Sunday, 23 May 2010

Finally Revealed: David Bowles' Salary

      
In a reply to a Freedom on Information (FoI) request, Isle of Anglesey County Council (IoACC) have finally revealed details of the salary of interim MD, David Bowles:

  • As 'Head of Paid Service' - a statutory post which all councils must possess - David Bowles receives a nominal sum of £1 a year
  • As 'Interim Managing Director', David Bowles is not paid directly by IoACC but is contracted via Solace Enterprises Ltd - the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. IoACC therefore pays Solace Enterprises a daily fee of £1,160 (not including VAT) plus accommodation and travel costs for David Bowles' services. 
  • David Bowles actual pay is not revealed; however as we can be certain that the £1,160 fee also includes a margin for Solace, it is not unreasonable to presume that David Bowles receives £1,000 a day, and Solace takes a 16% commission (£1,000 x 116% = £1,160)
  • We are further informed that David Bowles works between 3-4 days each week, which we can average out to mean that he works roughly 160 days a year with holidays, meaning his annual salary is approx. £160K. As the previous MD, Derrick Jones, was paid approx. £130K p.a., this represents an approx. 23% increase.
  • the length of contract is revealed to be one year with possibility of extension

It is possible to compare Bowles' salary with other council Chief Executives in North Wales thanks to the latest Taxpayers Alliance Town Hall Rich List, which details remunerations for 2008-09:

  • Gwynedd County Council - £107K
  • Conwy County Council - £174K
  • Denbighshire - 120K (2007-08)
  • Flintshire County Council - £146K
  • Prime Minister of the UK - £142K

Therefore, depending on how many days per month Bowles works, he is arguably the second highest paid Chief Executive in North Wales after Conwy's. That even the second highest paid council chief executive in North Wales receives some £20K more than the Prime Minister clearly shows the ridiculous wage inflation in the public sector, and the amounts of taxpayer money currently being wasted in county councils.

To Bowles' credit it should be noted that according to the FoI reply, "David J. Bowles expressed a preference for disclosure of the relevant information during the discussions with Solace Enterprises Ltd." However, according to other information also released, some councillors tried to ensure that Bowles salary was not revealed to us taxpayers. According to the minutes of the Appointments Committee held in September 2009 to discuss the appointment of David Bowles, the Chairman of the committee, Cllr Thomas H. Jones (Mechell) "expressed strongly that confidentiality was paramount" and that Bowles' remuneration should not be made public. This is despite both the Corporate Director (Finance) and Cllr Keith Evans (Cadnant) arguing that releasing the salary would be in the public interest. Cllr Thomas Jones should hang his head in shame.
    
You can see the full FoI reply below:
FoI Bowles Salary Redacted

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's just a joke! Why would any Councillor argue for secrecy, other than out of embarrassment for approving such a huge amount? And why was the appointment so convoluted, involving so many parties? Solace has been in the papers before for inflating salaries, and even grabbed the attention of Labour ministers.

I take it Mr. Bowles and his successor will be setting the example and taking a decent pay cut, just like the Cabinet of the Government?

Anonymous said...

Is that an Error Druid? You seem to say that Thomas Huw Jones (Mechell) wanted confidentiality with regards to Mr Bowles salary but you urge a councillor Roberts to hang his head in shame. What has this Roberts guy been up to that we don't know about.

doctorhuw said...

Actually I think - although I could be wrong - that figure of £142,000 is the Prime Ministerial salary, rather than the full amount of money he's paid (add £65,000).

Unless he's taken a very substantial pay cut since 2009 when Brown was entitled to £197k all in (see here - I know it's been cut a bit, but I don's think it's been cut by a quarter.

It's still an awful lot of money for what isn't quite a full-time job - particularly in relation to incomes on Anglesey.

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Anon 13:05 - yes, sorry, that was a mistake. I meant Cllr T Jones should hang his head in shame for trying to conceal this information. I have corrected the original post now.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that it isn't the absolute amount of money that's so important, but whether that salary is justified. We may all feel that a couple of hundred pounds is worth it if Mr. Bowles does indeed sort out this mess of a Council and sorts it out for good; at the moment, the memos and their tone seem to suggest that he is not, and that our elected petty little men are waiting to get back to normal as soon as Mr. Bowles takes on his next challenge.

