Council bad manners Options

[Jack]

It would seem that West Berkshire Council has announced cuts in its support for charities in the Newbury Weekly News prior to them speaking to the charities first. One can only assume that they took this approach in order to get all of the bad news out at once. 'Bury' it all at the same time so to speak. Mr. Alistair Campbell in charge of the press office now is he?

This is not only a morally repugnant way in which to behave, it is cowardly, it would be most upsetting to people connected with or working for the charities before the charities themselves had had an opportunity to discuss the issues.

I read the comments from Mr. Tim Barton (he is a much respected partner with Carter Jonas and for such a person to make a comment in the press one can only assume they must have been treated very badly)

They may be difficult time for councils but this is no excuse for bad manners. Shame on West Berkshire Council local government officers for allowing their elected members to behave in this way or did they lead them into it? Local Government officers must never be apologists for policy they are there to implement it good or bad, but never but never should they resort to short changing and spinning stories to please their masters.

[Simon Kirby]

It would seem that West Berkshire Council has announced cuts in its support for charities in the Newbury Weekly News prior to them speaking to the charities first. One can only assume that they took this approach in order to get all of the bad news out at once. 'Bury' it all at the same time so to speak. Mr. Alistair Campbell in charge of the press office now is he?

This is not only a morally repugnant way in which to behave, it is cowardly, it would be most upsetting to people connected with or working for the charities before the charities themselves had had an opportunity to discuss the issues.

I read the comments from Mr. Tim Barton (he is a much respected partner with Carter Jonas and for such a person to make a comment in the press one can only assume they must have been treated very badly)

They may be difficult time for councils but this is no excuse for bad manners. Shame on West Berkshire Council local government officers for allowing their elected members to behave in this way or did they lead them into it? Local Government officers must never be apologists for policy they are there to implement it good or bad, but never but never should they resort to short changing and spinning stories to please their masters.

I'd sooner read first-hand what WBC have done and decide for myself whether it's morally repugnant or cowardly. Do you have a source?

I can't see anything on the WBC web site about it (though it isn't a particularly accessible site). Closest I can see is this press release, though it doesn't say what you've described.

Are these charities actually contracted to provide essential services on behalf of WBC? If they are then their charitable status is quite beside the point, and the issue is that WBC needs to reduce its service provision. Maybe WBC should have told the suppliers first, maybe not, it's not obvious to me. My concern would be with the service users, and I'd expect them to be told as soon as possible what services they'll be losing, and the supplier will need to know before they do so that they can be prepared for their questions.

If these charities aren't contracted to provide essential services and WBC was just giving them my tax because of this thing about the state knowing better then me how to spend my money, then good. I don't want the state supporting this endless gravy-train of Volunteer-This, and Empowerment-That.

[Bofem]

Quite. I believe one of them is the Community Furniture Project, where the man in charge collects £60k a year with final salary pension scheme to re-sell old furniture.

[On the edge]

Have to agree - Council giving to charity is the ultimate nanny state. I'd suggest 'morally repugnant' is best applied to those doing the giving. Imagine how you'd feel, seeing this as a pensioner with a final community charge demand!

[Berkshirelad]

It would seem that West Berkshire Council has announced cuts in its support for charities in the Newbury Weekly News prior to them speaking to the charities first. One can only assume that they took this approach in order to get all of the bad news out at once. 'Bury' it all at the same time so to speak. Mr. Alistair Campbell in charge of the press office now is he?

This is not only a morally repugnant way in which to behave, it is cowardly, it would be most upsetting to people connected with or working for the charities before the charities themselves had had an opportunity to discuss the issues.

I read the comments from Mr. Tim Barton (he is a much respected partner with Carter Jonas and for such a person to make a comment in the press one can only assume they must have been treated very badly)

I was a governor at a school in Newbury where the infant school was merged with the Junior school. The first we know of it was when it appeared on the front page of NWN

[Jack]

To Mr. Kirby,

Dear Mr. Kirby

There was a response from Mr. Barton who apparently is a trustee of West Berkshire Volunteer Centre was in the NWN story last Thursday. I do not comment on the validity or other wise of the councils support or not for local services delivered by charities. But I comment on the councils very poor processes.

It would appear judging by the comment from a later forum member that West Berkshire Council behaved in a similar manner in regard to two local schools. Once again the school merger in question may very well have been a sensible option, it probably was, but it is simply the conduct of the councils Public Relations that I object to.

Naturally at the root of all this shenanigans are the service users of the various publicly funded services.

In my estimation the council seem to be behaving in a fast and loose way with the local organisations which only leads to a deflection from the real matters of substance. Standards in society have reached another low and it is sad that local government can not uphold decent standards. What is disappointing is that one would expect a conservative administration that claim to uphold old-fashioned family values to have rather better standards of behaviour.

[Andy Capp]

Have to agree - Council giving to charity is the ultimate nanny state. I'd suggest 'morally repugnant' is best applied to those doing the giving. Imagine how you'd feel, seeing this as a pensioner with a final community charge demand!

What if the charities were preforming tasks that might otherwise be performed by the state? It is assumed charities tend to have lower operating costs.

[On the edge]

What if the charities were preforming tasks that might otherwise be performed by the state? It is assumed charities tend to have lower operating costs.

Then they wouldn't be making 'donations' but paying service charges and should have contracts in place.

[Andy Capp]

Then they wouldn't be making 'donations' but paying service charges and should have contracts in place.

Which seemingly doesn't guarantee better value for money or better service levels.

[On the edge]

Which seemingly doesn't guarantee better value for money or better service levels.

