Pressure grows on council staff as cuts kick in (From Evesham Journal)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting EJ NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Pressure grows on council staff as cuts kick in
12:40pm Thursday 14th March 2013 in News By Tom Edwards
COUNCIL chiefs in Worcester are being urged to avoid knee-jerk “short-term” decisions as spending cuts begin to bite.
A new in-house report reveals there is “increasing pressure” on the city council’s workforce as spending reductions kick in. This needs to be carefully managed in a bid to avoid falling standards.
The document, known as the corporate risk register, cites “increasing expectations” on staff despite fewer people on the ground as a major potential issue.
It said: “There is a risk that the council doesn’t have the capacity or skills to meet the challenging demands placed upon it and still deliver excellent customer focused services.”
It also calls for “more diverse and fit-for-purpose” skills to be given to the workers that remain to satisfy public demand for services and maintain standards for taxpayers.
As your Worcester News first revealed in December, bosses have outlined plans to cut £1.2 million and 26 jobs by 2015.
On top of that, another £250,000 of savings, which have yet to be identified need to be found in 2014/15.
The risk register also cites the looming welfare reforms next month, the pressures of the Localism Act and the tendency to look for “short-term solutions”, as areas which need to be looked at in the coming months.
Julie Slatter, service manager for performance, innovation and efficiency, said: “We’ve done an awful lot of work on the corporate risk register to make sure it is embedded into the way the council works.
“It’s fair to say this is very much a ‘live’ document which sets out what the major risks are and what we are doing to mitigate against that. It’s developing and will give us a clear picture as we go forward.”
The report says the authority plans to work closely with other public sector organisations to make “better use of buildings and assets” in a bid to save money.
It also notes the “volatility” of funding to town halls from central Government, citing that as an ongoing risk.
Comments(4)
Give Up!
says...
4:14pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Landy44
says...
6:18pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Give Up! wrote:Unfortunately, and with respect, I don't agree.
I always consider that when we resort to what is "needed" as opposed to "wanted" we are on a race to the bottom. Humans need very little outside of food and water to survive but a healthy and vibrant society needs far more. The Hive for example was not "needed" but since its introduction has been experiencing huge visitor numbers useing its facilties. So much so that it may now be considered "needed" by the locals. The main reason for cutting public finances is for the private sector to step in and provide those services at a cost... true Conservative ideals.
We have been on a race to the bottom in this country at least since the turn of the last century, and that has accelerated in the last 10yrs+ or so as politicians (of all parties) have squandered our future, and that of our children.
The main reason for cutting public finances is to save costs so we can pay off the huge debt that has been run up on our behalf, and perhaps if we're ever able to do that (which I sincerely doubt) we can lower taxes to a sensible level and promote growth in this country!
I don't count myself labour, liberal, conservative, UKIP or anything else. I tend to think politicians and political parties (of all flavours) don't really know what they are doing, and as a consequence we're in the mess we're in.
Nor is this a matter of private versus public sector, although the public sector has become too bloated (due to successive governments) and does need to be shrunk in order to become affordable (do I feel sorry for those people impacted - absolutely), and yes if we want the services we'll have to pay for them. The difference I guess with the private sector is that if you want the service you pay, and if you don't you don't. User pays. That sounds a bit fairer than lumping everyone with a portion of the bill whether they want the service or not.
I merely look at the reality of the situation and take a common sense view of what is best for a country that purports to be "free" but has in effect enslaved it's citizens, or at least those that are tax payers, by promising the population the world, running up a bill to pay for it, and then finding it is unaffordable.
As to The Hive. We had a perfectly good library previously, as I suspect did the university. Is the new facility "better" - I'd like to think so. Did we "Need" it, not really. Do we "need" it now - only because the previous library has been taken away so there is no alternative option.
green49
says...
3:39pm Sat 16 Mar 13
Landy44 says...
1:33pm Thu 14 Mar 13