Then again, Mr. Bowles does have the 'nuclear' option of saying, even if he can't himself make it happen, that the Council isn't worth saving, in which case we might all cheer at that, too!

So, Mr. Bowles, as you, like many senior officers, are a reader of this blog, we are watching, and interested to see what the outcome is at the end of this summer...

Old Mona said...

One of David Camerons commitments is to publish all salaries in the Public sector throughout the UK above £100k. We can then find out exactly what we are getting for our money and even IOACC wouldn't be able to wriggle out of that one although I am sure they would try.

It is about time that the high earners in Local Government faced the realities of life. They do not create wealth they administer it and spend it.

Anonymous said...

Ever likely Cllr Durkin continues to challenge, IOACC'S openness, transparency and the accountability of such highly paid officers.

The dishonesty used against Cllr Durkin By David Bowles to cover up Lynn Balls behaviour says it all.

Considering David Bowles's time at IOACC has made things worse. Why is he still here?

Anonymous said...

He is there becuase he is GREEDY, and an useless individual, we want him out, Mc Gregor out, and democracy and equality in, something those two know nothing about.

Anonymous said...

As the person who made and eventually (45 days over the legal maximum) received the FoIA request, I think it's fair to say that Mr. Bowles does have a difficult job to do, and I think it is not really helpful to label anyone as greedy. That said, there is certainly plenty of scope to examine how and why chief executives are sourced in this way, and why there is such high wage inflation at this level. Personally, I think it is shrouded in contractual clauses and has little transparency.

It is of course of vital public interest for us to know what IoACC is paying Solace, and for us to be able to apply this information to how well the recovery is being managed.

If I were the Minister, I would insist on a performance-related payment that rewards proper success in sorting this Council out. As is stands, there does not seem to be such a clause, and so we could, theoretically, be left with a council still fighting amongst itself as Mr. Bowles heads for the sunset, cheque in hand.

Ultimately, I would say that what most sensible Anglesey residents want Mr. Bowles to do is a good job of getting Anglesey to a vastly higher standard of local government. If he does, I think we would want to congratulate him. Whether that happens looks, well, rather unlikely from my point of view!

Anonymous said...

SOLACE is a classic example of how the Taxpayer gets poor value for money.

On the face of it, SOLACE is operating a cartel and the OFT will soon put a stop to it.

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west_wales/10146671.stm

"BBC Wales political correspondent, John Stevenson, speaking on the Politics Show, said the sum of £270,000 was the minimum cost involved."

Anonymous said...

DRUID,
It matters less what he is paid, or how....what matters is is he giving us value for money, is he effecting sufficient political change and real, permanent recovery....or will he be judged when gone as an expensive and useless temporary caretaker ?
After which our elected Members will revert to old tricks ?
Blin o Fon.

Anonymous said...

I suppose SOLACE pay David Bowles through a composite company.

I wonder what David Bowles' VAT Registration Number is?

Anonymous said...

Anon 19:05 - I agree, he probably pays less tax on £270k than an employee would on £100k.

Anonymous said...

What matters is in what condition he leaves IACC when he inevitably leaves...I guess those Members who are intentionally obstructive (and we the public know who they are !)are just sitting back, smugly waiting for just that event....I can see the condition of IACC just slipping back to its bad old ways.
Anglesey needs -
1. a substantial shake-up of senior officers, meaning retirements and redundancies, with a new influx of able outside professionals into planning, economic development, property/housing and highways.
2. an early local election, with an influx of new members, with no baggage....committed to working to the Druid`s draft manifesto.
3. the manifesto should be perfected and promoted in time for that event.

Anonymous said...

Anon 20.36
Which senior Officers did you have in mind exactly....lets be specific ?

Anonymous said...

