Expenses, expenses...

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by blazey

I agree up to the point about qualifications and resume. These aren't really always a guarantee of 'quality' or 'value for money' and I don't think the general public are in a better position to decide such a thing other than those who are experienced in the field themselves and know what the job requires.

.

I would think the public would be able to decide if a recent graduate employee with a degree from a reputable university was better qualified than a graduate from some place that five years ago was teaching tyre changing and cake decoration (nothing wrong with tyre changing and cake decoration , both respecable jobs)

[blazey]

Originally Posted by steeljack

I would think the public would be able to decide if a recent graduate employee with a degree from a reputable university was better qualified than a graduate from some place that five years ago was teaching tyre changing and cake decoration (nothing wrong with tyre changing and cake decoration , both respecable jobs)

That is exactly the problem isn't it, a degree should be accepted as a good qualification regardless of what university or college it is gained at if it covers the same subjects.

I despise the idea that one degree could be better than another just based on where it was gained.

To give you an example, I currently lead a team in a national law competition and we are the only team from Lancaster University and on the leaderboard we are currently number 1, tied with Cambridge. If we were to apply for the same job with the same qualifications, there would be the assumption that Cambridge is 'better', yet in practise we can produce the exact same quality.

So no, I disagree with you. And there are a hell of a lot of smart people in the world who have been successful at what they do without formal qualifications.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by blazey

In ANY job you are requested to keep work and personal life separate. I don't think it was appropriate to use the number used for business to make personal calls to family.

That is not true. In some positions have a work phone is classed as a perk. I am damn sure my manager does not pay for his personal calls. Equally though I have received calls from him while I was at work using his home phone.

Originally Posted by blazey

I work for a specific department at university that requires mobile phones and the staff often carry 2, sometimes 3 mobiles phones with them for different uses and their personal calls are restricted to their only personal mobile phones.

Maybe they should be considering the health of their staff. The more phones they carry the more electromagnetic radiation they are exposed too.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by blazey

In ANY job you are requested to keep work and personal life separate.

Only if you work for a company with a Victorian attitude. Many companies allow mixed use of a company phone, many conpanies allow you to use common sense when it comes to mixing work and personal life. A decent employer would realise that your personal life and work life go hand in hand. It's actually more productive to treat employees as human beings than robots.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by blazey

I think if Graham had paid for the personal calls himself it would have been deducted from the total before the data was compiled.

I also think that if he wanted to make personal calls and was willing to pay for them himself then he shouldn't have used the contract phone/sim card made available to him by the council.

In ANY job you are requested to keep work and personal life separate. I don't think it was appropriate to use the number used for business to make personal calls to family. I work for a specific department at university that requires mobile phones and the staff often carry 2, sometimes 3 mobiles phones with them for different uses and their personal calls are restricted to their only personal mobile phones.

It's sad that your grandmother was ill, but I still don't think it justifies the lack of sense here.

Blazey - Graham did pay for the calls and it was not deducted from the data before it was compiled - does he have to post a copy of all his cheques onto this forum to prove it.

I hope you are never in the position of trying to juggle work and caring for an elderly relative. In those circumstances it is very difficult to keep work and personal life separate, as you never know when you might have to rush home to take them to hospital etc. Belief me it is not very easy - I have had to do it on more than one occasion. In fact when my father was very ill I had to give up a very well paid job because of the time I needed to spend with him and my mother. Not everyone has other family members who can take responsibility for their relatives.

[garinda]

MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL
Mr Philip Morris - retired headteacher
Mr John Davis – businessman
Mr Frank Whitehead – retired local government chief officer
Miss Rahila Hussain – Connexions

Our statutory role is to advise Hyndburn Borough Council in respect of the allowances paid to councillors.

We were supplied with the following information to assist us with our work.
The Council’s current members allowance scheme, dated 1st April 2008.
Information about the calculation evening meal allowances by other Lancashire councils.
Comparative information from other Lancashire councils.

