Rotherham Politics updates readers on the continuing saga of the basic abuse of power:
Latest first, as usual.
Dear Mr Kimber,
Thank you for your courteous response, the contents of which I have noted.
Mr Battersby would be able to achieve significantly more credibility and respect with Wickersley and Bramley residents if he were to articulate himself in the same professional, measured and very eloquent way that you have displayed in your e-mail to me.
Instead he chooses to ape the responses, behaviour and attitude of the Cabinet Member, Regeneration and Environment, and so although he may consider himself to be diligently employed on the betterment of Rotherham, his efforts are not recognised as he lacks credibility or respect – two vital elements which I am sure you will agree are fundamental to establishing a satisfactory working relationship among equals.
I now consider this matter closed and do not wish to take you away from the many other important civic tasks which I have no doubt you need to complete.
Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton
On Tue, 24/7/12, ChiefExecutive <ChiefExecutive@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: ChiefExecutive <ChiefExecutive@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: RE: COMPLAINT – VEHICLE OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC FOOTPATH OUTSIDE TOWN HALL TOWERS
To: Don Buxton
Date: Tuesday, 24 July, 2012, 12:03
Dear Mr Buxton,
Thank you for your e mail dated 20th July.
One of the things I have found since I returned to work in South Yorkshire is the pride and passion of local people for their town and community. Many apply this passion in very positive ways, and it helps the town tremendously.
I see the same sense of pride and passion in council employees. These are people who are often criticised unfairly in some quarters. However, I have no doubts we try our very best in difficult circumstances. Many are rightly proud of what they do and what the Council is able to achieve with and on behalf of residents and local business.
As I know Mr Battersby well I can say he would not intentionally seek to offend anyone. I have always found him to have a helpful and measured approach in his dealings with people. He is also proud of the things that he and his colleagues have achieved and continue to try to do to improve Rotherham .
Lots of residents and businesses have helped to improve the town centre too. By supporting the buy local campaign, visiting for events such as the Jubilee or Olympics celebrations, by investing in their businesses, or by investing their time in other ways such as stewarding events. These are examples of local people providing strong positive support and what this can achieve
I have read the correspondence you have sent to me. I do not think it represents the personal criticism you have taken although I accept this is the way you have interpreted it otherwise you would not have taken the trouble to write to me.
The point that I think is being made is a simple one. Investment funding is very tight and there is competition for it. Towns that give out a unified message that they have confidence in their future and are a good place to do business are more likely to attract investment than those who do not. The town will only thrive if we can attract appropriate investment and this is not an easy task in the current financial climate.
I acknowledge there is still more to do with the town centre. However, I do not think that should deflect from the fact that in the last few years significant improvements have been made at a time when many other town centres have suffered badly.
I agree that correspondence should confine itself to dealing with the issue rather than using personal or emotive language. Some of the correspondence the Council receives does not always do this however it is pleasing to know yours will not fall into this category.
Yours Sincerely
Martin Kimber
Chief Executive
Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk
I wish to bring to your personal attention the words used in an e-mail to me by one of your subordinate employees, and which I am forwarding to you for your comments and observations.
This is the statement of his which I find to be totally offensive and grossly unprofessional:
“Lastly, I strongly disagree with the comments that you make regarding the town centre. I would have hoped that as a local resident you would want to support the town centre and not make disparaging comments about it. The evidence would suggest that many do not share your view, given the significant and ongoing increases that we have seen in the footfall figures, the many new businesses that have opened and the significant improvements in the look and feel of the place.”
I find your employee’s use of such a specific personal value judgement towards me to be completely inappropriate. I am not interested in whether your employee finds my words or opinions to be disparaging or otherwise.
He may privately choose not to share my point of view but nonetheless as a lifelong Rotherham resident, citizen, voter and ratepayer, and coincidentally the provider of the financial resource which keeps him in such a secure, highly-paid and comfortable employment and pension, it is neither necessary nor professional for him to give me his private opinions about me and the views and opinions that I may hold.