No doubt there is room for the People's Manifesto (PM) to include a demand for the public to have a direct input into the appointment of such senior positions, maybe as one member amongst many of an interviewing panel or appointments committee. It would be more sensible to have proven business operators consider such cases, rather than having elected members trying to make out they know what a good manager actually looks like.

Let's face it, councillors should have asked "more probing questions" of this appointment at the time, not bleat about how they would have done so if they knew the cost; I think the FOIA papers show they DID know the cost, anyway!

Anonymous said...

Regarding Bowles' cost, there are 2 points to make:

1. The fee seems to me to be the going rate, nothing unusual there.

2. Remember WHY he was appointed, the people responsible are going to cost us several million pounds with their games. The island should collectively sue councillors and officers responsible to get this money back.

Where is the accountability, we want our money back.

Anonymous said...

Sue Councillors? We elect them!

Remember that it isn't all that clear cut; one man's popular hero is another man's trouble making buffoon.

The Officers of the Council are supposed to be scrutinised by Councillors. It seems evident from Councillors that I have spoken to that they (the councillors) have been frustrated in their efforts to carry out their duties in this respect. Who's to blame? Low grade Councillors? Devious Officers?

Anonymous said...

It's a very Bowles-esque idea to sue Councillors (or officers, as they are in for considerable criticism, too).

(1) The civil court case would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds to bring. Months of argument. Months of bad PR for the island.

(2) It would be a very clever thing if someone could show that any member had deliberately set out to cause loss to the Authority. In practice, it is likely to be impossible.

(3) Let's assume that one member (as a theoretical proposition only) could be shown to a legal standard had acted for a long period of time to deliberately cause loss to the Authority. All the others are found not to be liable due to technicalities of law, lack of evidence, etc. So, how much of the Authority's loss do you think one or two members might be able to pay back? Hardly anything other than a token payment is the inevitable answer. They can't go to prison or be punished, because this is not a criminal action.

So, from a legal perspective, it would be very useful if Mr. Bowles and others would please stop rattling this fictitious and unhlepful sabre, because it ain't ever gonna happen, folks!

Anonymous said...

Instead of the silly rantings of the 'imbecile' and others, would it not be fairer, less disruptive and therefore less costly to us the rate and tax payers of Ynys Mon to let David Bowles get on with the job he was taken on for. I am sure he does not spoend his day reading these blogs but some content must reach him. Why don't we support him in his efforts to bring us more just leadership if it is necessary, an island with better amenities and a better standard of living for those who are suppressed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 13:53 - I think we all support Mr. Bowles in principle. It is a question for us all to decide - at some future point - whether his actions have been successful, and so whether his salary is justified.

From the PR responses issued by the Council, an awful lot of what is written here reaches Mr. Bowles, and you'll find that any comment on the Council will soon be passed on by some petty councillor or other.

Anonymous said...

To 14.12 What is the difference between a "petty councillor or any other" ? are you one of them ?

From 13.53

Anonymous said...

I guarantee David Bowles would not be able to command £270k a year in the private sector.

The WAG have provided us with fine example of how they give our money away.

If the likes of Prof. Elan-Cross and Brian Gibbons had to earn their massive salaries they would soon realise the true value of money.

The Taxpayer does not get value for money because those who control the public purse never feel the financial pinch and not likely to have suffered financial hardship.

Anonymous said...

Anon 14:12: -Quote" I think we all support Mr. Bowles"

We actually support him with at least £270,000.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but what is the alternative? Maybe a lesser pay packet, certainly. But to suggest we should not have a troubleshooting MD goes against all the evidence - and the rubbish we all know has gone on here for decades.

Outsiders really are our only hope.

Anonymous said...

It seems that Bowles' remit is to patch up the cracks to prevent IoACC from collapsing.

If local authorities are failing to deliver across Wales then it reflects bad on the WAG; WAO and PWC.

Anonymous said...

The only real problems David Bowles has found at IOACC is the ones he's created himself.

Staying with John Arthur Jones's which we the tax payer, paid for.

His venomous lies against Councillor Barrie Durkin, to cover up his own officers dishonesty and his complete lack of understanding of democracy.

