DBC Megathread

[Amadeus]

19 hours ago, Max Power said:

@AmadeusI don't think joebean was having a go at councilors, more at the attitude that pervades amongst some public servants. Everything is just too much trouble to many of them and you will be advised accordingly! Worse still, they can make sure that things that they advised against don't work out, to teach you a lesson! 

That's the way they will grind you down and keep you in line, it's a time honoured traditional method.

I know what you mean and don’t doubt this exists. Probably more in central government than tiny town hall. I am looking out for things like that, though. 

[Augustus]

DBC is almost completely opaque. For instance, barely anyone knows anything about the Town Clerk: basically the equivalent of the Chief Secretary for the IOM Govt, but at local level. This is an authority that administers almost half the Island's population. To try and drill down on many issues to find who makes decisions and why is frequently impossible. I suspect this is just how the old guard like it. A nice, cosy veil of opacity in which contracts and favours can be awarded to mates based on a wink and a nod without questions from the ratepaying public. Look at how they dealt with the street-cleaner last year. Hung out to dry. When exposed to the daylight of the Employment Tribunal, they were found very, very wanting, not to say high-handed, in their internal management. I suspect that is just the thin edge of the wedge.

The more light in spider-infested crevices the new guard can bring to bear, the better.

[buncha wankas]

On 2/19/2022 at 8:03 AM, Amadeus said:

Just to repeat this: the proposal was not rejected in principle but because of the business case attached to it. Again, we have to consider everything, not just the interests of one group. You think strongly about this because it concerns something you like and have an interest in. Instead of saying "the guy doesn't know xyz" like Manx1t further up, go and contact me with information, numbers, letters of support saying "hey we want this and there are 123 of us who want that too". Organise a meet up. I'll gladly meet you and others at town hall to discuss. Give me something I can take into committee to argue your side and make a sound business case for this. There's still every chance we can have something in place for next winter. 

Comments like yours are not only factually wrong, they also aren't helping, although I appreciate that communicating what the council actually does to the public has not really been a strong point in the past, which is probably why you think we're surrounded by Business Prevention Officers while sitting on our golden thrones in ivory town hall. That's simply not the case. There are certain procedures and ways things are done. Most of this is by committee and yes, this can be a slow and frustrating process. I don't like it either but that's the way it is done and it does need some structure, as otherwise we'll get criticised again for just doing things willy nilly and because one or two people shouted the loudest. We have a new comms firm now and I'm planning to sit down with them and town hall and see how we can be more open and share more of what we do. With we I mean how much I can tweet and post on Facebook. I don't like that much of what we do isn't immediately visible to the public. 

Bit sad to be called lazy when essentially we're doing an extra job on top of our day jobs and spend quite a bit of time doing it. Again, might just be that this isn't obvious to the public and perception is everything these days. Town hall officers who look into these matters and prepare reports for the purpose of them then being discussed in committee also have limited time and are doing the best they can within their resource allocations. If we employed more or gave them more time we'd get criticised again for doing it. Not from you, but from the next person who'll say we spend too much time looking at this and not at their chosen subject. So your best chance to still get this done is to help me make the case for it. cllr.fschuengel@douglas.gov.im I appreciate this has been a topic for some while but I only joined the committee last year, so feel free to hand me as much info as you like as I may not be aware of past information and discussions. I can also do some more digging internally and see what we have on file. I need things like: how many vehicles can we expect to use the facility, what types, size, weight, etc (Vdubs or full on Winnebago or both?), what do owners expect, what facilities / security (fence? trickle chargers?) and what are you willing to pay for it. 

Finally, having just checked my notes on this, it seems it's not just us you need to win over. Comrade Max Power may be right that it's motorhome parking already, but that's short term. For long term storage, as far as I am aware, planning permission would be needed and from what I can see, that might not be easy to get. 

IF you are doing an ‘extra job’ then why is DBC paying all those high management salaries with rate payers money, so as to d9 the job for you.

You are not doing a job, you are paid to attend meetings, you volunteered to be voted by the public to read reports and proposals from managers paid for by the public.    You volunteered to read and use the vote given to you by the public, a vote you asked for. 
You asked for the vote and opportunity as it gives you status, recognition, access and possibly a route to a 65k a year job with a pension if you so desire. 

