More uselessness from DBC

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

No. Waste of time. Don’t want to be associated with the irrational angries & haters. 

I’m happy with collections every two weeks. As long as I have the correct bins, and they’re actually collected.

On that front DBC still don’t have any 240 litre bins to hand out, and my big bin wasn’t collected on Wednesday, again.

Think I’ll go up to B&Q and get the raw materials for criminal damage.

I was only kidding. I didn't sign it either. I am ok with fortnightly too.

Sounds like your situation is very frustrating and in keeping with the title of the thread. 

[Bandits]

On 4/1/2023 at 12:29 PM, John Wright said:

Except it’s not Frank, Claire, Devon, or anyone else who is a councillor, that’s the cause of this. It’s local government officers  who have no understanding of how to deliver a public service to its customers.

So you’re staying that being a councilor is purely a notional position and that they have absolutely no influence on actual council employees or projects at all so can’t be blamed for anything? The minutes of meetings suggest otherwise as they evidence decisions being made and things being approved.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Bandits said:

So you’re staying that being a councilor is purely a notional position and that they have absolutely no influence on actual council employees or projects at all so can’t be blamed for anything? The minutes of meetings suggest otherwise as they evidence decisions being made and things being approved.

It is not an executive position.  They set policy and approve stuff like budgets and rates, but they do not put those decisions into effect.  That is for the officers, ie the paid employees sitting under the Chief Executive, or whatever name the senior post goes by. 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Gladys
Typo

[Bandits]

24 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is not an executive position.  They set policy and approve stuff like budgets and rates, but they do not put those decisions into effect.  That is for the officers, ie the paid employees sitting under the Chief Executive, or whatever name the senior post goes by. 

They’re clearly executive positions as there is a recently new standing committee system with an Executive Committee and three sub committees. There are five councillors on the Executive Committee these are the Leader of the Council who serves as its Chair and the Chairs for each of the three committees, and a Member who does not serve on the three other committees. These are all councillors.

It’s all here: 

http://www.douglas.gov.im/index.php/the-council/committees#.ZCmcwi_TUgo

The Minutes of the executive committee meeting which approved the bin charges are available online. You can’t say they have nothing to do with things when there are clear Minutes available in the public domain confirming exactly who voted for an action to be taken by a committee and who didn’t.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Bandits said:

They’re clearly executive positions as there is a recently new standing committee system with an Executive Committee and three sub committees. There are five councillors on the Executive Committee these are the Leader of the Council who serves as its Chair and the Chairs for each of the three committees, and a Member who does not serve on the three other committees. These are all councillors.

It’s all here: 

http://www.douglas.gov.im/index.php/the-council/committees#.ZCmcwi_TUgo

The Minutes of the executive committee meeting which approved the bin charges are available online. You can’t say they have nothing to do with things when there are clear Minutes available in the public domain confirming exactly who voted for an action to be taken by a committee and who didn’t.

I didn't say they had nothing to do with it.  You have to make a distinction between policy setting and approval, and execution or putting into effect those policies and approvals.  It is how the policy is being delivered that John is unhappy with, not the policy decision of reducing the bin collections.

 

 

[Bandits]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I didn't say they had nothing to do with it.  You have to make a distinction between policy setting and approval, and execution or putting into effect those policies and approvals.  It is how the policy is being delivered that John is unhappy with, not the policy decision of reducing the bin collections.

It’s an executive committee comprised of councillors. They made the decision (ie, they ratified the proposal to make the changes). JW said that it’s got nothing to do with the councillors and it’s down to the staff which I don’t agree with. It’s got everything to do with the councillors who could have just said “no” to any changes proposed or proposed something entirely different. You can’t blame the staff as by doing that you’re suggesting the councillors aren’t responsible for anything and can’t make staff do anything (ie, they’re totally powerless token positions). 

