“It has become a political issue because they have made this appointment at the same time as cutting frontline services.

And Andyman, the public consultation has to, and is, taking place anyway.

And since we're on consultants, the Tory group on Nottingham City Council has criticized what that authority is doing, and Andrew Lansley has criticized health authorities and trusts for how much they're using consultants.

Double standards, I call it.

And people talk about efficiencies, but this is about more than efficiencies; frontline services are being cut here.”

“As always it's the usual Tory versus Labour people on here. When are you all going to realise that it don't make a difference who's in power. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Businesses get protected and jobs suffer. Join together and do something instead of wasting your time arguing on this Daily Mail controlled rag!

http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/”

“The sooner we get Labour in power in Nottinghamshire to sort out this mess the better”

“Really Andyman? How about this then:

Agencies are consulted on what a salary should be. Of course, they say the salary should be much higher because 1. They're probably on commission and 2. Well, because people from the private sector will want more!

But then I start to think, if the job had been advertised at a set salary i.e. without the nice little £17k 'top up', then strangely, people would apply for it, expecting that salary. This isn't the private sector where you can just 'negotiate'. If that's the case, then why not let all employees negotiate their salaries so they have private sector parity? One of the things about working for a local authority is that you accept that the wages are lower, it's just the way it is. Otherwise, why not give market factor supplements to ALL employees who are not paid as much as their private sector equivalents?

Or is it the case that some animals are more equal than others in your 'little manual'?”

“VOTP:

Why has this become a political issue when it clearly is not, it is about finding the correct person for the position irrespective of which party is at the helm. To get the correct person you need to pay the correct salary, it may be beyond your comprehension, but people do not go to work for the love of the job, principles, or anything else other than earning a living. This means pay the salary for the correct person to do the job.

Do you really believe the candidate selected really cares? no they go for the money, and i for one would rather see someone doing the job who can do it, not some jumped up idiot who thinks they can do job, but cannot.

So we in the private sector are parasites are we, well let me inform you of a very simple fact, it is the private sector who predominantly funds the public sector, the two have to co-exist as one cannot survive without the other.

I notice you use the term Tory Dreamland, it is you who are in dreamland as those 44 candidates selected will accept a job with the highest salary and the best perks, irrespective if it is in the private or public sector. It appears you have choked on your little red socialist manual.”

“Oh Andyman, do you think that this Improvement Director was a costless process?

Let's examine the fact - four consultancies were used in their quest to find the candidate who'd demand the most. I work that out at least £4,500 each.

"Pay peanuts and you get monkeys?" No - advertise it right, and you get people who care. Unfortunately, as is always the way with the public sector, the private sector parasites moved in and demanded moooore MOOORE! But as always in a typical Tory way, the private sector can do no wrong, and so rather than it being the greed of the private sector being at fault, it's the public sector who are willing to pay it.

But obviously, if they're paying excessive amounts for a Tory backed scheme then that's ok then. Pff.

Fact is - trough's getting bigger for the snouts at the top end, and it's the carers and cleaners etc who have to pay for it with their livelihoods. Dream Toryland eh? Lib Demland as well now, I suppose.”

“What the PM earns, then gets as "perks" is far more than the salary a Chief Exec would get if their monetary value was combined.

Clare summed it up in one phrase, "pay peanuts and you get monkeys" which seems appropriate given the recent history of local authority Chief Execs. The role is far wider ranging than your somewhat basic synopsis, as are the responsibilities, so would you accept a second rate prospectitive candidate who fails to deliver, or would you want someone who can do the job.

Let me ask you a question; how much has it cost in recruitment costs alone to advertise and fill these previous positions, only for the CE's to be removed after a short while in the job. How much has it cost in salaries and handsome pay off's to get rid of them.

Had the right money been paid, and the right candidate selected this situation could have been avoided along with its considerable expense fot the taxpayers.”

“Andyman, would you think the Chief Exec of Nottingham City Council should earn more than the Prime Minister? Is it that arduous visiting day centres and attending evening banquets?”

“Sensible:

So you would rather have the previous situation of having numerous chief execs onlarge amounts of money who suddenly leave on large redundancy packages would you, and only doing the job for a short while. How much has this cost the taxpayers with guaranteed wages and executive redundancy packages.

How much do your ideas cost when you add up the time of portfolio holders and the cost of going to public consultation, much more than getting the correct person, suitably qualified and experienced. You criticise the amount of their salary, then want to waste even more than their salary in ridiculous schemes.

Consultants are a cost effecient way of dealing with a specific problem or issue, that is why most organisations employ them for a fixed price or fixed term. They work out much cheaper than employing a number of people on a permanent basis to fulfil the same duty. Are you actually awareof how much it costs to employ someone permanently, the employer has to pay much more employer NI contributions than the employee NI contributions, and this is just one facet.”

“Mr Senseless, andy has a valid point on this topic because the former CE's have been paid peanuts and we have had monkeys. It clearly states in the article that several employment agencies state the salary is below what would be called an acceptable rate and 44 candidates expected more. Instead you blather on about public consultations which cost even more money, then criticise the amount of money paid, have you got any financial sense???? obviously you have not.
Get the right person for the job and pay them the correct rate and perhaps we will see this waste eradicated through efficiencies.”