Caerphilly bosses’ pay move ‘unlawful’ - watchdog

Campaign Series: PAY ROW: Caerphilly council chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan PAY ROW: Caerphilly council chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan

THE way huge pay rises for Caerphilly’s top bosses, proposed and recommended by main beneficiary chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan were decided was "unlawful", a watchdog says today. CHRIS WOOD reports.

PAY rises of up to 20 per cent for top officers, which prompted hundreds of council staff to walk out in disgust, were "unlawful" in the way they were set, a damning Wales Audit Office report says today.

It blasts the local authority for "failures", "inadequacies" and acting "unlawfully" in determining the rises which will cost it £1.5 million over the next four years.

The rises were awarded by a five-man committee including both the local authority’s deputy leaders based on a report written by chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan - who gave advice leading to his £32,000 increase.

This was later reduced to £5,000 following an outcry from unions and staff, many of whom have had their pay frozen for three years.

But, the rises for 20 top officers will still cost the authority £1.5 million over the next four years even after the original decision was rescinded and a compromise position agreed by full council.

In the document published today, assistant auditor general Anthony Barrett says the original decision was unlawful "on a number of grounds".

The first was that chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan, who wrote and would be a beneficiary of the proposal, sat in on the meeting to approve salary increases.

Other officers who were in line to gain from it - head of legal and governance Dan Perkins and head of human resources Gareth Hardacre, were also present.

In the report, Mr Barrett said: "No declarations of interest were made and these officers did not leave the room while the decision was made.

Consequently, they participated in the decision-making process when they had a disqualified financial interest."

The decision was made as part of an exempt item during a senior remuneration committee meeting on September 5 last year. Mr Barrett said the meeting was not properly advertised, with agendas not available for public inspection as they should have been.

The committee, which has since been disbanded, was chaired by St James councillor Christine Forehead, and included the council’s deputy leaders Gerald Jones and Keith Reynolds, plus fellow Labour councillor David Poole.

St Martins’ James Fussell was Plaid Cymru’s sole representative on the panel, the council's own agenda to the September 5 meeting says.

Mr Barrett says the minutes of the meeting are brief, with no adequate record of the discussions that took place or if the decision was unanimous.

He notes the fact the Cllr James Fussell claims he voted against the proposal, something disputed by the four Labour members, with this matter being looked into by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

The report also says one committee member - not named in the WAO report - had told the WAO that officers had left the meeting while their recommendation and decision was debated. "This version of events was not borne out by others present," the WAO report says.

Caerphilly council must now consider the report at a full meeting within a month, where it must decide if action is necessary.

The report recommends in future all meetings are properly advertised, any conflicts of interest looked into, procedures clearly set out, with sufficient records kept.

Call for council boss to go

The opposition Plaid Cymru group on Caerphilly council is calling on Mr O’Sullivan to resign, calling his position "untenable".

Its leader Colin Mann called the situation "embarrassing", adding: "This whole episode begs the question, who runs Caerphilly, Labour or the council’s chief officers?"

Cllr Mann added: "The auditor’s damning dossier makes the position of the chief executive untenable. We have a situation in Caerphilly where the chief executive authored recommendations, advised on recommendations and benefitted from those recommendations."

He added that Cllr Fussell voted against the increases, saying: "He recognised it was very difficult to justify in the present economic climate."

‘Decision can’t be reversed completely’

Labour spokesman, St Cattwg councillor Hefin David said the group discussed the issue collectively for the first time on December 18, deciding to rescind the original decision based on independent legal advice.

He said it was not possible to reverse the decision completely, because this would have led to "industrial disputes with senior officers, huge legal costs and greater reputational damage to the authority".

However, he said steps were taken to address the situation ahead of the WAO report, with full council making "a fresh decision" on January 17 to reduce Mr O’Sullivan’s level of pay increase.

Cllr David said Cllr Fussell voted in favour of the proposal, adding: "The Labour leadership publicly apologised in December for the original pay decision and for that they deserve credit. The hypocritical Plaid leadership have yet to apologise and it is time that they did."

Affair was handled in ‘cack-handed manner’

LIBERAL democrat leader in Wales Kirsty Williams said councils must be open and transparent about how they make decisions.

