| Subject: RE: Clawback Review, part two. |
Author: R H
Date: 11/1/2001 12:00 am WEDT
|
As it happened, my concern about this began in earnest when I put a simple question to Councillor Cardy, after a York House meeting circa July 2000. I wanted to know what the 'clawback' was worth. He was unable to answer but said he'd look into it.
Pressed about this, he then said he "didn't think it was a transfer issue".
I regret to thus have to single out this unfortunate member. He has taken a lot of stick on this site and he was not alone in being so entranced. The gist of the Council's defence to all this is that it was "normal" and in a sense that is fair enough. It does indeed happen elsewhere and it is not so much of a sin to merely trust that something has been taken care of.
But is this really supposed to good enough? Is it normal for a deal worth around 5 million per year, indefinitely, to be sorted out entirely on delegated authority with no nothing to report the implications to the World at large?
The DETR sale price model is the other half of the nonsense. I had also imagined that this would somehow consider the right to buy receipts. According to common sense the sale price ought to be affected one way or another.
As a matter of fact this is not at all the case. The clawback is an independent gratuity. No provision of any kind compelled it. The many pages of the rather complicated and ostensibly comprehensive DETR sale prive model completely overlooked the issue. Their general LSVT guidelines also failed to assist and this fact was eventually confirmed in a letter to me from the DETR LSVT manager.
The reality is that the LSVT game is run, almost entirely, by consultants. They say to do this. They say to do that or the other and everybody jumps accordingly. They make a fortune out of it while enjoying the luxury of being, in effect, completely unaccountable, not even subject to any subsequent legal action if only because, as far as I can gather, no contract defined their responsibilities.
This is "candy from babies", except that babies would have the sense to scream about it.
With best wishes,
Ron Harvey |
|
| Topics |
Author |
Date |
|
|
|
|
Laurence Mann |
10/26/2001 2:20 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
10/26/2001 4:14 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Public Service Information |
10/26/2001 5:27 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Trevor Clarke |
10/26/2001 11:31 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Bob Parslow |
10/27/2001 4:44 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
various pseudonyms |
10/27/2001 5:41 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Solomon Green |
10/27/2001 3:29 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/28/2001 8:51 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
10/29/2001 10:53 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/29/2001 9:12 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
10/30/2001 1:04 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Solomon Green |
10/30/2001 2:19 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/30/2001 11:51 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Solomon Green |
10/31/2001 10:48 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Laurence Mann |
10/31/2001 11:33 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
10/31/2001 11:37 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Laurence Mann |
10/31/2001 2:08 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
10/31/2001 3:41 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/31/2001 11:12 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
11/1/2001 0:30 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Laurence Mann |
11/1/2001 9:54 am WEDT |
|
|
|
   |
RE: Clawback Review, part two. |
|
|
R H |
11/1/2001 12:00 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Jonathan Cardy |
11/1/2001 8:27 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
R H |
11/1/2001 11:01 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Richard Meacock |
11/2/2001 8:36 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
11/2/2001 9:04 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/30/2001 11:57 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/29/2001 9:37 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Jonathan Cardy |
10/30/2001 2:04 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/30/2001 10:49 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Royal Mole |
10/28/2001 7:17 am WEDT |
|
|
|
|
Cllr Laurence Mann |
10/28/2001 8:53 pm WEDT |
|
|
|
