I fear you have missed the point again – take the politics out of it, and have a real think about how this service has been delivered.

And considering this, how would you fix the problem?

Nathan

You both seem to be frustrated that the role of officers in this event has not been publicly dissected. Very few organisations want to put their key people in the public stocks when they are actively engaged in sorting out a problem. If there is a case to answer then people will be held to account. If the council did this in public and didn’t apply due process it would get taken apart very expensively at an employment tribunal. At least the political noise let’s us communicate the seriousness of this issue to officers and the supplier. They will all be keen to make the problem go away and the best way of doing that is to fix it. The politics does have a point.

You have slightly missed my point in the previous note.

However in reply the government sets recycling targets for local authorities – Ealing have proposed a number of initiatives to meet these targets including increasing/ encouraging public participation in kerb side recycling. Officers have a responsibility in ensuring this happens.

Officers have a responsibility in minimising their contractors carbon footprint – this has historically been achieved by the participation/ cooperation/ assistance of residents who separate their recycled waste (eliminating the need to use the MRF facility).

Why is it acceptable to pay someone £100k + to manage/ administer the environmental services contract who clearly is unable deliver a basic contract service (after 8 months of forward preparation)? Why is it acceptable to accept substandard officer work?

Nathan Larkin

It was a narrow margin – 3,110 votes or 1.9%. It was a big swing compared to last time. Let’s get our terms right.

Interestingly both Livingstone and Sahota underperformed their party and Johnson and Barnes outperformed theirs.

Your language of “flouncing off” and “hissy fits” seems a bit unnecessary. The guy lost – a hard thing to deal with. I can be robust sometimes but I don’t usually have a go at people when they are down.

Barnes said in the Evening Standard: “You can’t complain about democracy when you lose. I have to take the rough with the smooth and it’s my time for a bit of rough. I don’t have a Plan B.”. This sounds pretty philosophical and not very hissy to me.

http://rupahuq.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/coalition-relaunch-that-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/

I am having a problem with this and so are many others.

You are a politician and if you make a decision which then is overturned or nearly so by another politician who knew of the problems but apparently did nothing about it, then it is understandable that you jump up and down. As politicians you are all out to discredit the other side etc, etc.

And on the recycling front where by virtue of a political decision you Tories improved the operation at several levels it is completely understandable that political incompetence on the part of Bassam is a point for valid criticism, where it undermines a previously good decision.

The residents expected the opposition to make political hay, but on this occasion they wanted something else AS WELL, and this time you all had advance notice.

I asked you above to comment on something which is not political.

Since you have avoided the question I am going to spell it out.

When a contract is let to a new supplier it is incumbent on the Officers, with a fine tooth comb, to check that the new contract will work. So, with bags of time, they had to check the schedules, and also whether the right vehicles were going to be provided. They then had to tell the boss, the employer i.e. the Councillors that all was set fair as regards the new contract.

That’s Officer work. That’s not political. Residents don’t want incompetent Officers.

If as you say they are not subject to competitive pressure, then in a modern world what we do need is people who do have the appropriate experience to do the job properly. However checking schedules competently barely requires an ‘O’ Level.

So the questions are:
What is the employer going to do about incompetent Officers?
And why was this not bottomed out at the meeting?

It would be nice to know your surname – I like people to identify themselves properly here.

You are right that the officers are well rewarded and on the whole very capable. They are not though subjected to the competitive pressure that most businesses are. Their customers have no choice about using the services provided by the council. The councillors have a role therefore in being the voice of the consumer. Like I say from the officers’ point of view the rubbish problems have been contained – no financial penalty to council, no bags on the street after the first couple of weeks or so. But, for six weeks the council has been quietly wasting the time of half of the recyclers in the borough who willingly give up their time and space in their houses so that the council can save money. This is the big customer service issue that the Tory councillors want to see rectified quickly.

In your remarks at council you pointed to Enterprise’s good record in Liverpool and the City of Manchester. This is nice to know but was pretty irrelevant to our immediate problems in Ealing. I know Labour members were searching for something positive to say but bigging up Enterprise’s record was out of place on Tuesday.

As for the Friar’s Green CPZ you are a bit late in bringing this up. I raised this on July 12th last year. I said:

“One can only speculate as to what the administration is doing. Mahfouz may just think he knows better than residents. Of the three Acton Central councillors Patricia Walker lives in Elgar Avenue, Ealing so I don’t suppose she has much skin in the game. Cllr Abdullah Gulaid lives on St Dunstan’s Avenue in the core area so it might be a case of I’m alright Jack for him. Cllr Daniel Crawford lives with his mother, East Acton councillor Kathleen Crawford, at Lynton Road in the outer area. Are the Crawford’s influencing this? Who knows? It is all murky, undemocratic and so typical of Ealing Labour. ”

I am really not sure what is slanderous or damaging about this. Facts can’t be slanderous. Typically questions can’t be. The damage was done by the lack of explanation. I just asked the questions. Maybe it is time you answered them. Why did Labour make this strange decision to undo a democratic decision discussed and made in public at cabinet? Why did you do it behind closed doors? Why was it decided to only do one half of the scheme? Why didn’t you explain yourselves? I predicted in advance that it would go wrong and it did. Please explain now.

and does the council not have a responsibility in minimising their contractors carbon footprint?

lastly officers are (should be) employed in their specific positions due to their experience + expertise in that particular field. in most instances officers (in mid – senior level positions) guide and inform politicians on regulations, policies, best practise, latest technologies etc etc

these officers are not 5 year old kids – so why teat them as such?

I am, of course, still awaiting an apology for your slanderous and damaging allegations about my conduct over the Friars Green CPZ. Given the tone of this posting I shan’t be holding my breath.

I would, however, be interested to know which sessions of the Social Media briefing organised by the Council’s Head of Legal yourself and Cllr. Costello will be attending as it may be beneficial to have a full and frank discussion about blogging there.

Best Wishes,
Dan Crawford
Labour councillor for Acton Central ward