She said: "Making decisions in a small clique of councillors without further discussions and further consultation is bound to lead to the reaction we saw from people in Caerphilly."

Welsh Tory leader Andrew RT Davies said Caerphilly council handled the situation in a "cack-handed manner" and must explain itself for pay rises he described as "absolutely ridiculous".

He added: "Ratepayers have a reasonable expectation to make sure their money is spent wisely and correctly. I don't believe it was a sensible proposition that Caerphilly council made."

Shadow minister for local Government Janet Finch-Saunders AM said: “These were already well-paid senior executives at Caerphilly council awarding themselves bumper pay increases at a time when many lower-paid council workers and hard-pressed taxpayers in Caerphilly were facing a freeze in their own salary."

She added there are "major lessons to be learnt" to ensure "no such scandal can happen again".

A spokesman for Caerphilly council said it is reviewing the report's recommendations.

He added: 'It is important to stress the decision of the senior remuneration committee was rescinded at a meeting of full council on January 17, where independent legal advice was received and a new decision was reached."

With the report set to be discussed by full council, he added: "It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."

ARGUS COMMENT: Caerphilly council's competence questioned

WE already knew a secretive deal to give senior officers at Caerphilly council massive pay rises was a scandal.

But today we learn it was also against the law.

The decision to award huge pay hikes to the council’s leadership team caused outrage last year.

The move led to more than 600 council workers walking out in protest and caused a massive political row.

Today the Wales Audit Office gives its verdict on the issue – and it is damning.

The WAO says holding the meeting that decided on the pay rises without informing the public it was happening was unlawful.

It says not making the agenda for the meeting public at least three days before the meeting was unlawful.

It says the fact senior officers who would benefit from the pay rises sat in on the meeting, without declaring an interest or leaving when the issue of their own salaries was discussed was unlawful.

It is critical of the fact that the report that recommended the pay rises was written by council chief executive Anthony O’Sullivan – the person who would benefit from the biggest increase.

Changes have been made since, although many officers are still receiving significant pay increases. But the WAO report raises many questions about the competence and probity of those running Caerphilly council – the very people who decided how to spend your council tax.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:28am Wed 6 Mar 13

Howie' says...

Sack him and sack him now.
Sack him and sack him now. Howie'

7:43am Wed 6 Mar 13

swrxp09 says...

Not just him but also the 2 other guys who sat in on the meeting in which they had a vested interest. If a councillor pushes for something and do not disclose that they have an interest in they can be censured or suspended. Why not these 3 moneygrabbers?
Not just him but also the 2 other guys who sat in on the meeting in which they had a vested interest. If a councillor pushes for something and do not disclose that they have an interest in they can be censured or suspended. Why not these 3 moneygrabbers? swrxp09

7:55am Wed 6 Mar 13

Manley says...

Anybody engaged in unlawful activity should be sacked.

I presume junior employees would be and these guys should know better - all the more reason to sack them.
Anybody engaged in unlawful activity should be sacked. I presume junior employees would be and these guys should know better - all the more reason to sack them. Manley

8:18am Wed 6 Mar 13

willow181 says...

Will say Caerphilly council which governs Risca has done some great things in Risca new library parks tidy everything has been really spruced up there so someone in authority is doing something right also visted Caerphilly recently really nice little place plenty shops clean and tidy parking too in comparisson with Newport streets ahead but still no justification in the bigwigs getting the rewards nothing worst than corruption and this stinks of it !
Will say Caerphilly council which governs Risca has done some great things in Risca new library parks tidy everything has been really spruced up there so someone in authority is doing something right also visted Caerphilly recently really nice little place plenty shops clean and tidy parking too in comparisson with Newport streets ahead but still no justification in the bigwigs getting the rewards nothing worst than corruption and this stinks of it ! willow181

10:25am Wed 6 Mar 13

Cwmderi says...

Willow
Just to set the record straight. The conversion, building and opening of the wonderful Risca Library was done under the previous administration (Plaid).
The whole fiasco over senior managers salaries was clearly guided through the secret committee by the two Labour Deputy Leaders from Aberbargoed and New Tredegar who sat on that committee and they should now do the honourable thing..
Willow Just to set the record straight. The conversion, building and opening of the wonderful Risca Library was done under the previous administration (Plaid). The whole fiasco over senior managers salaries was clearly guided through the secret committee by the two Labour Deputy Leaders from Aberbargoed and New Tredegar who sat on that committee and they should now do the honourable thing.. Cwmderi

10:49am Wed 6 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour.

