PROFESSOR Steven Broomhead has been appointed chief executive of Warrington Borough Council on a permanent basis.
Councillors voted him into the job at a meeting of the full council.
Professor Broomhead – who held the post previously before becoming chief executive of the former North West Development Agency – has been acting as interim chief executive since June last year after the resignation of predecessor Diana Terris.
The post was advertised nationally and the council’s chief officer employment committee interviewed shortlisted candidates in November last year, but could not make a unanimous decision and resolved to re-advertise the vacancy.
The committee was again unable to make an appointment in October this year despite a competitive market.
It was then agreed to ask Professor Broomhead to stay in post on a permanent basis.
Broomhead re-appointed to top job
3434 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
34 Comments
So did the prospect of working with the Labour Junta put off any decent candidates?
All the best Steve, In the time I worked at the council I always found Steve Broomhead to be a person who was professional in his attitude to the job., He held road shows asking the workforce for their opinions. This is a man with a vast experience of public services.
Lets not forget that it was Steven who was brought in to sort the mess that his predecessor had left this council in.
All the best for the future Steven.
A good appointment. In these days where councillors think they have superior technical knowledge to officers, senior managers are getting very disillusioned with working in local government.
Why senior officers should ever feel disillusioned working for local government is beyond the belief of their counterparts in the private sector. Who would not want to work in a blame free environment where no one is ever held accountable or takes responsibility for their actions? Or if they are unfortunate to slip up in a big way they are moved on blamefree to pastures new and more than likely a salary increase to bolster their final salary related, tax payer funded pension, protected until 2025. Most private sector senior managers would give their eye teeth for this level of job security and renumeration. I’ll wager they would be willing to take full responsibility for their actions into the bargain; especially if their pensions were protected instead of plundered.
And you have the necessary knowledge to make these claims?
As for benefits of the no blame culture, examples there are many so many. For starters several of those in the Mid Staffs hospital regrettable situation and the QCC which wrongfully gave it a clean bill of health (no pun intended). Look no further than the former man in charge at MSH who then went on to become head honcho of the NHS. Their salaries and by extension their gold plated protected pensions are all very high. Except of course the MSH whistleblower whose career is in ruins.That is not to say private sector levels of renumeration are not some times high to match responsibilities. But when those recipients make a mistake they usually have to fall on the swords and in some cases be denuded of any honours with which they might have been bestowed. Confirmation public sector pensions were protected until 2025 was published last week when the minister announced he was relaxing private sector pension rules so that final salary related pensions would become a thing of the past.
What technical knowledge would that be? The technical knowledge to break the law by destroying the borough’s entire planning record? The technical knowledge to cover it up for four years? The technical knowledge to maladministrate on a number of planning issues? The technical knowledge to cause the failure of the children’s services department? The technical knowledge to paint the roads around Bridgefoot incorrectly causing weeks of chaos? The technical knowledge to argue that it’s dangerous for kids to greet a lollipop man, even though the HSE say it isn’t? Or how about the technical knowledge to allow a large industrial plant to be built with your knowledge but without planning permission or environmental accreditations?
I’m sure other people have their own favourites but do tell. 🙂
You didn’t disapoint me. As I have said to you before, you (and me) don’t know what ‘dabbling’ councillors have had in all these situations.
And you have the necessary knowledge to make that supposition?
Not for WBC, but for local government in general.
Public sector pensions are not gold plated. Employee contribution rates have risen twice in recent years, and the return rate has gone down. From 2014 final salary pensions will be based on career average rates, so won’t be final salary pensions for any new entrants to the scheme. The good old days have gone with final pension schemes have gone, which I understand has to happen.
Equally predictable was that a) you would play the man not the ball and b) because you don’t like the facts, you’d make up some new ones you do like.
We are not talking about local government in general, but the list of failures of employees of Warrington Borough Council and the overwhelming evidence that they think the town is their personal fiefdom, they are not answerable to the electorate and they can get away with absolutely anything.