In the end he'll be gone and nothing will have changed.

Anonymous said...

Though one might understand the continual drip drip of supposedly factual suggestion that people currently involved in county council activities, it does seem odd to see the names of those no longer involved being continually presented. It would seem that someone feels a need to maintain a continuing 'discrediting' of those persons perhaps from the FEAR that they might once again be restored to position and become deadly enemies.

I read so very often "the only thing we can do is support Barrie Durkin". Now then, please tell us in black and white WHAT HAS BARRIE DURKIN SAID that "we need to follow"?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, we seem to be back to good old Anglesey personality politics.

Please remember, out of respect to this blog if nothing else, that although you can post anonymously, if you make defamatory statements, your details could be obtained under a court order if anyone identified in these posts is sufficiently troubled by them. If I were the subject of some of the above, I certainly would be instructing a solicitor...

Anonymous said...

ANON 8.47
I have to agree....whats more, reliable word is he intends to run for Council again next year either in Gwalchmai or Bodffordd...incumbent Councillors watch out........he`s coming for you !

Anonymous said...

ALL
Since this page has become off-topic the JAJ blog....when he was Councillor for the Llangefni ward, he was excellent, attentive to his people and always ready to make the difference.
He could be an excellent councillor again....!

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Comments made at 20:54, 00:51, 8:47 and 9:47 deleted.

Anonymous said...

To 26th 06.09
Hopefully there is an avenue for a person 'wronged' within blogs to take legal recourse.

I feel that any person named or linked to the nastier blogs but is not inany way involved in the alleged wrongdoings should also have the right to have the blogger brought to book.

It would be good if there was a way of making such observations to The Druid without them appearing as blogs.

A N Innocent

Anonymous said...

25th MAY 20.21

WE NEVER DO SEE WHAT BARRIE DURKIN HAS SAID, ONLY WHAT OTHER COMMENTATORS CLAIM HE HAS SAID.

SO MR. BARRIUE DURKIN, COME TELL US WHAT ARE YOU SAYING.

WHAT I DO NOTICE IS THAT WHILST THE BLAK RANGE ROVER IS IN THE MEMBERS BAY, THE NUMBER OF ANON BLOGS IS MASSIVELY REDUCED, STRANGETHAT ISN'T IT

Anonymous said...

OK, the comments are getting seriously off-topic...so, what about DB ?
Is he effective at what he`s been sent to do ....YES ?
Is he effecting recovery ....YES ?
Is he removing those Members obstructing progress ....YES ?
Is he sorting out uncooperative staff...YES ?
Is he a nice bloke....irrelevant...probably not !!
If its YES to most of the above,he is worth the money !

Anonymous said...

ALL,
Word is that Councillors BD, GOP, ESch. AMJ, and one or two others, are conniving to establish their own Group....to be called The Mischief Group, no doubt ??
Any truth in this Councillor Bloggers ?

The Druid of Anglesey said...

A N Innocent - all offending comments are deleted swiftly.

Anonymous said...

Please let's not go down the legal recourse nonsense. This is a well-managed blog that is responsible in removing defamatory material. This is more than enough to keep lawyers at bay (although any solicitor or anyone else can send threatening letters).

As for "if its YES to most of the above,he is worth the money !"

That's true, but you forget to include the critical question: will this council continue to improve and not return to its silly antics once the Recovery Board and Mr. Bowles have gone? There are very serious reservations about its ability to do this, and with good cause, given that it is said never to have functioned properly since its inception.

Anonymous said...

Druid

As matter of fact. Cllr Durkin sold his Black Range Rover over six months ago and its never been in the members bays since.

Anonymous said...

Anon 13.10.
In reply, I agree entirely and have warned so many times before on the blog.
I agree there is potential, a likelihood even, of whatever recovery is achieved by DB and the RBoard during their short tenure, going to waste when whey leave, as one day they must.
The obstructors may/will still be here, whether staff, or Members !
We want an election (next year).
We want new members, without baggage.
We want a people`s manifesto.
We want certain senior officers retired and put out to grass.
Nothing less cannot improve IACC.

