Glasgow - No Mean City?
Here's another example of the bountiful generosity that Glasgow City Council bestows on its senior officials.
In this case a discretionary decision by the current chief executive (Annemarie O'Donnell) to allow the former Director of Finance (Lynn Brown) to retire early, at just 57 years young, and with no reduction in her pension benefits.
Now this decision did cost the public purse an additional £120,079 and the chief executive seems to have decided that off her own bat without seeking the approval or support of elected members.
I don't have a quarrel with Lynn Brown or anyone else being treated well by their employer, I just refuse to accept the double standard involved in being so generous to Council bosses and so miserly towards the Council's foot-soldiers.
So it's a strange old world we live in right enough - the Council's lowest paid workers got shafted with 'low ball' offers of settlement back in 2005 and again in 2007 through the introduction of the WPBR.
Yet senior officials walk away with 'golden goodbyes' and boosts to their pension pots - some have even been awarded public hours 'for services to Scottish local government'.
So it's a strange old world we live in right enough - the Council's lowest paid workers got shafted with 'low ball' offers of settlement back in 2005 and again in 2007 through the introduction of the WPBR.
Yet senior officials walk away with 'golden goodbyes' and boosts to their pension pots - some have even been awarded public hours 'for services to Scottish local government'.
Let's see what the Council has to say next week over a possible settlement to its long-running equal pay dispute.
Here's a letter on Glasgow's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme which I've sent to the four Party Group Leaders in the City Council:
The Council has a policy of becoming a 'world leader' for openness and transparency, yet GCC is refusing to release information which would explain the role of senior officials in procuring, implementing, managing and defending the WPBR over the past 13 years.
Now some politicians argue it's unfair to criticise senior officials because they always act under the direction of elected councillors, but if that is true who authorised senior officials to overturn the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR decision in a further appeal to the Court of Session in December 2017?
The Council's senior officials are refusing to answer my FoI Request on the grounds that it would cost more than £600 to provide the information held in these mysterious 'handwritten notes' - more than 40 hours at £15 per hour - which seems completely ludicrous to me.
Especially as the Council's chief executive was willing to boost the pension pot of an outgoing senior official who requested voluntary early retirement with an additional, discretionary payment of £120,079.
I would have expected the Council's political leaders to be as keen to get to the bottom of things as I am, not least because the Council workforce, Glasgow's council tax payers and the wider public clearly have a right to know how the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR turned into such a costly white elephant.
Glasgow's WPBR - The Right to Know (26/11/18)
Here's a letter on Glasgow's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme which I've sent to the four Party Group Leaders in the City Council:
- Susan Aitken - SNP
- Frank McAveety - Scottish Labour
- David Meikle - Scottish Conservatives
- Martha Wardrop/Allan Young - Green Party Co-Chairs.
The Council has a policy of becoming a 'world leader' for openness and transparency, yet GCC is refusing to release information which would explain the role of senior officials in procuring, implementing, managing and defending the WPBR over the past 13 years.
Now some politicians argue it's unfair to criticise senior officials because they always act under the direction of elected councillors, but if that is true who authorised senior officials to overturn the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR decision in a further appeal to the Court of Session in December 2017?
The Council's senior officials are refusing to answer my FoI Request on the grounds that it would cost more than £600 to provide the information held in these mysterious 'handwritten notes' - more than 40 hours at £15 per hour - which seems completely ludicrous to me.
Especially as the Council's chief executive was willing to boost the pension pot of an outgoing senior official who requested voluntary early retirement with an additional, discretionary payment of £120,079.
I would have expected the Council's political leaders to be as keen to get to the bottom of things as I am, not least because the Council workforce, Glasgow's council tax payers and the wider public clearly have a right to know how the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR turned into such a costly white elephant.
Dear Councillor Aitken/McAveety/Meikle/Wardrop/Young
Glasgow and the WPBR - The Right to Know
I shared an outstanding FoI enquiry I have with Glasgow City Council on my blog the other day and enclose a copy of what I had to say to my thousands of readers and also to the Scottish Information Commissioner, Daren Fitzhenry.
As you know, my view is that the Council workforce, the Glasgow council tax payer and, indeed, the wider public are entitled to know how Scotland's largest council got itself into such a terrible mess over the WPBR.
I am offering to suspend and subsequently withdraw my FoI Requests, if the Council were to do the right thing and agree to put the facts on the table.
I hope that the Party Group Leaders within the City Council agree on the need for openness and transparency on such an important issue, as I believe there is a real conflict of interest if council officials were allowed to block and/or frustrate, perfectly valid FoI enquiries into the role senior officials (past or present) played in the procurement, implementation, management and defence of the WPBR over the past 13 years.
I would be delighted to discuss any of the points contained in my FoI Requests or indeed matters raised in my blog posts, only the Conservative Group Leader (Cllr Meikle) has responded directly to me so far.
If you would like to do so, please give me a ring or contact me by email.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Glasgow, FOI and the WPBR (21/11/18)
Here is one of the outstanding freedom of information (FOI) requests I an pursuing with Glasgow City Council (GCC).
The Council failed to respond to my request within the 20 day time limit laid down in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and I have now referred the matter to the Scottish Information Commissioner who has the power to 'order' the City Council to comply.
My request focuses on just one document in one drawer of 3 GCC filing cabinets containing information about the Council's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme. As regular readers know this was introduced in 2006/07.
The Council is refusing to release this information on the grounds that this would cost more than £600 to provide me with an answer - the correspondence below explains the background.
In 2016 the Council's chief executive used her discretion to boost the pension pot of another senior colleague by £120,079 which allowed the Director of Finance to retire early at age 57 and without taking any reduction in her pension benefits.
To my mind the Council workforce, the Council tax payer and the wider public are entitled to know how Scotland's largest council got itself into such a mess over its Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR), particularly as this is going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds to put right.
So is it right for senior officials to keep this information secret when the Council's declared policy is to become a 'world leader' for its openness and transparency?
I think not and as well as posting these details on my blog, I also plan to write directly to the Council's political leaders: Susan Aitken (SNP), Frank McAveety (Scottish Labour), David Meikle (Scottish Conservatives), Martha Wardrop and Allan Young (Green Party Co-Chairs).
