission Media acting on behalf of Nokia in November 2009. Mission Media informed us that Newbury had been chosen to host a commercial event called Nokia Finnish Christmas at short notice. A booking form for Victoria Park was completed for the event and a fee of £1000 (along with a donation to the British Heart Foundation) was agreed. Less than a fortnight before the event, Mission Media informed us that through a public vote on the internet, the event was actually going to Worthing. In line with Victoria Park terms and conditions, Mission Media were still invoiced for the aborted commercial event. Despite phone calls and emails the debt has not been paid. This debt was brought before P&R on 12/5/10 and it was decided to pursue the debt further. Since that time the RFO has phoned and written to Mission Media regarding the debt, but no monies have been forthcoming. Their main objection is that the booking form was not signed but sent by email, they are therefore claiming that they should not be charged at all. During the last telephone conversation, Mission Media offered to pay half the amount owed. Officers recommend accepting that offer.

I think it would be good for the Council to publish those "Victoria Park terms and conditions" so that we can see what the Council policy is.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 1 2013, 11:34 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Ah, found it.
QUOTE
(j) For commercial events a charge of £400 for the first day and £150 per day thereafter will be applied for the hire of the park


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:32 PM