As there appears (according to the auditors) to have been a number of unlawful acts, can we be assured that the councillors and officers responsible - starting with the Chief Exec and working down - will be suspended pending legal action and possible prosecution?
Absolutely disgraceful behaviour. As there appears (according to the auditors) to have been a number of unlawful acts, can we be assured that the councillors and officers responsible - starting with the Chief Exec and working down - will be suspended pending legal action and possible prosecution? Aquarius

12:04pm Wed 6 Mar 13

lisann says...

Regarding the Risca Library, just to set the record straight.. it was councillor Keith Griffiths (Labour) who tirelessly campaigned for something to be done with the Palace in Risca, and it was Tesco money which financed it. & then CCBC take the credit!..
Regarding the Risca Library, just to set the record straight.. it was councillor Keith Griffiths (Labour) who tirelessly campaigned for something to be done with the Palace in Risca, and it was Tesco money which financed it. & then CCBC take the credit!.. lisann

12:26pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Woodgnome says...

The whole tier - officers and members directly involved in this unlawful decision must go. This was public money paid by you and me..
The whole tier - officers and members directly involved in this unlawful decision must go. This was public money paid by you and me.. Woodgnome

12:33pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

What I find hard to understand is how a series of processes could go so badly wrong.

There are supposed to be legal officers, monitoring/complianc
e officers and god knows who else to advise on these matters and point out when they are on shaky ground.

So what were these people doing?

Are these people just totally unfit to do their jobs? Or were they themselves part of the unlawful activities? Or were they just told to shut up or else?

It's not enough for the council to 'consider' this report. It's not enough for the Welsh Government to investigate (and then try and bury the matter quietly...).

On the face of it, this seems like an attempt to sidestep the law for personal gain; and by people who were so arrogant they thought they could get away with it because of who they were. Taxpayers need to know if this is true and if so what is going to be done about it.
What I find hard to understand is how a series of processes could go so badly wrong. There are supposed to be legal officers, monitoring/complianc e officers and god knows who else to advise on these matters and point out when they are on shaky ground. So what were these people doing? Are these people just totally unfit to do their jobs? Or were they themselves part of the unlawful activities? Or were they just told to shut up or else? It's not enough for the council to 'consider' this report. It's not enough for the Welsh Government to investigate (and then try and bury the matter quietly...). On the face of it, this seems like an attempt to sidestep the law for personal gain; and by people who were so arrogant they thought they could get away with it because of who they were. Taxpayers need to know if this is true and if so what is going to be done about it. Aquarius

1:05pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Trefor says...

Aquarius;

The Solicitor in Chief, who is also the Caerphilly council Monitoring Officer and the person responsible for all governance of the Council was in the secret meeting.

As was the Senior Cabinet Member for Governance of the Caerphilly Council who actually chaired the meeting.

What hope is there of public confidence in either the Chief Executive or the council`s in house legal officers of all levels particularly those in decision making positions, and lets not forget the Chief Executive is the officer in charge of all election in the county, a role the public have to have confidence in to ensure at least that role is undertaken within all legal boundries, I wonder if he has a proper knowledge of them. Anyone who err`s in law has no part to play in the democratic process
Aquarius; The Solicitor in Chief, who is also the Caerphilly council Monitoring Officer and the person responsible for all governance of the Council was in the secret meeting. As was the Senior Cabinet Member for Governance of the Caerphilly Council who actually chaired the meeting. What hope is there of public confidence in either the Chief Executive or the council`s in house legal officers of all levels particularly those in decision making positions, and lets not forget the Chief Executive is the officer in charge of all election in the county, a role the public have to have confidence in to ensure at least that role is undertaken within all legal boundries, I wonder if he has a proper knowledge of them. Anyone who err`s in law has no part to play in the democratic process Trefor

1:30pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Davi says...