Stable doors and bolting horses spring to mind – a bit like the financial logic used to misleadingly chalk up yesterday’s Autumn Statement. The effect of public sector gold plated pensions, recent tinkerings notwithstanding, will continue to be felt by us (ie taxpayers) for many many years to come. If you doubt me have a look at the increases in pension provision local authorities, the Police, NHS et al are having to make. It was unsustainable and verging on a giant ponzi scheme or scam. Perhaps the good old days of public sector final salary pension schemes have gone, but their consequences linger on.
Sorry, you’ve completely lost me this time…………………………… what “facts” have I made up??
Out of Warrington, the following extracts from an Institute of Fiscal Studies paper on public sector renumerations why further confirm my concerns.
“1) Public spending on public service pensions, having risen dramatically over the last forty years, is set to fall as a share of national income. Nevertheless Public sector workers will still have much more generous pensions than those typically available to their private sector counterparts.
“2) Decisions over the rates of accrual and indexation mean that the latest reforms might not save money in the long term. Lower earners are likely on average to benefit from the reforms, while higher earners will lose somewhat. These distributional consequences enhance rather than diminish the differences between public and private sector labour markets.
“3) Average hourly wages of public sector workers are 24.3% higher than those in the private sector.
“4) After taking into account these differences, average hourly wages are estimated to be 8.3% higher in the public sector than in the private sector.
The government’s proposed squeeze on public sector pay, which is to run until 2014–15, will roughly eliminate this unintended increase.
After taking into account differences in age and education, lower-paid workers have a greater estimated public sector pay premium than higher-paid workers. The government is relatively protecting the lowest-paid in the public sector. Lower earners will also typically gain, and high earners lose, from the public service pension reforms. Both enhance rather than diminish the differences between public and private sector labour markets.”
All public sector jobs are advertised (even Chief Exec of WBC!), so anyone could have applied for them (past tense as there aren’t too many about at the moment), so anyone who feels aggrieved about not having a public service pension – your loss! Anyway, it’s the civil service pensions that are a real strain on the economy, not local government ones.
I’m sorry that is a selfish argument and won’t stand scrutiny in face of the facts. The days of I’m alright Jack have passed, however unpalatable that may be. Only someone from with a cloistered local government sinecure would say – ‘anyone could have applied for the job(s) so those who did not – your loss’ and then add civil service pensions are the drain not ours. A view that overlooks public spending in all its guises – Civil Service, Local Government, NHS, Police, etc is what is really putting a strain on the economy. It has been doing so for decades and sooner or later was bound to catch up with us. Public spending in toto is a drain on this country’s economy, not some other element of it other than yours. The IFS extract clearly demonstrates all aspects of public sector cost, job security, pensions as well as wage/salary rates, are out of synch with those of the private sector. We continue along this path at our peril, because without a vibrant productive and profitable private sector we would be unable to pay for our public sector, without borrowing and we’re doing too much of that already.
It’s not “a selfish argument” it’s a statement of fact. That’s one of the main problems with society today, people only moan about how hard done by they are instead of getting off their backsides and doing something about it.
The fact that the problem is ‘councillors dabbling’. I’ve got plenty of evidence that those things are the failures of employees, whereas you’ve got…..?
I never said it was fact – that was your interpretation. But then again, a lot of the stuff you say is based on your interpretation, not fact or common sense. I don’t disagree that officers get things wrong (everyone is human), but what never comes out in the wash, is what political dabbling/influence/bullying (delete as applicable) has been going on.
I doubt for one minute you will understand or appreciate this, but thank you for taking an interest!
You have sidestepped the issue gone pejorative. I have worked in both the public and private sector, been made redundant then looked for and found work. So your mantra to stop moaning, get off my backside and do something about it is ill directed. Your stance is almost that of the early socialists promoting their egalitarian dream from the comfort of sizable private family incomes.