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Bandits said:

It’s an executive committee comprised of councillors. They made the decision (ie, they ratified the proposal to make the changes). JW said that it’s got nothing to do with the councillors and it’s down to the staff which I don’t agree with. It’s got everything to do with the councillors who could have just said “no” to any changes proposed or proposed something entirely different. You can’t blame the staff as by doing that you’re suggesting the councillors aren’t responsible for anything and can’t make staff do anything (ie, they’re totally powerless token positions). 

OK. 

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

1 hour ago, Bandits said:

It’s an executive committee comprised of councillors. They made the decision (ie, they ratified the proposal to make the changes). JW said that it’s got nothing to do with the councillors and it’s down to the staff which I don’t agree with. It’s got everything to do with the councillors who could have just said “no” to any changes proposed or proposed something entirely different. You can’t blame the staff as by doing that you’re suggesting the councillors aren’t responsible for anything and can’t make staff do anything (ie, they’re totally powerless token positions). 

OK. 

Bloody hell, Glad - anyone would think you were trying to draw a distinction between a body setting a policy in a strategic sense; and an executive responsible for carrying the policy out in a practical sense!   You won’t get anywhere with logic like that!!  😉

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Jarndyce said:

Bloody hell, Glad - anyone would think you were trying to draw a distinction between a body setting a policy in a strategic sense; and an executive responsible for carrying the policy out in a practical sense!   You won’t get anywhere with logic like that!!  😉

It's an arcane point I grant you (not)and I really can't be bothered arguing any more. 

But if you want to complain about something, just make sure you have a correct understanding or you may be wasting your time and actually undermining your own position. 

[Bandits]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It's an arcane point I grant you (not)and I really can't be bothered arguing any more. 

You aren’t arguing and neither am I. The Executive Committee can throw out or decide on anything it wants. The decisions and votes cast are minuted. That makes them responsible ultimately for what is delivered to ratepayers by the employees and officers of the council.

[Passing Time]

2 hours ago, Bandits said:

It’s an executive committee comprised of councillors. They made the decision (ie, they ratified the proposal to make the changes). JW said that it’s got nothing to do with the councillors and it’s down to the staff which I don’t agree with. It’s got everything to do with the councillors who could have just said “no” to any changes proposed or proposed something entirely different. You can’t blame the staff as by doing that you’re suggesting the councillors aren’t responsible for anything and can’t make staff do anything (ie, they’re totally powerless token positions). 

There used to be another poster on here that argued for arguments sake... now what was their name?

[John Wright]

5 hours ago, Bandits said:

So you’re staying that being a councilor is purely a notional position and that they have absolutely no influence on actual council employees or projects at all so can’t be blamed for anything? The minutes of meetings suggest otherwise as they evidence decisions being made and things being approved.

 

4 hours ago, Bandits said:

They’re clearly executive positions as there is a recently new standing committee system with an Executive Committee and three sub committees. There are five councillors on the Executive Committee these are the Leader of the Council who serves as its Chair and the Chairs for each of the three committees, and a Member who does not serve on the three other committees. These are all councillors.

It’s all here: 

http://www.douglas.gov.im/index.php/the-council/committees#.ZCmcwi_TUgo

The Minutes of the executive committee meeting which approved the bin charges are available online. You can’t say they have nothing to do with things when there are clear Minutes available in the public domain confirming exactly who voted for an action to be taken by a committee and who didn’t.

They have no input, other than general policy setting, and oversight. Who gets what size or colour of bin, or whether any particular bin is picked up on any particular day, or when they order new bins is down to employees.

Anyway @offshoremanxman how many more dark deep cover alter egos have you got?

[Roxanne]

Someone with a grudge against the town hall, that’s for sure. 

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

25 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Someone with a grudge against the town hall, that’s for sure. 

But with a reasonably good grasp of alliteration though. I just read it and thought it was funny. Which sort of proves the point i made in the other thread. 

[Roxanne]

22 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

But with a reasonably good grasp of alliteration though.

I can't see one example of alliteration in it. Do point it out?