They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer..
They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer.. Davi

1:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

Davi wrote:
They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer..
Well, I would certainly suggest that being a Chief Executive is a responsible job and one which is particularly important at the moment. Nor do I have a problem with them being paid a 'reasonable' salary.

The increase that they tried to force through here wasn't reasonable though.

Not really sure how anyone involved in this mess can be called a 'good council officer' though.

Never mind resignations; that's a given. The councillors involved should be gone by the end of the week. But there should be police involvement and charges preferred if indeed there has been truly unlawful behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]Davi[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer..[/p][/quote]Well, I would certainly suggest that being a Chief Executive is a responsible job and one which is particularly important at the moment. Nor do I have a problem with them being paid a 'reasonable' salary. The increase that they tried to force through here wasn't reasonable though. Not really sure how anyone involved in this mess can be called a 'good council officer' though. Never mind resignations; that's a given. The councillors involved should be gone by the end of the week. But there should be police involvement and charges preferred if indeed there has been truly unlawful behaviour. Aquarius

3:52pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Thomo123 says...

The assistant Auditor General, Anthony Barrett has declared that the people involved in writing a report to infuence the decision making and not declaring an interest in meeting that awarded them a hansome financial benefit have acted unlawfully. No but's about it they should be sacked if it was an ordinary low paid worker they would have had their P45s a long time ago!
The assistant Auditor General, Anthony Barrett has declared that the people involved in writing a report to infuence the decision making and not declaring an interest in meeting that awarded them a hansome financial benefit have acted unlawfully. No but's about it they should be sacked if it was an ordinary low paid worker they would have had their P45s a long time ago! Thomo123

4:11pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

I think it is inevitable that there are various named people here, including those PAID to know better, who will be suspended before the end of the week, if they don't resign beforehand.

They have no credibility in their posts whatsoever and cannot possibly continue. The same for the councillors who were involved in this.

Losing their jobs is the *least* that can happen.
I think it is inevitable that there are various named people here, including those PAID to know better, who will be suspended before the end of the week, if they don't resign beforehand. They have no credibility in their posts whatsoever and cannot possibly continue. The same for the councillors who were involved in this. Losing their jobs is the *least* that can happen. Aquarius

5:50pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Manley says...

Davi wrote:
They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer..
One would have thought that any head of governance fit for office would have been able to identify the conflict of interest and act appropriately.

One wonders whether the head of legal is now advising the council on whether there are grounds for sacking the individuals concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Davi[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have considered a salary increase for them at all...The Councillors who reached this decision in a secret meeting should resign..I blame the Councillors not the Officers I know Dan Perkins and he is a a very good Officer..[/p][/quote]One would have thought that any head of governance fit for office would have been able to identify the conflict of interest and act appropriately. One wonders whether the head of legal is now advising the council on whether there are grounds for sacking the individuals concerned. Manley

6:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

Yes, at one time we might have made a joke about the Head of Legal Services advising who should be suspended and/or sacked.

But with this mob, that's probably exactly what WOULD happen (and probably would probably get the nod from the WAG as well, keen as it will be to cover it up...)

Which is why these people must all be suspended as soon as possible. Preferably permanently.
Yes, at one time we might have made a joke about the Head of Legal Services advising who should be suspended and/or sacked. But with this mob, that's probably exactly what WOULD happen (and probably would probably get the nod from the WAG as well, keen as it will be to cover it up...) Which is why these people must all be suspended as soon as possible. Preferably permanently. Aquarius

7:09pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Limestonecowboy says...

These Chief Executives argue their salary should reflect that of the private sector.

This is the problem where the private sector need to make profit, a difficult task in this current climate, the Council Chief Exec. handles allocated funds hardly a comparison as far as I'm concerned.
These Chief Executives argue their salary should reflect that of the private sector. This is the problem where the private sector need to make profit, a difficult task in this current climate, the Council Chief Exec. handles allocated funds hardly a comparison as far as I'm concerned. Limestonecowboy

7:48pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Big Bus Driver says...