Anonymous said...

Correction to 14.41
I should have said Nothing less CAN improve IACC.

Anonymous said...

14.37 Thank you Mr (Anon) Durkin

Anonymous said...

REPEATED BUT NO ANSWERS

25th MAY 20.21

WE NEVER DO SEE WHAT BARRIE DURKIN HAS SAID, ONLY WHAT OTHER COMMENTATORS CLAIM HE HAS SAID.

SO MR. BARRIUE DURKIN, COME TELL US WHAT ARE YOU SAYING.

WHAT I DO NOTICE IS THAT WHILST THE BLAK RANGE ROVER IS IN THE MEMBERS BAY, THE NUMBER OF ANON BLOGS IS MASSIVELY REDUCED, STRANGETHAT ISN'T IT

26 May 2010 11:20

Anonymous said...

@ 11.20
Yep...repeated with all the crap spelling intact.

Backhander said...

"We want new members, without baggage."

Indeed. But our wonderful electorate seems to like returning the same old sad and pathetic faces to office.

Even if we could get rid of the lot of them, there's no way they would let the new bunch to merely get on with it; there would have to be back stabbing, dirt slinging and accusations.

Once, I read a book that said "not all parts of the UK can be attractive and successful". Maybe they'd been to Anglesey?

Anonymous said...

QUESTION TO THE PLANNING DEPT. ?
How is it that the Member for Aberffraw (a member of the planning committee no less)was granted planning permission for a dwelling with a garage that required him to reverse from the garage, into the road, ie. with no onsite turning space , thus a hazard to road users ??
When others would either have to provide a turning space, or be refused pp ??

Anonymous said...

Anon 16.59
Interesting !
Its a similar story to the Dwyran member recently granted planning permission for a rural barn conversion,on a narrow country lane, without being required to provide a passing bay....when you and I would, or be refused pp...the matter is still under investigation.
Lets demand an investigation in Aberffraw too !
Standards for Members : different standards for us PUBLIC !!

Anonymous said...

Anon 17.16
Counc.Durkin should be asked to look into it ? After all they are no longer friends are they ?

Anonymous said...

WHATS ALL THIS BACK STABBING GARBAGE GOT TO DO WITH DAVID BOWLES's LUDICROUS SALARY, EXPENSES & ACCOMMODATION ALLOWANCES?

IS HE WORTH IT?

ON PRESENT PERFORMANCE & HIS TOTAL FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITHOUT ABUSING SOMEONE, THE ANSWER MUST BE, NO WAY.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

CHECK OUT DLW AND JAJ GETTING A WEDGY ON WALES THIS WEEK:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBC_aUZaUg

Anonymous said...

SORRY, THE VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM "YOU TUBE" BECAUSE IT'S TOO LONG.

I WILL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER HOST SITE WHICH PLAYS LONGER THAN 20 MINUTES.

ANY SUGGESTIONS!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 17.57
Back stabbing garbage ?
It may not relate directly to DB`s salary, which is not a major issue in itself, as its a distraction.
But It should matter to us all that Councillors are getting away with abuse, and evading the due proper process of planning..so don`t knock the issue as raised.
Unless you condone double standards of course....why ?

Anonymous said...

The Aberffraw and Dwyran stories.
What appears is the reasonable perception that the two Councillors concerned have used their position of influence to persuade certain officials to support planning proposals that should have been refused....if it had been you or I making those applications, they would have been refused !
Double Standards, no less.
Counc. Durkin should take note ?

stats man said...

It's saddens me to see grown men (in the main) behaving as some have done above. Of course the cost of democracy is having to allow others a voice in which to air their prejudices. Not willing to do anything themselves they are always ready to critise those who try.

We will never achieve anything if all we do is find fault especially if it's based on innuendo, gossip and silly tittle tattle.

You are part of the solution or part of the problem - you decide.

Anonymous said...

17:57

David Bowles has failed dismally, even with the support of his puppet Cllr Clive McGregor in tow.

The only thing he could find wrong was with the council's own corporate governance, which he tried to conceal by blaming the elected members. If it wasn't for Cllr Durkin he'd have got away with it.