I read the ‘we do a second job’ ‘we do it for nothing’  ‘we deserve respect’  ‘stand and do it yourself’ bleating from DBC councillors on social media and am aghast at the arrogance and snowflake attitude from that council, especially as some members didn’t even get a single vote from the public. 

if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  

[code99]

In principle, Councils are supposed to ‘empower’ local people. So why do so many local people criticise so many ‘local’ decisions made by the same councillors who are meant to represent local peoples’ interests?

Any country with a population that is less than the average-size London borough hardly warrants multiple local authorities. This point has been made plenty of times before, but sadly nothing has changed. To me, this is another case where ‘irrational’ decision-making overwrites common sense. In such a small place like this, there is always a risk of councillors pursuing their own ‘pet’ projects which enjoy only lukewarm support from a small group of local residents. As much as I like the Bee Gees statues, some local residents are incensed that their taxes have potentially been spent on something that they did not want, whilst what they do need such as weekly rubbish collection(s) are to be scrapped e.g. "scrapping weekly rubbish collections risks making the town look like a dump", etc...Ironically, it reminds me of the unwillingness to accept the reality that it is no longer appropriate to have horse trams on Douglas Prom (as a quaint ‘tourist exhibit’, perhaps they could be moved to Ramsey?)

My view is that if the IOM was established today, our political and administrative systems could have looked very different than they do now – they would be streamlined and efficient by design. Therefore, I totally agree with those who recommend that the current arrangements (nostalgic ‘parish’ legacy of the bygone age) be amalgamated under the IOMG within the ‘Local Authority Department’ with a ‘joined-up’, transparent and fair approach be adopted across the whole Island. This would hopefully put the kibosh on futile squabbles like; ‘I don’t live in Douglas/ Ramsey/ Castletown etc, so why should I contribute to their up-keep?’ If one is going to argue like this then one might as well also argue that one should not pay taxes if one doesn’t have kids/ elderly parents, and/ or doesn’t go to doctors, or doesn’t drive, etc., if one doesn't require anything that costs.

Of course, the drawback with my view is that many residents are not convinced that IOMG departments are capable of doing a half-decent job. E.g., if the appalling (recent) DOI fiascos are anything to go by, they are utterly justified to have these doubts. But two wrongs don’t make a right and at some point the IOM must make efficiency savings wherever feasible (those pensions won’t pay themselves), and that includes Councils.

Edited February 20, 2022 by code99

[Max Power]

8 minutes ago, code99 said:

In principle, Councils are supposed to ‘empower’ local people. So why do so many local people criticise so many ‘local’ decisions made by the same councillors who are meant to represent local peoples’ interests?

Any country with a population that is less than the average-size London borough hardly warrants multiple local authorities. This point has been made plenty of times before, but sadly nothing has changed. To me, this is another case where ‘irrational’ decision-making overwrites common sense. In such a small place like this, there is always a risk of councillors pursuing their own ‘pet’ projects which enjoy only lukewarm support from a small group of local residents. As much as I like the Bee Gees statues, some local residents are incensed that their taxes have potentially been spent on something that they did not want, whilst what they do need such as weekly rubbish collection(s) are to be scrapped e.g. "scrapping weekly rubbish collections risks making the town look like a dump", etc...It reminds me of the unwillingness to accept the reality that it is no longer appropriate to have horse trams on Douglas Prom (as a quaint ‘tourist exhibit’, perhaps they could be moved to Ramsey?)

My view is that if the IOM was established today, our political and administrative systems could have looked very different than they do now – they would be streamlined and efficient by design. Therefore, I totally agree with those who recommend that the current arrangements (nostalgic ‘parish’ legacy of the bygone age) be amalgamated under the IOMG within the ‘Local Authority Department’ with a ‘joined-up’, transparent and fair approach be adopted across the whole Island. This would hopefully put the kibosh on futile squabbles like; ‘I don’t live in Douglas/ Ramsey/ Castletown etc, so why should I contribute to their up-keep?’ If one is going to argue like this then one might as well also argue that one should not pay taxes if one doesn’t have kids/ elderly parents, and/ or doesn’t go to doctors, or doesn’t drive, etc., if one doesn't require anything that costs.

