For some reason the commissioner seems obsessed with appointing a chief fire officer who has no previous experience of the profession. I can only think that he doesn’t want anyone who might have an affinity and empathy with firefighters. This is pettiness of the first order and sends a signal to firefighters that he fails to realise his mistakes of the past and is determined to get his own way. This commissioner has lost his way and deserves to lose his post. Roll on the May elections.
If you look through the archives of the Police, Fire and Crime Panel, you will find that the chairman has exercised the option to go into "secret session" quite a lot. While this a reasonable thing to do while confidential personal information is being discussed, it undermines the essential scrutiny function of the panel. In a circumstance where the Commissioner is legitimately criticisable for the way in which he conducts his job, and we are in exactly that circumstance now and have been for several years, it is highly undesirable, undemocratic and further undermining of public confidence to keep any scrutiny of him behind locked doors. The purpose of the panel is, ultimately, to protect the public, not to protect Mr Mold.
An example of the value of public scrutiny is that it appears, from what is in the public domain, to be likely that Mr Adderley, the now suspended Chief Constable, claimed to the panel and to the Commissioner during his recruitment to have previously been a Royal Navy officer of Commander rank. This would have been easily verifiable, but it seems not to have been done. Now, I notice, Mr Bugg yesterday claimed to the panel to have been, in the past, "the senior civil servant for fire policy" (presumably in the Home Office). Taken at face value, I would expect that holding such an important post meant he was at around Senior Principal grade, and it would be nice to know if that, again, easily verifiable, claim is really true, and why he now is applying for the rather more junior position of being Mr Mold's dogsbody. Public scrutiny of Mr Bugg's claim would provide public confidence in his ability, whereas secret absence of scrutiny merely suggests that he might, in due course, be found to be another overpaid, under-capable, Walter Mitty.
With regard, specifically, to the use of "secret sessions", I would ask the following, carefully worded, questions, and hope that one of the non-Conservative panel members might be willing to give a (possibly equally carefully worded) set of answers.
1., During the "secret session" on Mr Bugg's appointment yesterday, was any genuinely private information about any person revealed?
2., If the answer to (1.) is "no", then was anything else revealed that legitimately should not have been in the public domain?
3., If the answer to (1.) or (2.) is "yes", then was that information actually relevant to the wider discussion, or was it something, perhaps small and discrete, that could have been resolved outside the meeting, and was only introduced into the meeting in the first place to provide a fig-leaf justification for going into "secret session"? In other words, would you reasonably conclude that the big objective all along was to go into "secret session" (for example, to protect the reputation of the Commissioner), and the means to achieve that, without breaking the law, was to introduce some small and specious piece of information that "had" to be protected?
I'm concerned that "members of the public were not able to submit any questions to the hearing after chair David Smith had decided to change the procedure". It's amusing in Calvin and Hobbes when Calvin shouts "New rules, new rules!" during a game of Calvin ball, but less so in a public meeting of public servants.
Why is the commissioner so keen on appointing retired people? They have had long careers in well paid posts and are now enjoying a very comfortable pension, far higher than most taxpayers in Northamptonshire could ever hope to receive. Does he really think that these people are going to stay around if things get tough?
I think it far more likely that at the 1st hint of the next of Mold’s succession of car crashes, they’ll be hitting junction 15 at a great rate of knots and on their way back to the golf course or book club they left behind. Or perhaps the didn’t ever leave them behind, and had negotiated a contract allowing them to work from home several counties away.
This hiring of well off people who don’t know the profession, and don’t need a job is, in my opinion immoral and needs to stop. Roll on the May elections.
Nikki Watson, the alleged next chief fire officer for Northamptonshire states that whilst at Avon and Somerset “It’s been rewarding, during my time, to see the introduction of initiatives such as work-life balance seminars, flexible working/part-time support networks and promotion preparation workshops” Well I’m sure firefighters in Northamptonshire will be interested in seeing what a “promotion preparation workshop” looks like. I imagine it will come as a huge revelation if these workshops are aimed at firefighters. Don’t ring her guys and women, she’ll ring you.
