Wirral Council: It would be very risky not to give Wirral CEO Graham Burgess a permanent contract

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

http://wp.me/p36YWJ-Ag

Man in tuxedo uid 1342401

Mr Burgess is paid at the top of the Chief Executive salary range of £121,807 – £135, 341 per annum.

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50009256/Chief%20Executive%20fv2.pdf

….so goes the blurb from Chris Hyams, Head of HR, who is subservient to the man at the top.  Er… not sure an underling can recommend anything else, assuming they want to ‘get on in life’?  From whom does Ms Hyams take her orders?

I noticed that there is a link to an Equality Impact Assessment in the above .pdf file.  But the link doesn’t do what it says on the tin.  Although it mentions ‘the EIA attached to this report’, all it does is take concerned members of the public to generic information about EIAs.

So what’s going on?  Where is the actual EIA backing up the decision to make Mr Burgess permanent?

This morning I rang somebody at the Council in the appropriate department, who acknowledged it didn’t look right and she would look into it, and put it right.

She also said it wasn’t possible to ‘unpublish’ documents once they are up there.  I said, “I don’t want it unpublishing – I think it needs correcting and the correct link putting up there.  At the moment it’s misleading…”

She will get back to me…  sorry, no she won’t.  The Wirral Council brand of public service only extends to doing what’s been asked (maybe) then leaving it at that.

The concern behind all this is, “Why does permanently cementing in place a senior public servant have equalities implications?” – which was a point that couldn’t be addressed by the council person I spoke to.

It’s very similar to this situation, where the council attempted to treat 66 councillors as some sort of ‘protected group’ – but later had to remove the EIA from the website – although the offending piece of paperwork still strangely survives here.  Why?

I think we need to be on our toes once again.  More to follow soon….

http://wp.me/p1LO7i-Ag

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s