Moorfoot Building To Be Flats What Peoples Thoughts?

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

@Mr Bloke- it is the difference between the public and private sectors approach to reports. If they are to have any value, as I  said, they should contain the required information in a clear and concise manner, then maybe people would have time to read them.

@HeHasRisenHave you read the report - without falling to sleep?

I read the first bit and couldnt be arsed with the rest, I learned what needed to know. Merely pointing out a "menial" doesnt decide to close massive buildings.

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I read the first bit and couldnt be arsed with the rest, I learned what needed to know. Merely pointing out a "menial" doesnt decide to close massive buildings.

Fair enough.

[Mr Bloke]

12 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I read the first bit and couldnt be arsed with the rest, I learned what needed to know. Merely pointing out a "menial" doesnt decide to close massive buildings.

Oh dear!

Are people really so dumb that they can't 'see' what's happening here?

Does EVERYTHING have to be spelt out in words of one syllable?

No-one is saying a 'menial' has MADE the DECISION...
... just that a report is required by the 'SCC instruction manual' to tick all the boxes to back up a decision THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE!

So any old bit of tat will do, so long as it AGREES with the decision...

[HeHasRisen]

No need to shout.

[Planner1]

58 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

I'd be surprised if the 'Director' has even read the report.

I've seen this sort of thing before...
... it gets read by some 'menial' who 'signs it off' and forwards it to their 'manager'.

The 'manager' is 'too busy' to read everything, so as it's already been 'signed off' by the 'menial' just adds his/her signature and forwards it up to the next level, and so on.

 

So effectively, each level of 'authorisation' is just rubber stamping that the 'report' has been 'authorised' by the previous level.

 

I agree with you completely Mr Rolling about the quality of the report...
... but we're apparently wrong to comment, as SCC 'know best'.

 

It's just another example of what is accepted as 'the right way to do things'.

 

These people just can't see how unprofessional they really are...

I think you are wrong. The person named as lead officer has usually written the report. In this case it is a director. You’d expect it to be a senior officer on significant matters like disposal of major assets.

 

The directors and executive directors do actually read and sign off the reports and often have input to them before they are finalised.

 

You can comment all you like, but the reports are like that because the councillors ( who receive the reports and actually take the decisions) want them formatted in that way. These are usually published, so they are public documents. If you have a look at the reports that most councils produce, they follow a very similar format. They have to be specific about certain impacts, to fulfil legal / policy requirements, so things often get repeated in different places in a report.

[Planner1]

47 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Oh dear!

Are people really so dumb that they can't 'see' what's happening here?

Does EVERYTHING have to be spelt out in words of one syllable?

No-one is saying a 'menial' has MADE the DECISION...
... just that a report is required by the 'SCC instruction manual' to tick all the boxes to back up a decision THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE!

So any old bit of tat will do, so long as it AGREES with the decision...

Does anyone seriously think that the councillors who are in charge and the relevant officers don’t discuss and agree what’s going to happen before reports like this are written?

 

The public report that you see is the culmination of a process. The report and it’s subsequent discussion and agreement (or not) by councillors is part of the legal governance process required to implement decisions and run the council.

 

Theres nothing wrong with that. It’s basically logistically impossible to have the end to end process on a matter like this one completely transparent and viewable by the public ( although you could find a lot of it via FOI requests if you were interested) 

 

It was implied by another poster that a “menial” would have actually written the report. That isn’t the case nowadays. The reports state who has actually authored them ( ie the Lead Officer) and in this case it’s the director. When I wrote reports for the council, my name was on them as Lead Officer.

[bassett one]

so when will this new idea of flats take place? how many offices are empty ? and while they are empty this is costing SCC money is it not?

[HeHasRisen]

Selling a building doesnt happen overnight, you do know that dont you?

[saywhatnow]

24 minutes ago, bassett one said:

so when will this new idea of flats take place? how many offices are empty ? and while they are empty this is costing SCC money is it not?

The moorfoot building isn't empty, it just isn't used to capacity because SCC have still got a large amount of staff working from home

[hackey lad]

I didn’t think they were selling it . I thought it was a Council job