Consultants and Wrexham Council.
Home › Forums › Wrexham.com Forums › Wrexham Forum › Consultants and Wrexham Council.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2015 at 3:35 pm #71471
DerekJacksonParticipantMaureen — having paid a Million Pound to read the reports produced by mangers who had already presented budget savings and then to badge them as their work surly is double funding for the same work. To pay to implement the work the mangers are already paid for again is a double funding. Sorry can’t see the logic
January 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm #71454
PhilWynnParticipant@DerekJackson 17637 wrote:
Within the corridors of ‘Power’ in the Council 70/30 is the ratio that has been mentioned.
ie for every million pounb saved the Council retain £700k and the consultants are paid £300k
Some of you may remember that this type of contract had been awarded to the consultant involved in the Leisure Review prior to the closure of Plas Madoc had a similar agreement. Clr David Griffiths denied this was the case in the Council Chamber then a copy of the contract letter was produced and he then had to back peddle and stated that that particular element of the contract was no longer applicable.
I rest my case regarding transparency — either all Council Members are colluding in this exercise or the level of ignorance is far deeper than one would expect.
Do these actions really give the public any confidence in the Council Members and Executive Officers being able to maintain a stand alone Council.Derek- they say never let the truth get in the way of a good story but can I point you to para 4.35 of WCBC’s Executive Board’s report “Change Programme and Financial Efficiencies for 2015/16 – 2017/18”
Commercial principles 4.35 There are two main principles currently being discussed. The first is that there will be a 10:1 return on investment with the Reshaping Services Partner over the lifetime of the programme. Not all work-streams will produce a 10:1 return but we are working to that as an average return over the lifetime of the programme.
If you do the maths the consultants fee, whilst significant, does not come near to what is your understanding.
I hope you don’t mind me asking but could you let everyone know if your reading of the report leaves you believing that future major savings are to be driven by implementing efficient ways of working rather than the “salami” cost slicing which all local authorities have been engaged in todate?
Cllr Phil Wynn
January 10, 2015 at 10:23 pm #71462
SheefagParticipantWhat Wrexham needs and the people of Wrexham deserve, are people within local government who actually care about the future wellbeing and success of the town and it’s constituents.
Instead, there is a long tradition of individuals playing at and placing, petty, party politics for personal gratification whilst pretending to embrace the above.
It’s dishonest, it’s a disgrace and it’s a downright shame.
January 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm #71472
DerekJacksonParticipantOn the Sell to Wales site the £1m contract awarded in July appears to be a flat fee to FIND the efficiencies but not to deliver them — The Executive report for Tuesday of 10:1 seems to apply only on the discussion you will have on Tuesday which is whether to continue the contract to the implementation stage.
On a 10:1 ratio on the original contract the consultants should have already delivered £10 million of savings. This clearly is not the case as Managers had already carried out this work for the 2014/15 financial year before the consultants arrived.
It appears that in your response you are accepting the first £1 million cost with no return valueJanuary 10, 2015 at 11:25 pm #71448
johnhoppyParticipantThe position of the consultants seems to be win win. Cuts obviously have to be made, and the appointment of consultants is merely passing the buck by our councillors. (nothing to do with us guv). If the council’s officers are not able to produce recommendations for these cuts for consideration by the council then they are maybe not fit for the purpose. Anyone can come up with suggestions to close all our leisure centres and say that it would save £x000’s . What next…monthly collection of refuse? That would save a lot, but at the end of the day the council has to decide what their purpose is. No decisions to cut expenditure are going to be popular, but at least let them be the decisions of OUR representatives and not someone who is only motivated by a profit for their organisation.
January 11, 2015 at 9:35 am #71463
SheefagParticipant@johnhoppy 17677 wrote:
No decisions to cut expenditure are going to be popular, but at least let them be the decisions of OUR representatives and not someone who is only motivated by a profit for their organisation.
Regardless of competence or political bias? That’s how we got here.