As it is, he's being exposed as a liar, and nothing more than a cover-up merchant, at are expense.

Now we see, because of that, Albert Owen MP, calling for the executive to be disbanded and a mayoral system put in place.

Talk about out of the frying pan into the fire. Haven't Labour done enough damage to the country with out imposing a Labour Mayor on Anglesey as well.

Particularly if it were someone like JC.

Anonymous said...

Anon 19.40
Being part of the solution is to expose and condemn and remove abuse. Councillors are demonstrably capable of abuse, make no mistake....I know.

Anonymous said...

To 16:59 AND 19:37
You will find within the councillor for Aberffraw Register of interests that he has lived in his new house since 30/05/2009.

His old house is presently rented by him to his daughter, who receives part housing benefit towards the rent of the property.

He is also a member of UNISON and a FREEMASON.

Anonymous said...

Anon 20.52
He is a candidate for deeper forensic investigation......!

Anonymous said...

Anon 20.52 Is there something sinister about belonging to a union?
Nooka the Perplexed

Anonymous said...

John Arthur Jones does not sound intelligent and articulate when he calls Paddy French a "Paedo" about fifty times.

Barrie and I were in stitches watching it earlier.

Who, Him Over There? said...

Can you see how the Council's in trouble when a Freedom of Information request that took a lengthy battle for an ordinary but tenacious member of the public to extract from the them is posted as the topic.

Does all discussion have to descend into this childish personality rubbish?

If you don't want to comment on the information, its significance and effects, then please go to another forum; Amlwch.net is quite good for claims and counterclaims, AND is also read avidly by officers and members alike (trust me, I know)...

Anonymous said...

Druid.
Your introduction to this Blog makes clear its purpose : it is to rid Anglesey and IACC specifically of corruption, abuse, incompetence and so forth.
Personalities cannot somehow be separated from this aim, the aim is fluid and live, we are not in a vacuum here.
So it is right and proper that erring personalities are identified, exposed and scrutinised when they have done wrong....like the Aberffraw and Dwyran councillors (and others)who have somehow been favoured with planning permissions, without the conditions the rest of us would have had to satisfy, or be refused planning permission.
This is exactly what BD has been pursuing since he entered IACC, and even earlier.
Are we saying that these abuses should go unchecked ????

And Now, the Great Councillini said...

"So it is right and proper that erring personalities are identified, exposed and scrutinised when they have done wrong...Are we saying that these abuses should go unchecked ????"

Now, abuses - where abuse or other wrongs are positively identified and proven to a legal standard - are always matters this blog would wish to see tried in a court or alternatively stamped-out.

The only problem is that, even if those making the claims here have absolute proof that what they say is true, then we as readers cannot comment (or we would be unwise to comment) because we cannot verify the evidence is as stated; in a court, both sides get to express their views, but that isn't necessarily the case here, and in any event, a blog is not the means by which wrongdoing is corrected.

So, as has so often been said here, if you have evidence of wrongdoing, or a reasonable belief that it is taking place, then you should refer to the appropriate authorities. I agree with anyone that says this sounds cliche, and the authorities often are unresponsive. But if you persevere and use your rights and a bit of political nouse, you can force these people to act if it's clear there are reasons they should do so.

Anonymous said...

The Great Councillini.
I agree entirely. Evidence and fair process of law is all.
Anyone accused of wrongdoing should have a fair hearing and the opportunity to defend against his accusers.
What I KNOW is happening in IACC, and no doubt elsewhere, is Members, and staff, benefitting from more relaxed policy requirements (eg. in planning applications) that enable them to evade requirements (eg the Aberffraw and Dwyran cases above)that you and I would have to meet....we see it again and again.
It may not be deliberate circumvention, it may not be covert...but it IS happening, because officers are perhaps content not to be too hard on their political masters for fear of repercussions and intimidations.
This is reality.

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Comment made at 15;48 deleted.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBC_aUZaUg&layer_token=8cbe69e84c9adb50

Anonymous said...