They will all be on strike soon too, still it will give them a change of activity rather than just clock watching.
They will all be on strike soon too, still it will give them a change of activity rather than just clock watching. Big Bus Driver

8:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13

gingertom says...

have all these officers got the relevant qualifications to have these high paid jobs in the first place?
For too long good jobs in local councils have been given to relations of councillors or other hierachy. This must now be stopped once and for all.
have all these officers got the relevant qualifications to have these high paid jobs in the first place? For too long good jobs in local councils have been given to relations of councillors or other hierachy. This must now be stopped once and for all. gingertom

8:39pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Davi says...

Gingertom. The Officers concerned are all highly qualified..nobody today goes into a job because they have a family member working in the Authority, it happened in the past but not now.
Gingertom. The Officers concerned are all highly qualified..nobody today goes into a job because they have a family member working in the Authority, it happened in the past but not now. Davi

8:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13

gingertom says...

So they all got a degree then???
It is not what I have heard.
Just take a look at the names in ccbc and torfaen cbc and make the connections.
So they all got a degree then??? It is not what I have heard. Just take a look at the names in ccbc and torfaen cbc and make the connections. gingertom

10:24pm Wed 6 Mar 13

sharon1717 says...

One of the people who would have benefitted from this, the director of social services, is now jumping ship to suckle from the richer teat of the welsh assembly government
One of the people who would have benefitted from this, the director of social services, is now jumping ship to suckle from the richer teat of the welsh assembly government sharon1717

3:11am Thu 7 Mar 13

Welsh Spurs says...

I used to have a lot of respect for Anthony O'Sullivan as he worked his way up through the ranks but sadly that respect has now gone.
With some services being cut, council tax going up and other council workers not having payrises I think it's disgraceful that the top people award themselves these payrises!
When I first heard the news last year I emailed all my councillors advising them how livid I was as a tax payer in the borough and fair play they were quick to get in touch and say they wished more residents would do the same.
So come on residents - speak to your councillors feelings known! I for one think the councillors involved should resign along with the officers involved in the decision as they have marred Caerphilly's reputation!
I used to have a lot of respect for Anthony O'Sullivan as he worked his way up through the ranks but sadly that respect has now gone. With some services being cut, council tax going up and other council workers not having payrises I think it's disgraceful that the top people award themselves these payrises! When I first heard the news last year I emailed all my councillors advising them how livid I was as a tax payer in the borough and fair play they were quick to get in touch and say they wished more residents would do the same. So come on residents - speak to your councillors feelings known! I for one think the councillors involved should resign along with the officers involved in the decision as they have marred Caerphilly's reputation! Welsh Spurs

3:14am Thu 7 Mar 13

Welsh Spurs says...

Let your feelings known I meant to say!
Let your feelings known I meant to say! Welsh Spurs

9:10am Thu 7 Mar 13

JWG1967 says...

The arrogance of the man is astounding.

I understand that the workers who went through a job evaluation process a few years ago were told that they could not market test their wages to other employers.

The vast majority of workers have not had a pay rise in 3 years. Paid leave allowances such as for medical appointments and parental leave have been removed, car allowances slashed yet they think its ok to award themselves pay rises of amounts more than some people earn in a year.

So why is the market forces argument ok for the Directors and not for staff.
Or is it one rule for them and another for the workers ?

I for one have completely lost all respect for the lot of them the directors the unions who just rolled over and the labour councillors.

Just remember labour CCBC is the biggest single employer in the borough and those voters will be expressing their feelings at the next election.

Mr O Sullivan is open and brazen about whole thing. He will tell anyone who listens that he is worth the money and sends an email round the staff where he bleets about the nasty press and quibbles about the meaning of illegal and unlawful.

He taking the mickey out of the councillors, the workers and the voters. Someone stand up, grow a pair and sort it out.

Harry Andrews Gerald jones labour party leaders you are supposed to be labour and on the side of the workers - it doesn't look much like it to me!!!