Whether you choose to believe it or not it is an inarguable fact that public sector pay, pensions and job security (not just those in the civil service) are “much more generous than those typically available to their private sector counterparts” as the IFS study and my own experience confirms. I go further to say, despite that generousity, the public sector’s attitude towards making employees responsible or accountable for their actions is overly lenient (on occasion extremely so) than the private sector. I won’t expand on that, you draw your own conclusions on its impact on public sector job availability and etc.
Unless you know the detail of what greyman is referring to you are the one doing the supposing. No one disputes officers, being human, occasionally get things wrong. But would you say the almost wholesale destruction of planning records could reasonably be called just getting this wrong? Would also say that covering up the destruction for four or so years whilst dispensing and briefing on planning matters could also be just another instance of getting it wrong? Do you know the details of the other officer mess up which greyman refers?
“Pejorative” – not at all! If you would have read my post you would see I am referring to “society” in general, not you.
If Greyman has got “evidence” why hasn’t he taken it to the police or the local government ombudsman? The planning thing is old hat, and if there were any serious/legal action to have been taken against officers, it would have happened by now!
Or the council would have dealt with it another way. Firstly by denying any of it happened then by commissioning a report that looked at parts of what happened but without asking why or obliging the people responsible to take part. Then quietly letting some of those involved and still employed by the council find employment elsewhere in the public sector. Anything other than deal with it head on in fact because what might emerge would be too big an issue to deal with. Those facts are public knowledge.
So, anyway. You are going to supply details of councillor’s dabbling and bullying in this case and others, aren’t you?
And still the point remains that public sector employees are far less likely to be held accountable for their mistakes / incompetence / corruption than employees elsewhere. Even when children die, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, nobody is ever responsible even those earning six figure sums to accept that responsibility. No wonder it keeps happening.
“The planning thing is old hat” = Local Govt speak for “lack of accountability and never being responsible for one’s actions”.
You’re all talk, I don’t think you have any evidence other than has been in the public domain. The stuff I have seen with cllr’s isn’t in Warrington, but I never said it was, so shouldn’t be of any interest to you.
Prove that first statement. I have worked more in the private sector than the public sector, and believe you me I have seen plenty of cover ups and incompetency. So come on then, what do you/did you do for a living?
Well I have what’s in the public domain, whereas you appear to have absolutely nothing. You keep being asked to back up your opinions and never do.
I can tell you I have complex views on the comparisons between private sector and public sector organisations. For example I know that very large private sector organisations generally have more in common with the public sector in terms of their culture, levels of accountability, rates of absenteeism than they do with small businesses. Prove that first statement? Read the news. As for giving you even more ammunition with which to attack me personally, I don’t think so.
“Prove that first statement? Read the news” – Don’t believe everything you read, or see, in the news! Sorry if you feel I have been attacking you personally, but if you want to put your thoughts/opinions/allegations in the public domain, they will be challenged.
You’re not challenging my opinions. And obviously I don’t believe everything I read or I wouldn’t have the views I have on some things. What is beyond opinion is the predictable and routine response of large organisations in both the public and private sector. It’s rare for senior managers to be held accountable either for their actions or the things that go wrong on their watch, but are happy to take personal credit when things go right. They may sacrifice somebody expendable, but only if it doesn’t throw the spotlight back on them. Better on the whole, they think to blame ‘systems’ or external agencies or maybe publish a report or instigate an inquiry with a remit that ensures the correct conclusions can be drawn.
And they’ll do all of that even in the most serious cases, for example where children die and even if it means the failures perpetuate. I can point to exactly this culture and pattern of behaviour in local government (including WBC), central government and larger private sector organisations including the banks. I don’t even consider it a matter of opinion. It just strikes me as fact.
We seem to have come full circle to Out of Warrington’s first comment approving the appointment. Maybe in a time honoured local government approach perhaps. But, not as far as the people of Warrington are concerned, because in his interim role the appointee presided over what greyman described at 10:38 on 10 December. And in so doing continued the process of failing to hold people to account or make them responsible for their actions.