I may choose to disbelieve RMBC propaganda that Rotherham town centre is now riding the crest of a new era in terms of civic, commercial, industrial and economic output, activity, employment and economic success in the face of a world recession unprecedented since the Great Depression, but it remains my absolute right to form an opinion based on my interpretation of any information I choose to access or not.
Do you personally condone and encourage your subordinate and junior employees to respond to “customers”, ratepayers, residents and voters in such a manner, or is this merely the lone response of a subordinate employee who is now adopting the boorish behaviour and attitude of the Cabinet Member to whom they regularly report?
Lastly, I would have accepted, but disagreed with the response from your subordinate employee, apart from the contentious paragraph which I have highlighted.
Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton
On Fri, 20/7/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT – VEHICLE OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC FOOTPATH OUTSIDE TOWN HALL TOWERS
To: Don Buxton
Date: Friday, 20 July, 2012, 11:53
Mr Buxton, thank you for your email. Apologies that I did not treat your email as a formal complaint. Previously when I had treated them as complaints, you were clear you did not want them treated as such. That is my mistake, as you had clearly badged this email as a complaint.
That said, I had thought that we had concluded this matter in our previous exchange, in which you were clear that you did not want to waste further time on this issue.
I can provide the following response to the points raised in your complaint. However, let me be clear, that this will be the last correspondence on this matter.
1. What parking enforcement steps you intend to initiate against the inconsiderate and parking-fee-evading driver of this very expensive saloon.
None.
2. If you don’t intend to initiate enforcement steps please supply categoric and specific legal reasons why this is not your intent.
As stated previously, the vehicle in question is a fleet vehicle leased by Rotherham MBC and is therefore a statutory vehicle. The Traffic Management Act 2004 allows for statutory vehicles to be exempt from parking restrictions when being used for official duties. This is the official Mayoral car, whilst ET1 is off the road.
3. Will you advocate and approve such inconsiderate and fee-evading parking for me, or any other Rotherham citizen voter and ratepayer?
No.
4. If “No” in relation to (3) above, please explain in detail why not.
I would have thought it was obvious
5. Will you be issuing specific instructions to your Parking Enforcement Manager and his/her staff that similar parking of any vehicles, RMBC or otherwise, unless engaged in specific recorded statutory or emergency service duties is not tolerated in any circumstances and will result in enforcement action being taken against the registered owner and driver of the vehicle by way of a Parking Penalty Notice.
No.
6. If “No” to (5) above, please explain in detail why not.
It is not necessary. My team are well trained, are already well aware of the parking regulations and restrictions, and carry out their duties in a comprehensive and efficient manner.
Lastly, I strongly disagree with the comments that you make regarding the town centre. I would have hoped that as a local resident you would want to support the town centre and not make disparaging comments about it. The evidence would suggest that many do not share your view, given the significant and ongoing increases that we have seen in the footfall figures, the many new businesses that have opened and the significant improvements in the look and feel of the place.
Regards
Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk
Thank you for the brief partial response to my Complaint, which you had delegated to your subordinate employee to respond to. Please inform me how RMBC will formally finalise this Complaint in line with its Corporate Complaints Policy.
I now feel a little more enlightened, but still concerned, that the parking-fee-evading, lazy and inconsiderate parking of this vehicle was due to the current Mayor’s unwillingness to walk like us ordinary citizens and to gain a healthful benefit from such simple cardio-vascular exercise.
I suppose I shall have to grudgingly continue to pay my RMBC Parking Fee to park my private motor vehicle, and unlike the current Mayor, then walk to my destination, on the handful of visits that I now annually make into Rotherham’s drab, dreary, deserted and derelict town centre.
Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton
On Fri, 20/7/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT – VEHICLE OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC FOOTPATH OUTSIDE TOWN HALL TOWERS
To: Don Buxton
Date: Friday, 20 July, 2012, 8:42
Mr Buxton, I noticed the vehicle myself earlier this week, and on speaking to the town hall attendants was advised that the vehicle in question is on loan as replacement for the mayoral car ( ET1) which is in the garage due to problems with the brakes. I have responded to the other points previously.
Regards
Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Like this:
Like Loading...