We recommend that the rate of evening meal allowance be increased as follows:
Within Lancashire: £15
Outside Lancashire: £20.

We recommend that the subsistence allowance payable for hotel accommodation be increased as follows:
In London: the actual cost incurred up to £170 per night
Outside London: the actual cost incurred up to £145 per night.

Both recommendations seem fairly arrived at, after careful, studied consideration..

Both recommendations were ignored, and the current higher allowances were voted for by the Conservative councillors on H.B.C.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by blazey

I agree up to the point about qualifications and resume. These aren't really always a guarantee of 'quality' or 'value for money' and I don't think the general public are in a better position to decide such a thing other than those who are experienced in the field themselves and know what the job requires.

I think Robert Owen is wrong to suggest those requesting information should be prepared to declare their own details either because at the end of the day, that person isn't being paid by the public and it should be a right to have access to that information and it is already more along the lines of a permission rather than a right as it is.

I was just asking the question, do councillors and local government officers have any rights.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

I was just asking the question, do councillors and local government officers have any rights.

Why would they even need a right? They have no right under the Act to avoid declaring the information so knowing about the person would make no difference.

And I think when it comes to public money it should be scrutinised very carefully and yes, if someone wanted proof that he offset the personal calls then I think he should have to prove that, ESPECIALLY if those personal calls are going to be included in the overall expense, otherwise the figures are incorrect and misleading, both to the public and against the person whose expenditures they are.

If Graham DID pay for the personal calls then they shouldn't be included in that figure and I'm sure he would agree with that unless he's an idiot.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by blazey

Why would they even need a right? They have no right under the Act to avoid declaring the information so knowing about the person would make no difference.

And I think when it comes to public money it should be scrutinised very carefully and yes, if someone wanted proof that he offset the personal calls then I think he should have to prove that, ESPECIALLY if those personal calls are going to be included in the overall expense, otherwise the figures are incorrect and misleading, both to the public and against the person whose expenditures they are.

If Graham DID pay for the personal calls then they shouldn't be included in that figure and I'm sure he would agree with that unless he's an idiot.

It wasn't so much as who asked for the information. More why they asked for that information. And also what they intended doing with that information.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

It wasn't so much as who asked for the information. More why they asked for that information. And also what they intended doing with that information.

Defending the indefensible, in my opinion.

In the vain hope of clouding the important issues, that two wrongs somehow make a right.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by garinda

Defending the indefensible, in my opinion.

In the vain hope of clouding the important issues, that two wrongs somehow make a right.

I'm just debating the pros and cons of the Freedom Of Information Act. Graham is big enough to speak for himself.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

I'm just debating the pros and cons of the Freedom Of Information Act. Graham is big enough to speak for himself.

You posted about why the information was sought in the first place, and what the intention for doing so might be.

I simply offered my opinion, to your statement in the form of an open ended question, and didn't see it as being directed at Graham Jones, as he is only one of the people that information was requested on, but to the forum in general.

I speak for myself, no one else.

Perhaps when you've been a round a bit longer on Accy Web, you might realise some of us do just that.

[MargaretR]

If someone who knew me asked, via FOI, for info about me, I would assume that they considered that they wouldn't get the truth by asking me.
I would regard that as an insult

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

If someone who knew me asked, via FOI, for info about me, I would assume that they considered that they wouldn't get the truth by asking me.
I would regard that as an insult

That's my view as well Margaret.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by garinda

You posted about why the information was sought in the first place, and what the intention for doing so might be.

I simply offered my opinion, to your statement in the form of an open ended question, and didn't see it as being directed at Graham Jones, as he is only one of the people that information was requested on, but to the forum in general.

I speak for myself, no one else.

Perhaps when you've been a round a bit longer on Accy Web, you might realise some of us do just that.

I never suggested you spoke for anybody but yourself. I think we may well have been at cross purposes. Is that the phrase?