Good afternoon Druid, welcome home for your journey south.

I have read all the inputs about Mr. McG amd Mr Bowles and the criticism but both of those men rose in their proffessions to be high level leaders. It is my guess that mosat bloggers have not aspired to such a degree, no criticism is levelled at them just a feeling that the two men should be given as much slack as is necessary to perform their tasks.

If we want things to be better we should shout out our support.

Remember the two little frogs?

They fell into a bucket of water. They jumped up and down , up and down. All the other frogs looking over the rim shouted Ha Ha you are going to die. One little frog became so tired he fell back into the water and drowned. The other one kept jumping and jumping, he looked up and saw all the others shouting and at last he leapt right out of the bucket and then went round thanking them all. You see, he was deaf and he thought they shouting support for him

So all you frogs out there keep it up folks.

Anglesey Islander

The Great Councillini said...

If only life were that simple...

Anonymous said...

CMcG and DB
I can see that DB is intensely focused, robust, determined,and ruthless, with a fixed purpose...thats how he should be, and we should support him, not snipe at him with cowardly anonimity from the sidelines.
I can see that CMcG is also focused, determined and with a similar fixed purpose, thats how he should be and we should support him.
The difference in the two men is CMcG`s inseparable part in the grubby IACC political machine...his success depends on the support of the ruling coalition which is where the poison lies....he is the weaker for that.
This will be the test for Clive...probably the greatest test of his life....I as one who knows him believe he is up to the task, as long as he resists undue influences ?

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain how David Bowles and Clive McGregor are cleaning up the Council when they took drastic action against Barrie Durkin to prevent him from gathering evidence supporting maladministration against senior Council officials.

Also, I am confused by Mr Bowles saying that complaints have to be substantiated by evidence when at the same time he has warned them off from getting at the evidence.

Retard.

Anonymous said...

Retard 23.26
Yes it does seem something of a contradiction....BD is either a troublesome muckraker and an obstructive, or a genuine do-gooder with clean intent....not sure which it is, the jury is out on this ??
Blin o Fon

The Accounts Are Late, But So What? said...

"not snipe at him with cowardly anonimity from the sidelines."

OK then, so why are you posting anonymously, Mr./Ms. high and mighty?

I can tell you from personal experience that merely asking a polite, focused and legitimate question of a council officer can bring you into the sharp focus of their intolerance. In fact, this precise issue is the subject of a formal complaint against a senior officer at the time of writing. I'll be happy to share details of who has said what, because it's all in writing, so cannot be denied.

Anonymous said...

7.46
Sir, I am not one who snipes anonomously from the sidelines, I do not snipe at all....I try to be constructive and level-headed in my comments, as one who knows the Council workings inside out. Apologies if I offended.

Anonymous said...

Still posting anonymously, though, aren't you? Hardly a basis to be critical of others. But no offence intended (it's not that sort of blog is it, really?)

(That's Miss, to you!)

Anonymous said...

Miss 8.42
If I came out of anonimity, you`d be most surprised !

Anonymous said...

The forthcoming YouTube will show whether Cllr Durkin is a troublesome muckraker and an obstructive or not.

The Great Councillini said...

We look forward to the video. I just hope it's not too long, like the other one being bandied about earlier!

Anonymous said...

If any the the allegations made by Councillor Barrie Durkin against some officers aren't true, how come no one has sued him?

It couldn't be the fact, that he'd wipe the floor with them. Is it?

Anonymous said...

Q to DB ??
Sir, at what point and when will you and the Rec.Board decide if your efforts have succeeded, or not, as the case may be, and if not, when will you inform WAG that IACC is a lost cause ?

Anonymous said...

If the recovery board and David Bowles's success is to be measured by what they have done, which is nothing more than trying to gag those who have raised concerns, then they have failed dismally.

Most of the problems which have dogged IOCCC for years were voted out in 2008. There are still some stragglers, a couple of Councillors but mainly Officers, not for long though.

Once Bowles & McGregor are shown the door, along with Ball, Owen and Ellis-williams the better.

Anonymous said...

Good God
YouTube is here.