Think that's right. The first Berkshire County Council had Chairman Skurray who lived by the dictum that the Council should do what it should and leave what it may. In other words - strict economy in all things. Do that as a management strategy and there is no need to try and chisel a few quid here and there. Should apply in good times and bad.

[HeatherW]

Talking about WBC and bad manners. I found that they go hand in hand. I have had to phone WBC and they have cut me off or they have been very abrupt. As if they are talking to dirt. You would think they would have had some sort of training in how to talk to the public.

[blackdog]

Talking about WBC and bad manners. I found that they go hand in hand. I have had to phone WBC and they have cut me off or they have been very abrupt. As if they are talking to dirt. You would think they would have had some sort of training in how to talk to the public.

mmmh ... perhaps they have?

[spartacus]

Talking about WBC and bad manners. I found that they go hand in hand. I have had to phone WBC and they have cut me off or they have been very abrupt. As if they are talking to dirt. You would think they would have had some sort of training in how to talk to the public.

Did you start off with "Now you listen to me... I pay your wages...."? Always works and gets an attentive ear...

[HeatherW]

mmmh ... perhaps they have?

Are you suggesting what we have got from WBC is because their training policy?

[HeatherW]

Did you start off with "Now you listen to me... I pay your wages...."? Always works and gets an attentive ear...

That is what my boy friend said. I was so disgusted I was stunned and did not think properly.

[Bofem]

In my estimation the council seem to be behaving in a fast and loose way with the local organisations which only leads to a deflection from the real matters of substance. Standards in society have reached another low and it is sad that local government can not uphold decent standards. What is disappointing is that one would expect a conservative administration that claim to uphold old-fashioned family values to have rather better standards of behaviour.

I don't normally jump to the defence of WBC, but I think they're right to look into this.

Take the shopmobility scooters. WBC give the Volunteer Bureau £24k p.a of our money to fund this (or £500 a week if you prefer), and want to cut this by £8k a year.

Now, the Volunteer Bureau does a great job, especially with only 4 staff on the books (incidentally, they pay WBC £10k a year in rent). But they are sat on £130k of reserves. It doesn't look likely that either the service or the organisation will be jeopardised by these cuts.

I know there will be other areas of waste or perceived lesser causes that are not being cut by 33% in one go, but does there really need to be a fall in standards?

What do others think?

[Simon Kirby]

I don't normally jump to the defence of WBC, but I think they're right to look into this.

Take the shopmobility scooters. WBC give the Volunteer Bureau £24k p.a of our money to fund this (or £500 a week if you prefer), and want to cut this by £8k a year.

Now, the Volunteer Bureau does a great job, especially with only 4 staff on the books (incidentally, they pay WBC £10k a year in rent). But they are sat on £130k of reserves. It doesn't look likely that either the service or the organisation will be jeopardised by these cuts.

I know there will be other areas of waste or perceived lesser causes that are not being cut by 33% in one go, but does there really need to be a fall in standards?

What do others think?

The Volunteer Bureau are presenting the benefits of volunteering to NTC tonight, no doubt with a view to replacing that tax-payer funding that WBC has cut, and I'm sure they will be successful.

I find it particularly galling that NTC court the volunteer bureau while at the same time the council actively suppresses any possibility of their allotment service self-managing. Volunteering is good for people and communities, so it is incongruous that NTC should give public money to support the Volunteer Bureau while denying allotmenteers the same opportunity - an opportunity that would save the tax-payer £90k.

I even wrote to the Volunteer Bureau asking them to promote the possibility of allotmenteers volunteering to maintain their allotment sites - I got an acknowledgement from the secretary with a promise that Garry Poulson would get back to me - never happened.

Is it possible that you could help us in some way? For example, might you let the Council know how important it is for communities that people are included and allowed to contribute, and encourage the Town Council to trust the tenants' volunteer labour. I'd be very grateful for any help you could offer.

Perhaps he'll be promoting allotment self-management tonight.

[Turin Machine]

Sounds like jobs for the boy's. Bunch of money grabbing n'er do wells hiding out as a charity. Shamefull !

[On the edge]

I don't normally jump to the defence of WBC, but I think they're right to look into this.

Take the shopmobility scooters. WBC give the Volunteer Bureau £24k p.a of our money to fund this (or £500 a week if you prefer), and want to cut this by £8k a year.

Now, the Volunteer Bureau does a great job, especially with only 4 staff on the books (incidentally, they pay WBC £10k a year in rent). But they are sat on £130k of reserves. It doesn't look likely that either the service or the organisation will be jeopardised by these cuts.

I know there will be other areas of waste or perceived lesser causes that are not being cut by 33% in one go, but does there really need to be a fall in standards?

What do others think?

OK I'll be Billy No Mates

I'm not convinced. The Volunteer Bureau has developed into one of those institutions that no one dare criticise. It's a bit like those 'corporate responsibility' things at work where staff are asked to 'spend at least two days a year 'helping' in the community'. Or in reality loafing in a local park cutting hedges - does them more good than the community!

As for Shopmobility - apparently you don't even need to be disabled. Don't think I'm the only one that finds these things a confounded nuisance, as bad as designer push chairs, particularly in the small cramped shops that is Newbury. If we really did want this, and the paid administration of the Bureau, we'd be more than willing to cough up with direct donations.

I really think its wrong going begging to the Council for this cash - its simply playing to the Councillors ego's - ability to play Lord and lady Bountiful. If the Council must hand out our hard earned cash, give it in small dollops to the few who week in week out run the local kids football clubs and dance groups etc.

How about diverting a few 'volunteers' to do some real fund raising themselves?

[Turin Machine]

Well said.