Of course, the drawback with my view is that many residents are not convinced that IOMG departments are capable of doing a half-decent job. E.g., if the appalling (recent) DOI fiascos are anything to go by, they are utterly justified to have these doubts. But two wrongs don’t make a right and at some point the IOM must make efficiency savings wherever feasible (those pensions won’t pay themselves), and that includes Councils.

I may be wrong but I believe the island had these councils in the days where IoMG were a provider of basic services, communication was poor and it took a day to walk from Ramsey to Douglas and back! Now the overlap and duplication of services is ridiculous!

[Roger Mexico]

7 hours ago, asitis said:

For short commutes yes they do work, but living here on the island I would need to finance an EV and another car for going to the UK and further afield. 

But in that case why not fly (or boat + train etc) and then hire when you get to your destination?  Apart from anything else it then means you hire a vehicle suitable for that particular trip, rather than own something more general.

[Amadeus]

57 minutes ago, code99 said:

In principle, Councils are supposed to ‘empower’ local people. So why do so many local people criticise so many ‘local’ decisions made by the same councillors who are meant to represent local peoples’ interests?

Any country with a population that is less than the average-size London borough hardly warrants multiple local authorities. This point has been made plenty of times before, but sadly nothing has changed. To me, this is another case where ‘irrational’ decision-making overwrites common sense. In such a small place like this, there is always a risk of councillors pursuing their own ‘pet’ projects which enjoy only lukewarm support from a small group of local residents. As much as I like the Bee Gees statues, some local residents are incensed that their taxes have potentially been spent on something that they did not want, whilst what they do need such as weekly rubbish collection(s) are to be scrapped e.g. "scrapping weekly rubbish collections risks making the town look like a dump", etc...Ironically, it reminds me of the unwillingness to accept the reality that it is no longer appropriate to have horse trams on Douglas Prom (as a quaint ‘tourist exhibit’, perhaps they could be moved to Ramsey?)

My view is that if the IOM was established today, our political and administrative systems could have looked very different than they do now – they would be streamlined and efficient by design. Therefore, I totally agree with those who recommend that the current arrangements (nostalgic ‘parish’ legacy of the bygone age) be amalgamated under the IOMG within the ‘Local Authority Department’ with a ‘joined-up’, transparent and fair approach be adopted across the whole Island. This would hopefully put the kibosh on futile squabbles like; ‘I don’t live in Douglas/ Ramsey/ Castletown etc, so why should I contribute to their up-keep?’ If one is going to argue like this then one might as well also argue that one should not pay taxes if one doesn’t have kids/ elderly parents, and/ or doesn’t go to doctors, or doesn’t drive, etc., if one doesn't require anything that costs.

Of course, the drawback with my view is that many residents are not convinced that IOMG departments are capable of doing a half-decent job. E.g., if the appalling (recent) DOI fiascos are anything to go by, they are utterly justified to have these doubts. But two wrongs don’t make a right and at some point the IOM must make efficiency savings wherever feasible (those pensions won’t pay themselves), and that includes Councils.

The riskiest three words you can utter in the halls of local government: Local Government Reform. Plenty of people for it, with suggestions like 4+1, and plenty against. 

Many of the (new) councillors in Douglas are for it, me included, but I can tell you first hand that we are likely in the minority. I’m one of two representatives of DBC to the Municipal Association and we have meetings every month.

The DoI minister was there last time and the topic of LGR came up. Like it has done on a regular basis for 20 plus years or longer. The reaction in the room was telling. Many local authorities want to keep things as they are and there is a widespread belief that the current system is better to provide a tailored service to residents. This goes so granular that the argument often is a local commissioner or councillor knows better what the people in Malew or Willaston need than a centralised government agency.

The other side of the argument is that a centralised approach would be way more efficient and eradicate duplicate roles and services. But then - as you already mentioned - do you really want someone like the DoI to run everything? They’re not known to be a beacon of efficiency.

So it’s a tricky one that keeps being ping ponged around. Answers to the conundrum on a postcard please. 

[buncha wankas]

23 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

The riskiest three words you can utter in the halls of local government: Local Government Reform. Plenty of people for it, with suggestions like 4+1, and plenty against. 

Many of the (new) councillors in Douglas are for it, me included, but I can tell you first hand that we are likely in the minority. I’m one of two representatives of DBC to the Municipal Association and we have meetings every month.