You have local government who focus solely on attacking the opposition when they should be working together.
You have local government who are biased against, and have no experience of the benefits of attracting business and profit.
You have local government who have proven themselves inept and incompetent who’s only argument against Flintshire and Cardiff is that ‘They Be Forrenners.Playing national party politics on a local level, has done immeasurable damage to the area but whilst the local population keep voting for these clowns, then the circus will continue.
January 11, 2015 at 10:45 am #71449
johnhoppyParticipantSheefag….The officers of the council should not show any political bias in their decisions. Whoever makes the recommendations it is the councillors who make the final decisions, and to me it does not seem to be desirable that the persons making the recommendations may be motivated by profit. I agree with you 100% that Party Politics should not play a part in local administration.
January 11, 2015 at 10:56 am #71455
PhilWynnParticipant@DerekJackson 17661 wrote:
Maureen — having paid a Million Pound to read the reports produced by mangers who had already presented budget savings and then to badge them as their work surly is double funding for the same work. To pay to implement the work the mangers are already paid for again is a double funding. Sorry can’t see the logic
Derek- I can confirm the Sell2Wales web-site is mis-leading as the £1 m quoted has not been paid to anyone.
A fee has been paid to PWC for the work they have carried out on phase 1 which is a much lesser sum,but still significant some would argue. The phase 1 work is outlined in the Exec Board report.
The Exec Board on Tuesday will if the recommendations are approved commit the Council to phase 2, which will then commit the Council to fees which are likely to exceed a £1m.
Understandably the man in the street will be shocked at such sums and the accusations as already made will through ignorance I would argue be redoubled.
Why do I say ignorance. If the consultants were employed to just say cut that,stop that, ration that then I would be forcefully arguing that this is not the way forward.
These consultants however are not fly by nights as they have been involved heavily in assisting local authorities in England and in Wales to deliver a re shaped council where efficiency of working is the main driver for saving un-necessary costs so allowing WCBC to protect as best we can front-line services.
Fellow Councillors I hope, will confirm that I have been direct in my questioning of Consultants at our “Reshaping” workshops and at my request information has recently been provided confirming which authorities have benefited from PWC’s services.
I for one would not sign up to bringing in PWC as partners to deliver the “Reshaping” agenda if I thought we were the test case for them. It is also important that PWC only get paid for savings politically endorsed and therefore delivered. In simple terms if they promise £100 of savings but deliver £20 then they will be paid £2 and not the £10 they were lined up to be paid.
If anything these consultants ought to of been brought in many years ago, assuming they can deliver what it says on the tin, as the £20m annual savings could in the good years of been spent on valued front line services rather than back-room processes.
Sadly if WCBC fails to deliver the required savings of £45m in the next few years then there will be no WCBC. Some may argue that becoming part of Greater Flintshire will magically solve all our problems over night. I would say the problem is not that simplistic.
Tuesday’s Exec Board promises to be an interesting one which I hope will generate more light than heat. It will be interesting to learn if the opposition Labour Party are going to back the report’s recommendations or come up with an alternative which will deliver the £45m savings all the same. Sadly I am expecting plenty of sound-bites which will endorse Ian Lucas’ stance on the matter.
If you are at the Exec Board on Tuesday then please say hello.
Cllr Phil Wynn
January 11, 2015 at 11:11 am #71464
SheefagParticipantBullet points for anyone who can’t be arsed reading through that grammatically poor diatribe.
‘The whole budget debacle is far too complex for the ‘ignorant man in the street’ to understand.’
‘I’m great.’
‘Local labour are evil.’
‘Vote for me, vote for me, vote for me.’
Frankly, it’s little wonder that the average person is so turned off from local politics.
January 11, 2015 at 11:23 am #71441
wrexviewParticipantThis contract with Price Waterhouse was set up in July last year under the previous Labour controlled administration. Wonder if there is a break clause ? Good for democracy to see Councillor Wynn still posting.
-
AuthorPosts
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.