For some reason the commissioner seems obsessed with appointing a chief fire officer who has no previous experience of the profession. I can only think that he doesn’t want anyone who might have an affinity and empathy with firefighters. This is pettiness of the first order and sends a signal to firefighters that he fails to realise his mistakes of the past and is determined to get his own way. This commissioner has lost his way and deserves to lose his post. Roll on the May elections.
If you look through the archives of the Police, Fire and Crime Panel, you will find that the chairman has exercised the option to go into "secret session" quite a lot. While this a reasonable thing to do while confidential personal information is being discussed, it undermines the essential scrutiny function of the panel. In a circumstance where the Commissioner is legitimately criticisable for the way in which he conducts his job, and we are in exactly that circumstance now and have been for several years, it is highly undesirable, undemocratic and further undermining of public confidence to keep any scrutiny of him behind locked doors. The purpose of the panel is, ultimately, to protect the public, not to protect Mr Mold.
An example of the value of public scrutiny is that it appears, from what is in the public domain, to be likely that Mr Adderley, the now suspended Chief Constable, claimed to the panel and to the Commissioner during his recruitment to have previously been a Royal Navy officer of Commander rank. This would have been easily verifiable, but it seems not to have been done. Now, I notice, Mr Bugg yesterday claimed to the panel to have been, in the past, "the senior civil servant for fire policy" (presumably in the Home Office). Taken at face value, I would expect that holding such an important post meant he was at around Senior Principal grade, and it would be nice to know if that, again, easily verifiable, claim is really true, and why he now is applying for the rather more junior position of being Mr Mold's dogsbody. Public scrutiny of Mr Bugg's claim would provide public confidence in his ability, whereas secret absence of scrutiny merely suggests that he might, in due course, be found to be another overpaid, under-capable, Walter Mitty.
With regard, specifically, to the use of "secret sessions", I would ask the following, carefully worded, questions, and hope that one of the non-Conservative panel members might be willing to give a (possibly equally carefully worded) set of answers.
1., During the "secret session" on Mr Bugg's appointment yesterday, was any genuinely private information about any person revealed?
2., If the answer to (1.) is "no", then was anything else revealed that legitimately should not have been in the public domain?
3., If the answer to (1.) or (2.) is "yes", then was that information actually relevant to the wider discussion, or was it something, perhaps small and discrete, that could have been resolved outside the meeting, and was only introduced into the meeting in the first place to provide a fig-leaf justification for going into "secret session"? In other words, would you reasonably conclude that the big objective all along was to go into "secret session" (for example, to protect the reputation of the Commissioner), and the means to achieve that, without breaking the law, was to introduce some small and specious piece of information that "had" to be protected?
I'm concerned that "members of the public were not able to submit any questions to the hearing after chair David Smith had decided to change the procedure". It's amusing in Calvin and Hobbes when Calvin shouts "New rules, new rules!" during a game of Calvin ball, but less so in a public meeting of public servants.
Why is the commissioner so keen on appointing retired people? They have had long careers in well paid posts and are now enjoying a very comfortable pension, far higher than most taxpayers in Northamptonshire could ever hope to receive. Does he really think that these people are going to stay around if things get tough?
I think it far more likely that at the 1st hint of the next of Mold’s succession of car crashes, they’ll be hitting junction 15 at a great rate of knots and on their way back to the golf course or book club they left behind. Or perhaps the didn’t ever leave them behind, and had negotiated a contract allowing them to work from home several counties away.
This hiring of well off people who don’t know the profession, and don’t need a job is, in my opinion immoral and needs to stop. Roll on the May elections.
Nikki Watson, the alleged next chief fire officer for Northamptonshire states that whilst at Avon and Somerset “It’s been rewarding, during my time, to see the introduction of initiatives such as work-life balance seminars, flexible working/part-time support networks and promotion preparation workshops” Well I’m sure firefighters in Northamptonshire will be interested in seeing what a “promotion preparation workshop” looks like. I imagine it will come as a huge revelation if these workshops are aimed at firefighters. Don’t ring her guys and women, she’ll ring you.