The DoI minister was there last time and the topic of LGR came up. Like it has done on a regular basis for 20 plus years or longer. The reaction in the room was telling. Many local authorities want to keep things as they are and there is a widespread belief that the current system is better to provide a tailored service to residents. This goes so granular that the argument often is a local commissioner or councillor knows better what the people in Malew or Willaston need than a centralised government agency.

The other side of the argument is that a centralised approach would be way more efficient and eradicate duplicate roles and services. But then - as you already mentioned - do you really want someone like the DoI to run everything? They’re not known to be a beacon of efficiency.

So it’s a tricky one that keeps being ping ponged around. Answers to the conundrum on a postcard please. 

It isn’t tricky, you are making excuses. 
 

very simple, You propose that DOI or Cabinet office progress a consultation to the public

hear the voice of the public and then implement the policy and subsequent legislation/regs/formality. 
 

so there you have your answer, are you going to propose it Amadeus or would you rather protect your DBC inflated duplicate jobs. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by buncha wankas

[asitis]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

But in that case why not fly (or boat + train etc) and then hire when you get to your destination?  Apart from anything else it then means you hire a vehicle suitable for that particular trip, rather than own something more general.

With the amount of stuff I take when going away to facilitate my hobby, a car from here loaded is essential. There are many occasions when I would love avoiding being violated by the Steam Packet when paying for crossings, but for me there aren't any viable alternatives, I am not the take it easy on holiday type !

Edited February 20, 2022 by asitis

[Amadeus]

2 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

It isn’t tricky, you are making excuses. 
 

very simple, You propose that DOI or Cabinet office progress a consultation to the public

hear the voice of the public and then implement the policy and subsequent legislation/regs/formality. 
 

so there you have your answer, are you going to propose it Amadeus or would you rather protect your DBC inflated duplicate jobs. 

If only it was that simple. And while I wouldn't have any problem to vote away my own council job if a new proposal that benefits the island would demand it, fact is that under 4+1 Douglas would likely stay anyway. The rumblings are getting louder, though, so maybe with the support of a few others we can get something going. Seeing as you know everything better, please suggest what such a consultation should ask, as it's not as straight forward as centralising everything and being done with it. What model would work? Who does what and why? 

[buncha wankas]

7 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

If only it was that simple. And while I wouldn't have any problem to vote away my own council job if a new proposal that benefits the island would demand it, fact is that under 4+1 Douglas would likely stay anyway. The rumblings are getting louder, though, so maybe with the support of a few others we can get something going. Seeing as you know everything better, please suggest what such a consultation should ask, as it's not as straight forward as centralising everything and being done with it. What model would work? Who does what and why? 

That is what the consultation will define and develop the policy, which could be consulted on. 
yes it is that simple, look up iom gov consultation, it is a simple concept but no one has the balls to roll that ball. 
 

bit dramatic to say it’s voting away your own job, it’s not a job, the fact that you see it that way shows you are bonded to the income and benefits rather than serving the public. 

[Sheldon]

4 minutes ago, buncha wankas said:

bit dramatic to say it’s voting away your own job, it’s not a job, the fact that you see it that way shows you are bonded to the income and benefits rather than serving the public. 

I think you might be reading too much into those semantics. A few councillors might be in it for the perceived "glory", but I doubt anybody's doing it for the money.

[ManxTaxPayer]

20 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

I think you might be reading too much into those semantics. A few councillors might be in it for the perceived "glory", but I doubt anybody's doing it for the money.

It's this.

8 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

possibly a route to a 65k a year job with a pension

 

[Roger Mexico]

28 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

[...].. A few councillors might be in it for the perceived "glory", but I doubt anybody's doing it for the money.

Well quite.  If you look at the latest Douglas BC Accounts, you see that £35,000 (to the nearest £k) were paid out for attendance allowance for councillors in 2020-21.  There were another £11,000 unclaimed, some of which may never be.  There were 18 councillors at the time so we're talking around £2000 a year per councillor.  Given the amount of work involved it's hardly rolling in it.

(The accounts also show there were 22 members of staff on over £50,000 a year - a fact I may return to).

[Kopek]

to answer the question of reduced councils we would need a multi million pound consultation with lots of experts.......... and then we would complain about the cost!!!!!