Otherwise sort out your cvs cos your going to need them.
The arrogance of the man is astounding. I understand that the workers who went through a job evaluation process a few years ago were told that they could not market test their wages to other employers. The vast majority of workers have not had a pay rise in 3 years. Paid leave allowances such as for medical appointments and parental leave have been removed, car allowances slashed yet they think its ok to award themselves pay rises of amounts more than some people earn in a year. So why is the market forces argument ok for the Directors and not for staff. Or is it one rule for them and another for the workers ? I for one have completely lost all respect for the lot of them the directors the unions who just rolled over and the labour councillors. Just remember labour CCBC is the biggest single employer in the borough and those voters will be expressing their feelings at the next election. Mr O Sullivan is open and brazen about whole thing. He will tell anyone who listens that he is worth the money and sends an email round the staff where he bleets about the nasty press and quibbles about the meaning of illegal and unlawful. He taking the mickey out of the councillors, the workers and the voters. Someone stand up, grow a pair and sort it out. Harry Andrews Gerald jones labour party leaders you are supposed to be labour and on the side of the workers - it doesn't look much like it to me!!! Otherwise sort out your cvs cos your going to need them. JWG1967

10:45am Thu 7 Mar 13

Aquarius says...

If the Chief Executive really is sending round emails lecturing people on the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful', we can see exactly what line of defence these pathetic excuses are going to be coming up with.

Pity his apparently extensive knowledge of the law didn't extend to not acting the way he did in the first place.

As it is, it could possibly be argued that people who thought they were big enough and important enough to get away with it conspired to pick the pockets of taxpayers for personal gain, without concern for lawful process. With the collusion of certain councillors too, people are entitled to ask why the councillors went along with it.

And does anyone think the Welsh Assembly Government really want anything other than the whole matter quietly sidelined? Despite their claims to the contrary, they're already trying to stifle debate, saying there isn't public concern.

Really?! Isn't there??

NONE of these people are fit to be 'representing' us.
If the Chief Executive really is sending round emails lecturing people on the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful', we can see exactly what line of defence these pathetic excuses are going to be coming up with. Pity his apparently extensive knowledge of the law didn't extend to not acting the way he did in the first place. As it is, it could possibly be argued that people who thought they were big enough and important enough to get away with it conspired to pick the pockets of taxpayers for personal gain, without concern for lawful process. With the collusion of certain councillors too, people are entitled to ask why the councillors went along with it. And does anyone think the Welsh Assembly Government really want anything other than the whole matter quietly sidelined? Despite their claims to the contrary, they're already trying to stifle debate, saying there isn't public concern. Really?! Isn't there?? NONE of these people are fit to be 'representing' us. Aquarius

8:12am Sat 9 Mar 13

scraptheWAG says...

market forces as if another employer in the area is going to pay him that what a joke
market forces as if another employer in the area is going to pay him that what a joke scraptheWAG

10:03am Sat 9 Mar 13

Welsh Spurs says...

At least he has now been suspended. But on full pay no doubt.
It just makes me angry that they want to put council tax up yet cut services!
Also they manage without a post in place worth £30k in one department for 9 months then advertise it? If you can manage for 9months do you really need the post I ask myself!
At least he has now been suspended. But on full pay no doubt. It just makes me angry that they want to put council tax up yet cut services! Also they manage without a post in place worth £30k in one department for 9 months then advertise it? If you can manage for 9months do you really need the post I ask myself! Welsh Spurs

5:22am Sun 10 Mar 13

scraptheWAG says...

even better they can have a sabbatical having a year away from their job to go travelling etc for up to a year nobody replaces them for that year.!!!!!
even better they can have a sabbatical having a year away from their job to go travelling etc for up to a year nobody replaces them for that year.!!!!! scraptheWAG

7:26am Sun 10 Mar 13

pass the stilsons luv says...

I have 2 close family members working for CCBC, They tell me when the last CEO quit, the current post of CEO was "ring fenced" enabling only two people to apply for the job, a certain Mr A, O Sulivan, and a certain Mr Barnet. So if councillors tell you they have to pay the most to attract the best, ask why "the best" were not allowed to apply ??
I have 2 close family members working for CCBC, They tell me when the last CEO quit, the current post of CEO was "ring fenced" enabling only two people to apply for the job, a certain Mr A, O Sulivan, and a certain Mr Barnet. So if councillors tell you they have to pay the most to attract the best, ask why "the best" were not allowed to apply ?? pass the stilsons luv

8:31am Sun 10 Mar 13

scraptheWAG says...

i have also noticed when the council advertise jobs the slogan INTERNAL APPLICANTS only mmmmmm
i have also noticed when the council advertise jobs the slogan INTERNAL APPLICANTS only mmmmmm scraptheWAG

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree