[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] I shall raise that.
[Anita:] [LAUGHTER]
[Rob:] He says.
[Richard:] Big problem.
[Anita:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Look at me like that for Anita.
[Anita:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Nothing else that needs to
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker006:] Could I go back to three environmental group, please David, er I've had er quite good news, Ford have agreed to er three diesel cars in their fleet for us to try.
[David:] Oh, right.
[speaker006:] But they're going to be the smaller version, they're going to be Escorts and Fiestas, I think people need encouraging to use them, cos
[David:] Well
[speaker006:] they'll extend their fleet if we do give a demand.
[David:] Alright, we don't, people don't specify do they what car they want,don don't you just provide it?
[speaker006:] Usually they they they specify, people like our Roller.
[David:] Do they, oh?
[speaker006:] Yes, and they tend to be larger cars.
[David:] Well it stops the top from specifying.
[Richard:] Yes.
[Anita:] Yes.
[Richard:] Get the diesels to tow it.
[speaker006:] Right.
[David:] We've certainly had Escorts before, er
[Richard:] Oh yes, yes, quite frequently.
[David:] Anything else? Alright. Oh perhaps I should just report briefly that erm the erm changing over of erm erm some stage twos from my sub team to other sub teams became a necessary when Fiona returned very shortly afterwards. So grateful thanks to those people for all offering.
[Anita:] Steve, one thing that there was mention to that and I've got a some pass it on just for people to
[David:] Erm
[Anita:] or leave it
[David:] a bit I think. Er typing then, which seems to be generally satisfactory, although a bit of a hole in upon sub team one, it was a
[Anita:] I think that was probably just one er one car load where there was a reporter in it, which is unclear at the moment.
[Graham:] [whispering] Come on John,. []
[David:] Oh I see, it's just one file is it?
[Anita:] Mhm, yes.
[David:] For the twenty ninth, oh good. Erm, right that gets us to the er performance analysis, and er graphs. I was looking at er the first page the which brings together the sub team figures, erm, looks to me as though the completed work reflects the priority that we're giving to stage two work, and I think we continue to weeding, particularly, remain anxious to clear out of the system as soon as possible all old stage two files, and I propose to continue to revue progress on those and with each A D as I see them. Erm, do you want to say anything about, anyone else want to say anything about page one?
[Rob:] Alright.
[David:] The second page which is Rob's sub team.
[Rob:] A fairly striking increase in June.
[Anita:] I notice.
[Rob:] Erm, which has certainly been noticeable, is likely to cause a few problems, because in August are off, and so on. However, there's nothing we can do about that. It seems to have hit us more than anyone else for some reason.
[David:] Marlene doesn't think so, I am an. Richard, do you want to say anything about yours?
[Richard:] Erm, I was going to mention, as Rob has done the increase in new complaints, which I think is somewhat welcome erm, we're still taking a long time from the averages over the last twelve months, I think that's just reflecting being out some days over the ones you've been talking about, er, we're down on actual stage one equipments in the month erm, we're not quite sure why that is, mm it's just the way things have panned out.
[Anita:] [whispering] []
[Richard:] No, no member of stage two's gone out in the last month.
[Anita:] [whispering] Forty nine. []
[David:] Right. Chris's were average stage one time seems to be creeping up.
[Graham:] That has something to do with erm Jill's doesn't it?
[David:] Well not really, because the the erm the that due'll be nineteen weeks doesn't include er the
[Graham:] No, that they
[David:] Leeds Post Office one, because they
[Graham:] They're all December.
[David:] before hand. That the significance about that Leeds thing is that there's a, I don't know how many complaints there are in that multiple altogether. A hundred and fifty?
[Graham:] A hundred and thirty five.
[David:] A hundred and thirty five, erm, all of which did take
[Graham:] Twenty eight weeks, I think it was.
[David:] Yes, so that until they drop out of the system erm, erm, a year from when that stage one decision was making, the teams over the sub teams overall stage one times are likely to be erm considerably higher than they will be in the month immediately after that er multiple has dropped out. Er, but I I think actually that the nineteen weeks er in June re is largely caused of er some clearing out of cupboards on the part of Jill, prior to her maternity leave. Er, Marlene, er do you want to say anything about your?
[Marlene:] The, I mean it's only anecdotal, but it feels to me as though the the increase they experienced in June has continued into er July, I know that's not what we're looking at but it it feels that way, erm
[Anita:] Thing was we had an awful lot of complaints last July, so it may not show an increase overall.
[David:] Also the the June figure may reflect a erm er a catching up on May. I mean, May seems to have been a light month,
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] although I guess it probably always is, and er
[Rob:] Did you check the seasonality with Chris?
[Graham:] Erm, that's come into the graph later on,
[Rob:] Mm.
[Graham:] But,basical erm June and July, er erm and August are always fairly busy.
[Richard:] Before we leave erm seventeen fours erm sheet, the there was a question I'd have, I think it's probably addressed to Graham rather than anything, nothing personal about this, [LAUGHTER] er, the actual state of equivalent in the month, the third figure down in the last box
[Graham:] Yep.
[speaker006:] erm, why is it so much higher than the similar figure, the same figure for, my sub team, when I had the same number of stage one decisions and one more stage two decision?
[Graham:] That same mistake, erm I
[speaker006:] I did it in a hundred and twenty three, the actual stage one equivalent in the month if
[Graham:] It's ninety, that should be ninety one,
[David:] Torched in ninety one?
[Graham:] One seven six should be ninety one.
[David:] No it shouldn't should be a hundred and twenty three.
[Richard:] No it's
[Graham:] Seventy sixty three.
[David:] Twelve times four, for
[Graham:] Sorry, twelve times f
[Richard:] Four twelves are forty forty eight, for nineteen seventeen five.
[Graham:] Forty eight into somethings..
[David:] I i is that a mistake which i did I get them
[Richard:] Doesn't work anywhere else does it?
[Rob:] Is that reflected in the
[Graham:] I haven't checked anything.
[Rob:] cumulative figure then?
[Graham:] Erm, I doubt it, as that figure is, erm based upon the figures from the erm
[David:] Yeah.
[Graham:] from the main sheet. It's, it's not a, it's, I don't add the sheets up together to get to the er top sheet.
[David:] No, right. Okay, that's fine.... Yes. Doesn't effect the the front figure.
[Graham:] No.
[Richard:] No.
[David:] Oh, well, sorry about that er Marlene.
[Marlene:] Mm.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Yes, my apologies for raising it.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Rob:] It's been nice knowing you.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[David:] Alright, if we look at the, look at the graphs on forecasting complaints, erm, said it's to my mind it's interesting, being about how the the choice of scale is going to affect one's perception here.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] Yes.
[David:] If you think about, it's very difficult for looking at graph one than er than er looking at the more settled line on graph two, which is actually the same thing if you abide by that
[Rob:] Yes, it is, yes.
[Richard:] Yes that's right.
[Graham:] It is.
[David:] Er
[Rob:] You could do it even better if you want with a straight line, if it's stretch the scales to infinity.
[David:] Erm, so there's a there's a slight up turn erm in June by comparison with June last year. Erm, but because last July was very heavy, er, you're expecting Graham that erm w we might well be showing a down turn again next month and that's what
[Graham:] I think we
[David:] the last graph
[Graham:] That's what
[David:] erm does is is project us on, erm,
[Graham:] Er erm July, er June is erm, according to Chris's seasonality figures, normally about erm twelve percent higher than the mean, erm so if they'll take the mean at about, at being about three hundred and fifty, you know we're looking at a figure of somewhere just over four hundred for July, as opposed to last July which was erm I think five er four hundred and ninety four complaints in the month, so it's very unlikely that that output figure will continue going up next month.
[Richard:] Yo your figures after Ju, July over to December in the third graph are all, to put it politely, guesses.
[Graham:] They are, they're guesses, they're using the current mean of three hundred and fifty one, erm, and then tilting that according to the seasonality er that's shown over the last five years.
[Richard:] Right.
[David:] That I think gets us to the erm paper which I put down this morning, erm based upon erm primarily based upon that last erm graph,an and Graham's best estimate of our likely out turn for this year, because they erm, in fact you're, erm you're reckoning that the erm, the number of complaints we receive by the thirty first of March next year, it'll be four two fo four two, is your best seasonally adjusted guess.
[Graham:] And, er erm, based on three months and that's been a g could be wildly out, but at the moment it seems to be.
[Richard:] Mhm.
[David:] Which would be slightly down on er the number that we got in last year, erm, the next factor, erm, is not as yet a fact but is almost a certainty, that, er, all, we will not succeed on the present basis in persuading D O E that we should have any increase in t to reflect er er an increase in work, and next year we're anticipating getting in effect a stand still budget. Erm, although I think we will say that that would be dangerous thing to do and that we should continue to work upon the er the assumption that there erm er overall as a n, a nine percent increase, but, that seems highly unlikely that will succeed, erm What I've then done is take account of the various staffing changes that there have been during the year, both short term and long term, erm, and you'll see that produces a figure actually available to us this year of twenty seven thousand five hundred and eighty eight investigative hours, erm which is slightly less than we had last year, er but erm almost not significantly so, erm and it seemed to me therefore that if we weren't trying to reduce times, er, if we were saying that we would turn in times at the end of this year which were the same as the term times we turned in at the end of last year we could probably achieve that without any further recruitment. But of course we are trying to er, to reduce times. Erm, now I can produce some variants on the next few figures, they, this is the one in the third paragraph which says that two thousand eight hundred, er took two eight nine one two, er, hours would be needed this year, that is working on the commissions erm current estimate of six percent of complaints going to stage two, erm, the reality in York is that seven point five percent are going to stage two, and if one took account of that reality, and I'm bound to say that in in estimating terms we don't, but if one did take in reality that would push that figure for this year up to thirty thousand four hundred and forty nine. Erm, now bearing in mind that half the year has gone, or will have gone by the time anybody arrived here, erm it seemed to me that where I, my analysis of that situation was that if we were going to achieve our target times, erm, then the theory would seem to be that we ought to make, er, two appointments now, I E two appointments for half the year will be equivalent to one appointment for the year, and that will produce the number of investigative hours which roughly that the formula says we need to knock off the required number of complaints in the required number of times. But then you come to the problem, erm, because for ninety four five, erm, the formula suggests that we would need less staff, that might seem a bit odd but the, the reason is that if you do indeed bring your target times down, then the amount of work which your passing over into the next year is er considerably less, erm than the amount of work which you passed over into this year,
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] the formula assumes that at any er as as of the first of April, half the work has been done on all erm files then outstanding, we've gone into this before, where er we think that that's er er a correct statistical way of erm dealing with things, if therefore you cut the number of er files which are going in, then erm, er I take it if you're cutting the number of stage two files which are being passed over, and that's the area where you're most fighting at er at time we hope, and it has a very, very considerable impact on workload for next year. And so you'll see that working on the commissions six percent estimate, er we only need, according to this, erm just under twenty five thousand hours. If you work on a seven point five figure, then you get up to twenty seven thousand four hundred and twenty seven hours, erm, before next year, erm,... That would leave us with a difficulty I think, because if I were, if we went ahead with the idea of recruiting two people now er we would need to get rid of four of them by, oh four people all together, erm, by er the next financial year, which clearly is not terribly sensible. But where I am is in something of a dilemma, because if we don't recruit anybody now it seems to me unlikely that we will actually manage to reduce our times, that would in tern would mean we'd actually want [LAUGHTER] more staff next year [] erm, so I have set out a series of options.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Tails.
[Richard:] I've got a flat sided coin.
[Anita:] One does need to, going round drunning up drumming up customers, don't forget that. you're knocking on walls.
[David:] Well the problem about, er two two does include, two does include going around drumming up customers, but the difficulty with that is it seems to me that that you'll need to drum up the customers in year one and only get the money
[Anita:] Mhm, exactly.
[David:] in year two, because the er, erm, so where I am
[Anita:] Yes, but you're a two though, I thought this to erm, sort of even up the the work between the three teams
[David:] Your
[Anita:] rather than increasing the overall volume of.
[David:] Er, that's five, really, I think, well two or five. Em, I mean that's good at way I am I think, that what we ought to do is to seek to erm, suggest to the Commission that York should take more of the Commission's total workload, I E to erm take some work from Coventry, and possibly also do a compensating transfer between London and Coventry.
[Rob:] Yes, if one bears in mind that London's situation still seems to be relatively difficult, doesn't it? Erm, it would seem sensible if we look across the whole commission to try and even things out.
[Anita:] Yes but it's the Midlands team that
[Richard:] But I think that if you
[Anita:] has the greater workload at the moment.
[David:] Yes.
[Richard:] Very incoming.
[David:] I mean I, I, wasn't excluding working with them but if
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] speed of through cut and er
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] in other problems.. The other ideal, which I haven't got round to doing would be to try and appoint somebody on a short term basis. Erm, clearly we've got enough op, it would seem that if we could recruit somebody for the rest of this year, and er which would help us get our times down, if in if in fact we were able to recruit somebody who was instantly productive, which is not all that likely.
[Marlene:] Do we know what the erm the wastage rates have been over the last few years?
[Anita:] Small.
[Graham:] Very little ever occurs.
[Anita:] less than one a year after.
[David:] I I that's a problem that in terms of could see whether our natural wastage in er would would cope with it.
[Rob:] Actually
[Anita:] We're a long way off retiring yet, Marlene.
[Richard:] Until, until, this last year.
[Karen:] [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] where er I mean, we have had two resignations, er
[Anita:] Yes.
[Richard:] this last year, which
[Rob:] What you said a moment ago makes me wonder er about some of these calculations, because it, I take it assumes erm instant productivity,
[David:] Yes.
[Graham:] Yes.
[Rob:] and y you can't calculate things any other way, I suppose, but in fact er n ne new appointees will not be instantly productive, and therefore will
[Graham:] They tend to be.
[Rob:] not in the vast measure reduce particular stage two workloads or times, erm
[Graham:] I think they're more productive than we sometimes give give credit for
[David:] We'll they, you get an early burst.
[Graham:] You particularly get a burst and then you get a then you get
[David:] That's right.
[Graham:] a slow down or particularly.
[David:] That's
[Graham:] But, but it's still very useful.
[Anita:] Well you get them up to stage one fairly quickly, it's the stage two isn't it.
[Graham:] Because of the erm because of the erm of the total times involved, inevitably the stage two's are going to be, it's it's going to be in the second year that you're going to see reasonable output from them, [cough] not in first year.
[Rob:] What's the reality of, supposing we took two on, and supposing the number of complaints steadied, or even fell, and the target times came way down, we're meeting everything. What are we really talking about when saying we would have to reduce the numbers of staff? Are we really talking about redundancies? Because if we are that clearly
[David:] But
[Rob:] conditions a great deal of what we do.
[David:] I think you're only talking about redundancies if we can't erm take some short term work from elsewhere, er as opposed to, I mean, I'm suggesting at the moment we take stock a longer time
[Rob:] Yeah.
[David:] transition, erm clearly, er it would be a nonsense if we were making people redundant here ing if er either London or Coventry were struggling to cope with their
[Richard:] Quite.
[David:] er present work, and so I mean, you, you, could say we'll take it, er two or three hundred complaints from London, and buy time I suppose, erm to see if if if er work up here had picked up or natural wastage went or what ever, erm, if it didn't go up then, I mean in the long term, erm one couldn't envisage keeping on with more staff than what's thought to be a fairly generously assessed formula anyway, says we need.
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] I mean the the formula, er, is not likely to be underestimating the number of staff we're needing, if anything it overestimates it, we think. Right.
[Graham:] There's about five unpredictable variables in all of this, which is essentially
[Anita:] The immediate problem is we're going to be three members of staff down fairly shortly.
[David:] Well
[Richard:] For
[David:] You're not, well by comparison with
[Rob:] Two of, two of them departed for a period of six months.
[Anita:] Yes exactly, for at least six months.
[David:] By comparison with last year, you will be ov overall this year by comparison with last year, er you'll be about point six of a member of staff down.
[Graham:] And how many T Q facilitators are we likely to have?
[David:] Two.
[Graham:] And that's a day a week, as far as I remember.
[Anita:] Mm.
[David:] Yes.
[Graham:] So that's that's quite a lot, if it's an investigator, which of course it may not be.
[Richard:] Well almost certainly it will be, I think.
[Graham:] Well
[Rob:] There also of course the hours that
[Graham:] it's the equivalent, it's the equivalent of two fifths of an investigator.
[David:] Yeah.
[Graham:] Erm
[Rob:] But that is only a relatively short term thing again, and that period will consist
[David:] No, that's
[Marlene:] Three years.
[David:] the long term.
[Marlene:] Three years?
[Rob:] Three years? Yes, I suppose so.
[Graham:] A lot can change in three years.
[David:] Yes that's true, that's true.
[Graham:] And will, I've no doubt.
[Richard:] I don't think anyone will go and gamble though on a lot changing in six months, which is the immediate problem, and you co
[Anita:] Mm.
[Rob:] Quite.
[Richard:] you would take it, not want to take somebody on if we're actually going to make any body redundant next year.
[Graham:] No, absolutely not.
[Richard:] Other, unless anybody that you have seen and wo take your fancy is available on a short term, fixed term contract.
[Graham:] I think only those who are unemployed are likely to be attracted by that, and I'm not sure how many we've got.
[Anita:] Wasn't there some talk about Tricia wanting to come back to work?
[Rob:] I, I, something floated in front of my eyes that she was thinking of applying on part time for the complaint examiner, but she didn't.
[Graham:] I mean that is one area as the the complaint examiner matter where we've got, erm at the moment, erm the first corpus twenty eight percent going out in twenty six five, erm, which takes the food up, er a lot of those know will be going, I imagine, be going through investigators rather than
[Rob:] Well they will be going through P as if everything goes
[Graham:] Well, yes, yes. Okay.
[Rob:] goes to plan. Erm
[Graham:] And the the er formulas actually actually er reckon that we need erm three point seven complaint examiners at the moment.
[Rob:] I think that shows something wrong with the formula.
[Graham:] Well, except that work on the submission of twenty five percent going through the complaint examiner.
[Anita:] Mm. Well certainly, you know, I think there there is work looking at the files that go through me, there is work for a second complaint examiner, because a lot of the files from investigators are actually fairly straightforward now
[Graham:] Yeah.
[Rob:] mm, I know Sarah's not dealing with them, so you know I'm sure that there would be enough work for a complaint examiner, but whether that would then mean investigators were light is is really
[Graham:] Well there is there is an argument that says if P As do the twenty six five work, or the bulk of it, that Sarah might be a one team complaint examiner.
[Anita:] Mm.
[David:] One
[Richard:] For a sub team.
[Graham:] Sorry, for a sub team complaint examiner.
[Anita:] Right.
[Graham:] I mean she is capable of getting through some fairly extraordinary amounts of work. She does get through quite a lot that's true.
[Anita:] Yeah, I
[Graham:] There's a problem also
[Anita:] I foresee problems with with that, there's no, there's a fair amount of travel involved, isn't there?
[Marlene:] Mm.
[Anita:] And,
[Rob:] Yes.
[Anita:] you know, if she's covering a whole area.
[Richard:] I suspect the amount of travel might be capable of being reduced.
[Anita:] Well it might be, but I mean if we carry on on our present system then I would have thought there was too much travel for one person to be covering the whole of the area on the way we're presently using Sarah, cos she does
[Rob:] Cer
[Anita:] go and visit more often.
[Rob:] Certainly on the basis of the way we presently use her, I'm I'm not what wo
[David:] Erm, er, erm, people could extend her times if she did it like she used to do before, because what she used to do is to say she would have a a day in Manchester in a months time
[Anita:] Mm.
[David:] or write you down as time scale, you'd presumably talking about planning up to six weeks perhaps before she trots around.
[Anita:] Never the less, I mean, there is a sheer volume there.
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] Yes.
[David:] However that's a, I mean tha I I I think her, she's always turned in twice the level that the formula assumes, or at least twice
[Anita:] Mm.
[Richard:] That's right.
[David:] the level that the formula assumes a complaints examiner will
[Anita:] That would still give us to complaint examiners, because the formula is nearly four.
[Rob:] What we certainly want to get away from is the present situation where two sub teams don't have a complaint examiner.
[Richard:] That's right.
[Anita:] Yes.
[Richard:] That's right.
[Graham:] It is an imbalanced situation at the moment, it does mean that some investigators are doing types of work which
[David:] They shouldn't really be doing.
[Graham:] They ought not to be doing, literally.
[David:] Mm.
[Marlene:] And for which we are paying too much.
[Rob:] Yes.
[Anita:] Mm. Because ultimately what we're talking about is the cost.
[Richard:] I was going to say Pat's Pat's view is that, is that, Pat's view
[Anita:] Isn't it?
[Richard:] Yes. Pat's view that there is enough work to er have another complaint examiner really means instead of exec investigators.
[Anita:] Yes.
[Richard:] Rather than as well as.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[Anita:] Well it does really, I mean if we, it's a question of whether the budget will stand the staff, isn't it, it's not whether we, er I mean in terms of of redundancies it's whether we cou, if we appointed people we could afford to keep them on, whether or not there was work, I mean we could have create work in some senses. If the D O E won't give us any more money, which they won't do. So you might have a stand
[Richard:] Well
[Anita:] still budget, now you would have some decrease in costs because there would be less phone calls, there would be less paper, less trouble.
[David:] Yes, well when I say stand still budget I mean a stand still on the basis of of saying that there will be no increase in incoming work. Erm,
[Anita:] Yeah.
[David:] I think translating into financial terms that actually means less money, because
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] because they will look at the formula, won't they?
[Anita:] Well exactly, but I mean
[David:] He probably sold it to them.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Anita:] e essentially, I mean the problem is whether the money would stand the the staffing.
[David:] And next year it won't.
[Anita:] Well
[David:] On, on, the
[Anita:] We are assuming it won't.
[David:] Yes.
[Graham:] Cos it does depend, I mean if complaints,
[Anita:] first of all
[Graham:] if complaints fly up obviously that's out the window, but
[Anita:] Well we still won't have the money.
[Graham:] we don't think that'll happen.
[David:] Yes, that's the problem.
[Anita:] Because this is the problem, budgets are being prepared for August.
[David:] If, if, if, if, if
[Graham:] Right.
[David:] if we lose out the argument that we should put in for some increase next year, and and we think it's going to be very difficult to sustain an argument,
[Graham:] Mm.
[David:] then even if we get the increase in work we will not have the staff available to cope with it,
[Anita:] No.
[David:] unless we can divert money from other sources, but that's erm, well I mean that's the reality behind fifteen years of fairly steady growth, and I mean looking at at plateauing out, I think.
[Graham:] So what would be the worst possible picture we could be faced with next year? Erm, we would have enough money to keep the present establishment going?
[David:] No.
[Richard:] No.
[Graham:] Not even enough to do that.
[Richard:] That's the problem with it.
[David:] The worst, the worst possible scenario, would be a need to reduce I think two investigative, if we didn't make any appointments now, a need to reduce er by up to two investigators, should be also including one next year.
[Graham:] Mm.
[David:] But, I mean we're a long way from that, and I don't want people to think that I'm from saying er redundancies are imminent, er
[Graham:] No. But on the other hand appointing people in that light looks a bit odd. When do we know
[David:] Other than, other than on erm a one year, fixed term contract. That, that would be feasible.
[Graham:] How, how do we pay for that though?
[David:] For what?
[Graham:] In the worst case picture, how would we pay for that?
[Rob:] The one year fixed term contract would go six months into the next financial year
[David:] That's right.
[Anita:] Mm.
[Rob:] wouldn't it anyway, so it would be taking a bite out of that reduced cherry.
[David:] Yes. But I'd be prepared to risk that
[Rob:] Right.
[David:] if, if all I was talking about was twenty thousand pounds out of next year, I E six months, erm an investigator, a member of investigative staff, very roughly, costs us forty thousand a year in salary and office costs. Erm
[Rob:] I mean a fixed term contract for a year for a new in, for an investigator, first of all we've got to find someone who would do it, secondly if that person wasn't frankly al already an investigator the investment in that person.
[David:] Oh, were were only talking about complaints examiner I think
[Rob:] Or complaint examiner, but even then the investment in that person if they come at the end of the year go, I I would say, what a waste.
[Anita:] Yes, but you
[Richard:] Clear
[Anita:] you've got the option then if, that if the work did increase and they were satisfactory
[Graham:] They'd fit in.
[Anita:] you could offer them a permanent place.
[Graham:] It could be in your contract.
[Rob:] Yes, that's right.
[Anita:] What you wouldn't have are redundancy costs, because you make people redundant and it also costs money, doesn't it?
[Rob:] Erm, depends how long they've
[Anita:] Well
[Rob:] been here, but
[Anita:] Yes, but I mean there would be
[Graham:] Quite a lot.
[Anita:] I mean if we're talking about existing staff, then it may not be enormous but there is an in there is a cost involved with it,
[Rob:] But there, but
[Anita:] financial as well as emotional and psychological
[Rob:] Well that assumes the person might want to stay anyway, but
[Anita:] Well yes, but
[Rob:] So it's a lot of risks and ifs in that isn't there?
[Anita:] But they would, we had Olar who was very good and who very rapidly was was earning his keep, and he didn't even stay here, so, you know, if you make the right appointment, it's always dodgy that, you know.
[David:] Teresa must have been productive fairly
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] quickly as well in her role.
[Graham:] I think you're probably looking at three hundred complaints, something like that,
[Anita:] Mm.
[Graham:] in the first year
[Anita:] Why?
[Graham:] but a lot of those were tiddlers, that that that maybe it maybe it's better to use experienced investigators, and and because they can do that work so much more quickly anyway, I I don't know, I feel a bit uncomfortable with this one year contract.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] Unless it was somebody we have already used, and that really boils down to one person in York, and she's shown no signs of applying, so.
[David:] The last I heard Trish was going to become a teacher, I mean I I we are supposed to be trying to think about whether we can have a sh a panel that we of people that we can call on for the short term crisis appointments or whatever, but
[Rob:] I thought historically that didn't work very well.
[David:] Well the add hoc panel of investigators didn't work terribly well, but the they the idea of, if there are a pool of ex employees in erm and in the main we're tending to think about er you you're talking about people who've left to have families I suspect, erm, if if there is a pool of them that you can pull in, maybe that would work slightly better.
[Rob:] Yeah.
[David:] Provided they've not been out of the job all that long, I think, cos things change, don't they?
[Anita:] Yes, I mean we're not in the position to do what some of the, certainly I know some of the banks do, which is to guarantee a job after five years, let people have five years, you know, the maternity leave plus a guaranteed job at the end of another four when the kids start school, on the proviso that you can call them in if you need them within that period, for a bit of extra help. To maintain their involvement with the job
[David:] Mm.
[Anita:] but I mean that probably wouldn't appeal to the people we have presently seeking maternity leave. I imagine they would both want to come back anyway.
[Graham:] This is an emergency.
[David:] Sorry, don't you mean the two of them about to go.
[Anita:] Yes, well they're the only two we could be thinking about.
[David:] I mean they, they both firmly saying they're coming back on a full time basis,
[Anita:] Yes exactly.
[Rob:] That's right.
[David:] er for by the end of this calendar year.
[Anita:] Yes.
[David:] So were, they've already, we've already got those in as committed people next year.
[Marlene:] The other fact, I mean there's a lot of uncertain factors, the other one is that as far as I'm aware we actually have quite a large number of people, by comparison with the norm', actively applying for other jobs at the moment.
[David:] Only four to my knowledge, I think.
[Marlene:] I know five.
[Rob:] You think five?
[Marlene:] Oh yes, I think five. Erm
[Graham:] Is that er er er
[David:] Yes but I mean
[Graham:] I mean these aren't the norm', I don't know what the norm is and this is the trouble.
[David:] I
[Graham:] I'm certainly aware tha
[Richard:] It's more than we've had in recent years, judging by the general
[Anita:] We've had a hell of a lot more people, now than we had.
[David:] Ah.
[Richard:] Mm, right.
[Anita:] It's proportional isn't it? How
[David:] I er er
[Marlene:] I mean there's no certainty in in that
[David:] No if people apply
[Marlene:] any of them will actually
[David:] people apply for jobs
[Marlene:] get something, yes.
[Richard:] Yes,
[David:] fairly regularly, I think,
[speaker001:] Yes.
[David:] er some people.
[Richard:] In two cases it's very much a specific one off application,
[Marlene:] Mm.
[Richard:] it isn't an indication that they're going to be applying for any other jobs that come up.
[Marlene:] That's true.
[Graham:] It's also one where the chance of success must be fairly high.
[Marlene:] Fairly high, yes.
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] Yes, well
[Rob:] Well,
[David:] I don't know.
[Rob:] I doubt it actually, I think they, it ought to be but I don't think erm the people appointing are likely to look outside the immediate environs, and
[Richard:] Erm, it would be unsafe, I think, to work on an assumption that what we're going to er one post becoming available through natural wastage per year, and even that erm, highish I think.
[David:] Well, where I currently am is is saying that we should seek to revue the Commission's overall boundaries with a view to us taking on some extra work, and that meanwhile we should suspend further recruitment.
[Rob:] Full stop?
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] No, no complaints examiner, no investigator?
[David:] Yes.
[Anita:] Hemmed in really, and look at the figures for July and August.
[David:] Well yes, I mean clearly they mean keep Lyn
[Anita:] That's what you're saying.
[David:] under review and er
[Anita:] You're saying suspending her, not cancelling.
[Graham:] But is the thing is budget led at this stage, I mean isn't that, are we really, isn't the
[Anita:] Well
[Graham:] isn't the actual setting of the budget the key rather than, I mean if complaints shoot up, but our budget is static then we just got to cope.
[Anita:] Yeah. But I mean that would apply if we appointed.
[Graham:] Yes.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] Yes it would.
[Anita:] Whether we appoint or not.
[Graham:] We when do we know when what what we're going to get next year from D O E.
[David:] Any time between October and February.
[Graham:] Great.
[Richard:] Requires real, that's the reality, I mean.
[Anita:] Indications start coming in. I mean the budget presented will no doubt include an increase, we will put in a budget higher than this year's, I imagine, simply inflation and on costs, we'll will mean an increase over this year's budget, won't they?
[Graham:] Well erm
[David:] Erm, erm, that that's certain, and n a bit more at the end of the month,
[Anita:] Right.
[David:] there may be an expectation that we should, we should be absorbing increase in and getting roughly the same amount of money, but.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] Just like that.
[David:] I mean I take it that nobody wants to recruit un until unless they're certain they can keep,
[Rob:] No, absolutely not.
[David:] the er the existing staff next year.
[Anita:] Mm.
[Graham:] That's right.
[David:] That, that's an ea an easy question to answer.
[Rob:] That's right.
[Marlene:] The the question mark I've got is tha is that I I certainly accept that, it's the it's the question of the work being done at the appropriate level and the erm, the the fact that two sub teams are working without a complaint examiner, and, but I
[Rob:] I was going to say that, I mean if we do do that why don't we move to a position when, I know it's not finalized yet, the P As do the twenty six fives, and we try and adapt Sarah to do the whole s the whole of the four sub teams,ma maybe the threshold has to come down a bit, but but at least we've got some sort of parity of working throughout
[Anita:] Yes.
[Rob:] throughout the organization.
[Richard:] Mm, yes.
[Graham:] I think that may be something we have to look at if er if we're not in a position to recruit another complaints examiner.
[Rob:] I don't see why it shouldn't work. I mean
[Richard:] Mm. I think we're taking twenty six fives out.
[Graham:] We have Well, most of them.
[Richard:] Mm well
[Graham:] Not necessarily all of the them, but most of them, that would leave the straight jurisdictionals and the clear no hopers, maybe the investigators would be getting a few of the ones that otherwise ideally they shouldn't but
[Richard:] Yes, I can en envisage that somewhere, perhaps a visitor's a first step towards clarifying what may be a runner would be taken by Sarah at the moment, but er, which we would put an investigator straight from future, for example.
[Marlene:] How many complaints would a, would we be talking about then?
[David:] I, I, I'm anxious to avoid a situation of double handling of complaints if we can.
[Graham:] No I wasn't, I wasn't meaning that.
[David:] No, well except that it would, it would happen to some extent, I mean the key is whether you, whether or not when a complaint comes in whether you can assess that it's likely to go to
[speaker001:] Mm.
[David:] to a stage two report, isn't it? Or a stage two investigation
[speaker001:] Mm.
[David:] if you can do that, then er only the other on, er all of the other ones can go to Sarah. Our past record on this isn't all that successful, but then again
[Graham:] No it isn't, because I think if you, what you can do very very easily is assess those that are a likely on jurisdictional grounds to be rejected.
[David:] That are
[Graham:] That's, that's
[David:] likely to be rejected?
[Graham:] Likely to be rejected.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Rob:] Yes.
[Graham:] That's a
[Rob:] Oh yes.
[Graham:] fairly easy.
[Rob:] Yes, that's quite easy.
[Graham:] You can also check er, and this this is a tiny percentage, those that are likely to go to a report. The trouble is, in the middle you've got a great gulf of lack of information, and predicting in those
[Rob:] That's right, that's right.
[Graham:] I mean you get, straight, no I object to this planning extension, looks fine, and then you start enquiring and all sorts of nasty things appear
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] so I think we're inerent, inherently, er, unlikely to be able to predict that very well, but certainly if we can get the jurisdictional outs, and the clear no injustices and those to Sarah, then I think we should do that across the four teams, what we've got at the moment is quite distorting as well, in other ways, look at my
[Rob:] Yes, that's right.
[Graham:] performance and my sub team, of course they can clear more complaints than you're sub teams, they're getting the dross in.
[David:] Well they shouldn't do cos cos Richard's got Sarah.
[Richard:] Yes that's right.
[Graham:] Well, Marlene then, sorry. Well you've got are you still recording that
[Rob:] Yes.
[Graham:] you on, oh that's still that's the one two, isn't it?
[David:] There should be an evening out,
[Richard:] Yes, yes
[David:] I mean
[Richard:] it should work itself out.
[Graham:] Yeah, sorry, I'm thinking of er
[Anita:] Mm.
[Rob:] You're looking at individuals
[Graham:] Yeah, I was forgetting that that was that was calculated on the two.
[David:] Yes, you're comparative performances as investigators will, well even that shouldn't differ all that much because those that have got Sarah available to them those are the teams who ought to be capable of concentrating more on their stage two work, shouldn't they?
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] But the reality is of course that those, that my investigators and Chris's will be doing work that strictly speaking they shouldn't be, and I think that's
[David:] Well certainly they, that that, work is being done more expensively there
[Graham:] Yeah.
[David:] than need be the case.
[Graham:] Yeah.
[Marlene:] Do
[David:] Well
[Marlene:] we normally have many complaints from the job?
[David:] we, we, we, we, we've, we've, we've got one decision I think which we are making, which is that we shouldn't at the moment, make any recruitment until we've got confirmation that we can guarantee employment next year,se, secondly I think we're saying that the first appointment that we do want to make is of a complaint examiner, and that if further investigators leave us, then we wouldn't be seeking to replace them as investigators, we'd be seeking to replace with the complaint examiner, that, that, that,
[Rob:] What, to go to three complaint examiners?
[David:] Oh no.
[Richard:] Sorry?
[David:] I'm saying the next appointment to be made is all by, a complaint examiner, what I shouldn't have thought we wanted to do at the moment more than one.
[Rob:] Right.
[Richard:] Mm. Mm.
[David:] Erm
[Rob:] And if a if
[David:] although I mean there may be a er an argument in terms of lowest costing for reviewing generally how many investigators we do need, and
[Rob:] Yes?
[David:] and that's a longer term thing. We're doing in, in, in the short term. We'll be saying is that the first appointment of investigative staff to be made is of a complaint examiner.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Rob:] Sorry, I thought you were going onto say and the next one would also be.
[David:] Well, I I I'm not going to be in anything.
[Rob:] No, I'm the first, I wouldn't want to go that far ahead either.
[Anita:] I think what you're saying that if anybody else leaves, then we might be in a position to make that appointment,
[Richard:] Mm.
[Anita:] maybe.
[David:] W [cough] if anybody else leaves you'd be in a position to make the complaint examiner appointment, you're saying.
[Anita:] Well that, we might be, we'd need
[David:] Yes.
[Anita:] to look at it again wouldn't we, but erm
[David:] Okay.
[Anita:] we'd need to look at it again, wouldn't we? But erm
[David:] Okay.
[Anita:] we'd be more likely to be able to make it.
[David:] Right.
[Richard:] Can we just take check then there how that leaves us with our recurrent recruitment program.
[David:] You have produced, have you, three er potentially appointable complaint examiners.
[Marlene:] Two.
[David:] Two.
[Marlene:] And a reserve, with
[Rob:] So three?
[Marlene:] were there some doubts. Yes. Two definitely appointable, one yes, but with reservations.
[David:] Mhm. Erm, and they've been told that we might not be making any appointment at all?
[Marlene:] No, no. What they were told was that erm a number of, a a short, short list would be made up, erm, with the possibility of them having a second interview, and they would be told one way or another whether or not they were getting a second interview, because we weren't in a position to say whether we were or were not appointing.
[David:] Mm. Right.
[Marlene:] So they will be expecting to hear either they've got a second interview or they haven't.
[David:] Well. The, the minute, the note last time said a pool of cand, they, they will be told that a pool of possible candidat candidates will be contacted to attend for final interview once it's decided to go ahead with the new appointment, so you could the thr the the three, or whatever it is that you are not putting forward, that their, that our interest in them has ceased
[Marlene:] Mhm.
[David:] erm, but are we committed to seeing the other three immediately or are we
[Marlene:] Mm.
[David:] well the where did we we
[Marlene:] No we're not committed.
[David:] say to them erm we've not, we've decided at the moment, or we've not as yet decided to go ahead with the appointment, but when we do
[Marlene:] Mm.
[David:] we will contact you. That, that's what We could say that.
[Marlene:] We could, we could say that, yes.
[David:] Right. Well that would deal with the complaint examiners so
[Rob:] That's
[David:] the investigators, we're at what?
[Richard:] They've got a long list, and I assume that the non long listed candidates have been told?
[David:] Yes, they will have done.
[Rob:] Yes.
[Graham:] Tha, that's out.
[Rob:] The long list have been told that erm, erm, notices were being made at and I think that's right, isn't it?
[Graham:] I'm un, I don't know, actually, I'm not in contact with whose
[Rob:] I'm not entirely clear what was said, but erm, they were certainly given no commitment to an an interview
[Marlene:] Yes, they've been told that there's been a delay in the recruitment process, and that they will be contacted further, I think is what Marg
[Rob:] I think in due course.
[Marlene:] Margaret said,
[Rob:] Mm.
[Marlene:] yes.
[Rob:] Good.
[David:] And their are seven of them in in the
[Graham:] Six and one.
[David:] Well, do we think it's worth at all, it's worth while at all going compared with them.
[Graham:] No, I would have thought not, given that were looking at
[Rob:] We're certainly not in a position to do so at the moment.
[Graham:] we're looking at the most likely scenario being appointing nobody, and if we do appoint somebody a complaint examiner, it seems,
[Anita:] Mm.
[Graham:] seems frankly a waste of time interviewing them.
[Richard:] Presumably we would only be in a position to be considering an investigator if both, we had a erm a greater number of complaints from around the Commission coming into York, and i and further members of staff were to leave.
[David:] Yes, well I
[Richard:] It would have to be a fair, fair accumulation of those two factors.
[David:] What, I had in mind is to get us to a point where if we decided that we do want to recruit somebody we can do that within er er a much shorter time scale than than our
[Richard:] Yes.
[David:] pattern.
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] Er, in other words if we decided erm come the end of this month that yes we're going to take in one or more extra counties from Leicestershire, we would be in a position immediately to erm convene the er rec the appointing panel for a complaint examiner, wouldn't we?
[Graham:] Yeah.
[David:] Er, now if we
[Marlene:] We could
[David:] decided that we wanted a complaint examiner and an investigator, which I admit is unlikely, er we're much further along the, a much longer lead time there.
[Anita:] Mm.
[Graham:] Well, three or four weeks, I suppose, isn't it?
[Marlene:] Yes, we could, if you wish actually cut back the complaint examiner time further because there is a clear, very clear, front runner, who Chris and I both believe is appointable, so if it was a question of getting somebody in more quickly, there is the option of not having the second interview, as long as you're prepared to, you know, to forego that, to get somebody in quickly, but that, I mean that decision can be made at the time.
[Rob:] Of course there's a further complicating factor that if we do actually put the breaks on, people may either lose interest or go get other appointments.
[David:] Yes, but that's a
[Richard:] But that's, that's sort of
[Graham:] Six months at the outside isn't it, this works for?
[David:] Mm.
[Marlene:] In two weeks.
[Graham:] Is that what it is? Why's that?
[Richard:] Well
[Marlene:] I think is not the
[David:] It is although, but that's, er, were thinking of changing that quite radically.
[Marlene:] Mm.
[David:] In my inclinations to actually go ahead with the with the interviewing round for your, er er how many did you say you?
[Graham:] Six.
[Rob:] No, sorry, erm, for the
[David:] Women investigators.
[Marlene:] The investigator.
[Rob:] For the investigator.
[Graham:] Six.
[Rob:] About six, plus one.
[Graham:] I think six plus one, I think that's right.
[David:] And get those to the same stage as the, the complaints examiner.
[Anita:] Because then at least you might be able to write out a few more.
[Rob:] Yes.
[Anita:] You could be quite openly
[David:] We are talking about, with either of those groups, making the appointment from that pool, erm, in fact any time between now and the beginning of the next financial year.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[David:] If they were still available, and they may not be.
[Richard:] You're front runner is, isn't local and unemployed, is he or she, your complaints examiner?
[Marlene:] No.
[Richard:] No.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Although presumably
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Marlene:] Sadly not. Has to get
[speaker001:] Is there still private practices? No?
[Marlene:] Just give a months notice.
[Graham:] Where?
[Marlene:] Bristol....
[David:] Okay. I think we reluctantly Now I would do it slightly differently, I mean I would say that we want you to, we invite you to the next round of our recruitment thing, but there i, er have no decision has yet been taken as to how many if any appointments will actually be made.
[Rob:] So that at the time people are invited to the er interview
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Rob:] rather than
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] at, yes, I think that's fair.
[David:] Yes, I I don't think that the this is bigoted as you think though in getting that kind of letter, I mean it seems, er that the civil service er recruit on that basis every year, and er, there is no guarantee if you get through the, the various screening bits that you do actually end up with a job, because that depends on vacancies coming up.
[Richard:] Well as long as people are told.
[Graham:] Well as long as people know that, yes, yes, yes.
[Rob:] I think the first priority is that people are clear as to what the score is.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[Rob:] Re, well reasonably, clear so that they, it it's fair to them.
[Graham:] Erm, just to pull back a bit then, I mean, two things seem to, I mean have we, what is our view on you putting Sarah in the middle if we don't recruit, and two, don't we need, probably the four of us to look at current resources
[David:] Yes.
[Graham:] er, future resources,an and rework our boundaries as well because I, I mean losing Anne is not going to be that easy.
[Richard:] Quite, and I I have got a high proportion of of staff and you ha you will have a a low one would you
[Graham:] Yes.
[Richard:] say. I think we do need to make some adjustments, in the light of that, if we remain in our present staffing level.
[speaker006:] Mm. From the first of September are you talking about?
[Richard:] I would have to see, I think. Mr
[Graham:] From round about then, cos I asked for the
[David:] After the summer period.
[Graham:] Well, yes.
[Richard:] I would have thought so. I think it would be for us to talk together, the four of us for a start, and er, and bring proper proposals to future meetings wouldn't it?
[David:] I think probably, what we could do with is a some criteria as to what what complaints are going to go to the complaint examiner if we've only got one of them.
[Richard:] Yes.
[Graham:] That shouldn't be too difficult, are we having
[speaker006:] We
[Graham:] an L L M next month?
[speaker006:] That's just what I was going to ask, because it would be September, wouldn't it?
[Graham:] Yes, I think so, because we don't usually have one in M August, do we?
[speaker006:] That's right.
[Richard:] The meeting on the thirtieth of July aren't we, with er what's
[Rob:] Yes.
[Richard:] his name.
[Rob:] er Jack Taylor.
[Graham:] Taylor.
[Richard:] Er, after that people starting going on leave, is is anybody out away due in the first week in August?
[Graham:] Erm, yes, me.
[Rob:] Now normal, er now I mean, day would be the ninth of August, wouldn't it? Oh, I'm a, away the second of August.
[speaker006:] Your due back on the ninth?
[Rob:] And back on the ninth.
[David:] As I recall it, that we didn't have a week during August where everybody was here, indeed we looked at diaries.
[Rob:] No.
[speaker006:] No, we didn't. Mm.
[Graham:] No we didn't.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[Graham:] No, we didn't.
[speaker006:] I I'm likely, er to be away the last two weeks in August, and David's going to be away the last week in August and the first of September, weren't you? Is that right?
[David:] No it's it's the one week which bridges the two erm months, but er er I will be, that we would normally be meeting again on the thirteenth of September, wouldn't we? Yes.
[speaker006:] Mhm.
[David:] Is that too late? Or too early?
[Rob:] No I couldn't accept.
[Richard:] No.
[David:] Okay, I'm getting to September.
[speaker006:] Do we know exactly when Anne is leaving?
[Graham:] Yes.
[David:] Tenth of September.
[Rob:] Well she's stopping work, I think in late August, isn't she?
[speaker006:] She'll have leave, if she
[David:] She
[Graham:] She's got
[Richard:] Sorry?
[Graham:] some leave. I mean, she's she's effectively not getting complaints as from now
[speaker006:] Oh, right.
[Graham:] so I've got to get rid of her staff.
[David:] Mm. H right, shall we have a coffee cup for
[Rob:] Good idea.
[speaker006:] Oh.
[Graham:] He's right about the will. [break in recording]
[Rob:] But they haven't discriminated
[David:] Well they had one, but that was er, that was never changed from the time when we had complaint examiners before.
[Rob:] Cos an investigator that couldn't do stage twos?
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] In other words allocation was not,
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] there was no intelligent decision on allocation, it was simply,
[David:] Yes, that's right.
[Rob:] allocate as an investigator,
[Graham:] That's right, it was reallocated as a stage two.
[Rob:] and then reallocated again, but I think that's daft.
[Graham:] But there, there, most recent one was over a Sarah Patten, and the they are now repeating that one as I understand it.
[Rob:] Oh, good.
[Richard:] Yes.
[David:] Well a high priority that one, so the they're recruiting two e, two new Sarah Patten ones. Right, erm, budget E control. I don't think we've got to the early days, made too many assumptions from this, particularly as they are seasonality er erm adjustment isn't terribly good. Er, we need to now have some to er cover the cost of proposed adaptations to bring support staff together, which I'll, which we've got in hand, and we'll also be miring money, I think from the salary budget to help with the cost of er the total quality training.
[Graham:] Erm, the with with reference to something that comes up later on the training budget looks a small figure, as against what we're talking about later in the meeting.
[David:] Er that's because the er the the the training budget at the moment down for York is purely er the attendance of professional conferences,
[Graham:] Right.
[David:] and everything else comes in the er personnel training, in lieu of the personnel budget.
[Graham:] Oh right, right.
[David:] Can items for the management team executive committee, I think I have three, erm one is to say that the the title of the total quality programme is going to be improvement through quality, in which case that's the, that's the phraseology which we should use from now on, is it like, it'll actually abbreviate to I Q rather than T Q.
[speaker006:] [LAUGHTER] How effective. [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] It's just one of those phrases
[speaker006:] [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] that's meaningless in reality.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Except that there's an implication there that there's, well I suppose there is a need to improve isn't there really.
[Richard:] Yeah, quality through improvement, might be better.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[Richard:] Er.
[Rob:] Never mind.
[David:] Secondly, there's an item in the management team tele-conference minute which are due to be confirmed today, the which I shall be querying about work in the office, out of office hours.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[Richard:] Yes.
[David:] Erm, and it is not my intention to implement that minute at the moment, because I think it relates purely to a London situation.
[Richard:] Where are we at? Sorry.
[Rob:] The commission's legal liabilities to establish efforts.
[David:] No, well there's a ne it's the next isn't it over the
[Richard:] it's
[David:] page, I think Richard?
[speaker006:] Was this because of the over accident?
[Graham:] Ah, right. Yes, yes, yes.
[David:] And the the logic of what's being said there is effectively to abandon the flexitime scheme out of, for working out of office hours,.
[Graham:] Well wouldn't? Erm, I thought flexitime scheme began at seven thirty and ended at seven thirty?
[David:] Yes, but a that that is saying
[Graham:] There are so beyond seven thirty, though.
[David:] Oh yes. What, what does that minute say.
[Graham:] It says, [reading] until firm decision is taken the staff would not be allowed to work within office buildings out of flexitime hours [].
[David:] Out of flexitime hours, right.
[Graham:] Yes. So presumably, for, that would be seven thirty
[David:] Oh, right.
[Graham:] to seven thirty.
[David:] Right. Well there's no logic to that there because the the lack of cover and er whatever applies the minute the last person leaves, and that erm it lies that the the concern is that if somebody who was in on the building, in the building on their own has an accident,
[Graham:] Mm.
[David:] nobody might discover it until the office opens on the next morning, erm
[Richard:] But there's always going
[David:] it's that
[Richard:] to be a last person.
[speaker006:] Mm. That's right.
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] Yes, that's right.
[Richard:] Rather than that's, but you make sure it's ju
[Graham:] Except if you call
[speaker006:] Could be a last person at six er clock.
[Graham:] the last people who leave
[Richard:] This
[speaker006:] So what about are beavers,
[Graham:] Four o'clock.
[speaker006:] who are on the staff, and in theory work until quarter to eight
[Graham:] Well it's exactly the same problem, I think.
[Rob:] Except there's two of them, and they're always to
[speaker006:] Not at the moment.
[Graham:] Not at the moment.
[Richard:] I thought there was two
[speaker006:] There should be two.
[Richard:] I saw someone else floating around.
[speaker006:] There should be two.
[David:] Erm, I mean it is a problem, and er one that we're addressing, but
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] er at the moment I wasn't wanting to s s change any anything that, which is been happening up till now, I mean if people do want to come in here at weekends or late I don't see any reason
[Richard:] Mm.
[Rob:] to stop them at the moment.
[Richard:] I don't.
[speaker006:] So
[Rob:] carry the risk.
[speaker006:] is it, is it that the insurance
[Marlene:] were in there weren't they?
[speaker006:] yes, but is the insurance not, does it not cover people in the premises outside office time.
[David:] No, no I don't think it's an insurance problem.
[speaker006:] No it isn't.
[David:] It's a, no, it's a
[speaker006:] It's a worry about people hurting themselves.
[David:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Yes, as you say, I mean I think that's erm for the people themselves
[Richard:] Yes.
[speaker006:] I thought it might be that there was a, we weren't covered for the liability to pick people
[Richard:] Quite.
[speaker006:] if something happened.
[Graham:] Or we face prosecution.
[David:] I think there's a, you face prosecution for failing to provide a safe system of work, or something.
[speaker006:] I mean that could be the case at eight.
[David:] I mean, for instance, there is no first aider on duty, as apparently, well there's a suggestion that you need to have a first aider on duty if you've got people in the building.
[speaker006:] Good.
[David:] Erm, and that's why I'm saying
[speaker006:] Mm.
[David:] we don't have a first aider on duty outside normal office hours, not flexitime hours, and er, if you're letting that run the thing.
[Richard:] No.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[David:] So it will. Just forget tha about that and I will
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[David:] it this afternoon.
[speaker006:] And people all over the place.
[David:] Yes.
[Richard:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Yes they are.
[Richard:] Take your first aider with you.
[David:] You'll probably find the
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] that'll that'll that'll throw the budget into confusion, won't it?
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Rob:] The first aider would also need an ergonomics officer.
[David:] Erm, now, the the third thing was about the training program, just to reiterate where we are on this, that if a request is made for personal development training in the current year, if you remember we, if we identify training needs that that we as management identify, that people need in order to do there present job, and then that takes absolute priority and we should get on and do those, but we get a large number of requests where people erm are, saying that they like to do things which they don't need to do, but which they think will better equip them, and if they're, if we're getting any new requests this year with an expectation that further expenditure will be sought in the next financial year, that's ninety four, five, then that request will be refused, in other words we ca, we do not see our way to committing ourselves to any
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] training expense next year, er er er in that category. Although we might be prepared outside our normal scheme to fund the current year's training for such people on the understanding that future funding will not be available, so in other words if somebody comes along to you and says, I'd like to do an M B A, beginning this year, now normally we we would say, yes, we will contribute our half to that cost, er and that would then be a high priority on our budget to provide continued support for the rest of that M B A course, we're now saying that that the answer is actually no, because we cannot provide support next year, we don't think, er but if you never the less want to go ahead this year and then fund it yourself from then on, then we we have actually got money available which we can use this year. That make sense to people?
[Richard:] Yes.
[Rob:] Yes.
[Graham:] It would have to be, given what we've just been talking about.
[Rob:] Er
[Marlene:] Could I raise just the one minute of the Tail Conference, David? The erm, the the nature of the erm the fourteenth of June, the the the Total Quality minute, the it seems to be referring to a document that sets out various phases of the er Total Quality programme. Is it possible to get a copy of that?
[David:] No.
[Marlene:] Mm.
[David:] Short answer, I mean it's the the it's it repeats referring to a document which Gordon had produced,whi whi which has already been er amended, erm, which bit are you actually looking at?
[Marlene:] The item, item three.
[David:] Yes,we,we
[Marlene:] For the proposals in Gordon's memo were agreed. It seems to be referring to a document that that that sets out the whole total quality process as far as the commission is concerned.
[David:] Yes, it sets it. Erm, no it doesn't, it picks out various bits from er er from a memo that Gordon dealt with, it doesn't set out the total alternate budget process.
[Marlene:] Ah, I see.
[David:] Mm,
[Marlene:] Okay.
[David:] Erm
[Marlene:] Thank you.
[David:] Alright. You will simply need to wait until the thing is sufficiently settled that you can get the total package set out here, and
[Marlene:] Mm.
[David:] we're not quite sure what it is you are wanting that you are wha what specific query you've got.
[Marlene:] Well I haven't, it's just that that people have said, you know, when the permissions available can we see it as soon as possible that was all, I just wondered if that document was available,
[David:] No.
[Marlene:] but I mean if it's not yet that's fine.
[Graham:] A bit like asking what heaven's like and being told you have to die first.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker006:] Well let's hope that that's a good analogy.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Yes, I agree with that, say that would
[speaker006:] The heaven bit anyway.
[Graham:] that would re that would er ease your recruitment problem.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Rob:] I would point out that the same applies to hell.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[David:] Right, that takes us on to looking at er Pink team minutes which we haven't got, is that right?
[speaker006:] We haven't actually got the Pink team minutes yet.
[David:] But and green team that we have, and
[Richard:] We're well worth spending a few hours over this, I think.
[Rob:] I think so, yes, and since my watch
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Richard:] Can I minute that we thank the green team?
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[David:] What about the bit at the top of page two, which says that still don't use them in York
[Graham:] This?
[David:] at the analytical thinking seminar held in November.
[Rob:] Yes,
[Richard:] I I read that with great interest, [LAUGHTER] I'm not at all sure what it means.
[Graham:] No Ha Hardy phoned me last week asking for the details of jobs we get fr, er of who to erm who to contact for it, that's all for that needs.
[Richard:] I see, she's probab presumably referring to the March, erm
[Graham:] Yeah, yeah.
[Richard:] and not the November one
[Graham:] Mm.
[Richard:] I have in fact si since seeing this sent her a copy of the paper I put to this meeting, erm, having seen that, because I didn't know that she was waiting for it to the commentary with.
[Graham:] No.
[Richard:] But it's on it's way.
[David:] Seventeen, I'd wondered about. Erm
[Rob:] Yes, I was intrigued by that one. I was going to ask to ask the assistant new commission policy.
[David:] No, it didn't, er as far as I know.
[speaker006:] What is the policy?
[Richard:] Was it everything goes second apart from er
[speaker006:] Reports.
[Marlene:] Reports.
[Richard:] apart formal reports, and
[Rob:] We, even even that is is that we we we we we even had a party on faxing, didn't we? Which I suspect has lapsed.
[David:] Then we should fax the home one page letters.
[speaker001:] Yes. Mm.
[David:] if possible.
[Richard:] Yes, I'm not, I'm not sure that's still happens, does it? Do you know Karen?
[Karen:] I think so, hmm.
[Richard:] I expect I've got a tell from the files.
[David:] It's cheaper to fax a one page letter than it is to post it.
[speaker001:] Yes.
[David:] So we are reiterating our policy of faxing one page letters rather than posting them.
[Graham:] I think that's worth the effort, yes.
[David:] and er
[Rob:] But certainly not announcing this first class post.
[David:] and not intending to er send things by first class post.
[speaker006:] Yes, erm, do we accept faxed letters as complaints?
[David:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Cos I thought we did.
[David:] Why ever not?
[speaker006:] But I've only seen one or two, can we think about photocopying them if it's that thin, because by the time it gets to me sometimes it's not legible.
[David:] Ah, well it should, you're probably talking about old ones rather than new ones, because they use fax machine prints on plain paper rather than
[speaker006:] I see.
[David:] on curly and shiny paper.
[speaker006:] Right, well I I just just looked at one where I was struggling, that's why I mention it.
[Rob:] I always love the idea of information disa disappearing slowly.
[Richard:] [LAUGHTER]
[Karen:] Oh yes.
[Richard:] Relatively quickly I think.
[speaker006:] I just wondered whether we've actually met the requirements of the, of the act.
[Rob:] Matches my mind.
[speaker006:] I presume it does, but it it could be argued, couldn't it?
[David:] No, if a complaints made in writing it's good.
[speaker006:] Possibly it is but it's not a na proper signature, it's a photocopied signature. Should we not accept an original
[David:] Oh, got to have some bits of writing somewhere.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[Rob:] The act doesn't refer to signatures, does it?
[speaker006:] Oh it does actually, yes, I have
[David:] Okay, anything else on the green team?
[speaker006:] I'm not bothered either way as long as I can read it.
[Rob:] Right.
[David:] Looking at, looking at Marlene's minutes then, page one. Page two, trying to pick up the bit at over the bottom of the door.
[Richard:] Hmm?
[David:] Your office appears unwelcoming.
[speaker006:] Yes, I was
[David:] I mean we're not exactly trying to get people to drop in off the street, are we? I I er I er our office now appears in exactly the same way as the other two, namely that you need to announce yourself and who you are before you get let in the door.
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Karen:] I was quite surprised that there was some sort of strength of feeling, that the balance between providing security, and the impression that we gave to visitors, although it was acknowledged we didn't have a lot of visitors coming in, there was a feeling
[Richard:] to us.
[Karen:] that it had had maybe tilted the the wrong way.
[Rob:] I think with the the people who say that it should have clear instructions, it's not immediately obvious which button you should press, and maybe you, maybe something which says, Visitors, please press here, or something like that.
[Graham:] Mr could please press over there.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker006:] Exactly.
[David:] Er.
[speaker006:] Because I never know in London which button to press, either the one at the top or the one at the bottom.
[David:] I remember, very con, I remember very confusing
[Richard:] Yes it is.
[David:] I press them both and er
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker006:] See what happens.
[David:] something'll happen, don't know what.
[Rob:] I just hope the receptionist
[speaker006:] It always
[Rob:] sees me arriving and
[speaker006:] Well she usually does, she's incredibly
[Rob:] Yes that's right.
[Graham:] Yes.
[speaker006:] good.
[Rob:] Yes, that's right.
[speaker006:] They're nearly always open before I get there that er
[David:] Can you do something about the?
[Marlene:] We will see what we can come up with that'll be weather proof, we may just have to keep on going out er sticking labels
[Graham:] Great.
[David:] The bit about reception is writing the visitor's name in the visitors book seems to be quite reasonable.
[speaker006:] I'm
[David:] I I object on principal when I go to places saying write your name in the visitors book, so why should you.
[Marlene:] Yes, it actually came up
[David:] What purpose does it serve?
[Marlene:] because one or two people have er relatives that come in at the end of the day to collect them or
[speaker006:] Right.
[Marlene:] you know, give them a lift home, and they felt that it was a bit discourteous to be asked to write them name in the book every time, and it it I mean it seemed to be quite reasonable that we're
[David:] I'm less worried about being discourteous to relatives that I am to er other people, frankly.
[Marlene:] and and also not all erm there was reference made to, I can't remember which company it was, but somebody, you know, who was th not particularly literate had filled in the book.
[David:] Well I don't think it's, I don't think it's terribly good actually to be able to to be telling other people who has already been here, erm
[Richard:] Mm, good.
[David:] I am conscious that I have visited somebody a while ago and noticed the name of somebody e in the book in which rang very loud alarm bells in my mind
[speaker006:] Mm.
[David:] as to what they were doing there, and
[speaker006:] Mm.
[David:] that therefore it would be better not to be doing that, so perhaps we can change that, okay?
[Karen:] Mhm.
[speaker006:] How though? By not having a visitors book?
[Karen:] Oh no, Jackie will ask for
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Karen:] the name and just fill it in.
[speaker006:] but not get, not get them to sign it.
[David:] No.
[Karen:] She'll, she'll write their name.
[speaker006:] She'll just write their name.
[David:] Dead simple.
[speaker006:] I was just thinking that maybe at the beginning of the day people could, if she knows who is due she could actually write that in, and when they came she could just tick that that they'd arrived.
[Karen:] Well there is a of course the tannoy coming in, the
[speaker006:] Yes, I noticed that.
[Karen:] cos the fire officer asked for that.
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Richard:] Mm.
[David:] Does the, but we don't keep a list, do we, of whose of our own staff is in the building
[speaker006:] No.
[Richard:] No.
[Karen:] Yes, Jackie has the whereabouts, now if she keeps, she also keeps a list of the erm support staff, but if they actually go out at lunch time that we don't know.
[David:] Mm, of course.
[Rob:] Or at tea, when they come in in the morning or when they go home in the evening.
[Karen:] Mm.
[Richard:] That's right, I mean there's a grey area between
[Karen:] Yes.
[Richard:] eight and ten in the evening and four
[Karen:] Mhm.
[Richard:] to six
[Karen:] Yes.
[Richard:] at night, we'd be very uncertain if there had been an alarm bells rang then.
[David:] Coventry have a book which they keep for fire purposes of, signing themselves in and out.
[speaker006:] What would be easier would be a simple board with everybody's name and you just sort of erm put it across to in or out as you are coming up.
[Richard:] Except there's quite a lot of people back there.
[Karen:] There's fifty of us to put on it.
[speaker006:] I know, but never the less it's easier to
[Marlene:] So you couldn't carry it outside when the fire alarm went off.
[Richard:] I was going to say, it's likely to be
[David:] Well you could, you could have it on a hook.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[David:] I've, I've, all little things,
[Karen:] Sewn on.
[David:] all the little things that er
[Marlene:] Yeah, Bob's wife.
[Graham:] burned to death rescuing board. I, I, can't see it, it seems to be one of those things that has no purpose.
[speaker006:] Well, only in case of accident or injury, you see.
[Graham:] Yeah, but I
[Rob:] Well we do, we do have another means don't we, were by the fire officers on each floor or each area
[speaker006:] In each section.
[Rob:] will, will check through
[Richard:] Well
[Rob:] the rooms in their area.
[Richard:] if we're serious about that we need I think to review that very regularly, because I moved offices and discovered I was still a fire officer for a part of the office I wasn't even part of,
[Rob:] It needs to be kept up to date.
[Richard:] or was more accurately a fire officer for a part of an office that I wasn't aware of, so I mean I think.
[speaker006:] There should really be somewhere in the building a place which tells you who is in the building at what times.
[Richard:] I don't know what question to I thought all were supported out, with the assumption that they were going to be
[Karen:] No, I'm a fire officer.
[Graham:] I'm a fire officer.
[Rob:] So am I.
[Richard:] Yeah, I'm a fire officer.
[David:] That's why you're intriguing about this, I thought that
[Karen:] We that would be alright for Marlene
[David:] it would be better if they were support
[Karen:] Yes.
[David:] staff, because er
[Karen:] Yes but there wasn't any support in Marlene's area. But when we moved them,
[speaker006:] There will be.
[Karen:] there will be.
[speaker006:] That's true, yes.
[David:] Alright, well maybe, perhaps we could have a review of why our fire
[speaker006:] Yes.
[David:] arrangements are anything else on page er three.
[Graham:] Trois.
[David:] Page
[Karen:] Could I just go back to er this health and safety, erm it says here that there is a personal alarm on reception, that's the receptionist. I could put another one on for any member of staff who wishes to take one to use at interviews.
[Richard:] I thought that's what we said last time we were doing.
[Karen:] No, you said would I bring it up at this meeting.
[Richard:] Did I, but you you you brought it up last meeting, that that that erm people were going as supposed to be coming back with good ideas as to how to cope with interviews in other rooms, but we said in last time that we were going to have a personal round bill.
[Graham:] A bit like the aerosol.
[Richard:] Yeah. You did a paper which said,
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Richard:] wherever an interview takes place people can take this personal alarm with them
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Richard:] and should alert somebody nearby to listen for it, did that? So it took out
[Marlene:] All my investigators who want them have got personal alarms of their own.
[speaker006:] The ladies?
[Marlene:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[David:] Well presumably the men as well.
[Marlene:] Mm.
[Rob:] If they want them too.
[Marlene:] All the ones who wanted them.
[David:] Yes.
[Richard:] Like this. Just something.
[Marlene:] Mm.
[speaker006:] Indeed.
[David:] Bottom of page three. Page four.
[Graham:] It's only just occurred to me erm, somebody mentioned that new members of staff, and the support staff ever since, but it needn't necessarily be arrive. [cough] And no one, sort of knows. No one is aware of what's going on, doesn't have a chance to meet them. Is it possible when we get a new member of, that, not that they're brought round, which I think must be frightfully intimidating, but that we are told, and therefore we can drop in and say, hello, I'm so and so, just to say hello.
[Karen:] Oh, you mean in other teams.
[Graham:] Yes, I mean I'd no idea who Carol was, I just bumped into her.
[Marlene:] It was in the minutes, you should have read them.
[Graham:] I did. I said [LAUGHTER] I assume this be Carol?
[Marlene:] [LAUGHTER]
[Graham:] Just a small point, but I think when people arrive that they they perhaps feel isolated, and that we're a little unfriendly.
[Karen:] Well we have got quite a lot of detail working package from within their own teams, and within the support staff, so you want that extended so that they can
[Graham:] Nothing elaborate, just a note, perhaps to A D saying
[Richard:] Mm.
[Graham:] there is a new, perhaps your staff could drop in and say, hello some time during the week.
[David:] I don't mind dropping in and saying, hello, we we are getting to a size where, er I think it's speci slightly impractical, I mean er I can see there was so might be useful to know there's a new member of staff here, it's either then say there was somebody wandering around, who are you and what are you doing here.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[Richard:] Mm. Yes I think
[speaker006:] Just a little note,.
[Richard:] Yes, I think that
[speaker006:] Okay.
[Richard:] would be useful.
[speaker006:] So and so has started, or will start, alright.
[Graham:] Yes,cert
[speaker006:] Then.
[Graham:] in the week before somebody comes then I think perhaps a note saying, so and so's starting. Okay.
[David:] Mhm.
[Graham:] We haven't got anybody else's minutes to look at?
[David:] No. The trainee plan, which I think I can now re-vote. If you want to say anything about that? [paper rustling] Tie me up.
[Graham:] Why was the Lotus issue put into this mo this year's training plan when it was last year's money?
[David:] I don't know.
[speaker001:] I'm not sure.
[David:] It actually took place this year.
[Graham:] Did it?
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] No.
[Graham:] It was in March, wasn't it?
[Rob:] No, no it took took place in the end of March.
[David:] Did it? I thought it was the beginning of April.
[Richard:] Yeah. It did.
[Graham:] I just
[speaker001:] Yes.
[Graham:] wondered if there was anything significant about it?
[David:] No.
[Graham:] Right.
[Rob:] A bit
[Richard:] I just
[David:] Taking off and being done, that is.
[Graham:] Okay.
[Marlene:] Can I just, er, clarify the poi, the very last item, the er the Jules, Jules M B E, erm I thought she was finishing new one?
[David:] Er, well, she she's not being supported by the commission for year one, and in fact she won't be supported for year two either, so the thing that, I I'm I'm I put it in as a potential budget
[Marlene:] Well.
[David:] thing for next year, but I mean she will be one of those caught by the thing saying we're not going to do it anyway.
[Rob:] Is the attendance at professional conferences something that's earmarked, or is it just
[Richard:] That's the five hundred pounds that's in our budget as opposed to in the the the personnel budget.
[Rob:] Yes. There is
[Richard:] I mean that that's a er that's a
[Rob:] It, it's an estimate so that it's there if anybody wants to say.
[Richard:] Yes, that's to deal with the odd request in the course of year.
[Rob:] Yes, right. Right.
[Richard:] C P D stands for Continuous Professional Development, it applies only to Nick at the moment.
[Rob:] Mm.
[Richard:] Okay?
[Rob:] The analytical skills one you put seven hundred and fifty d down d d does that mean you had in mind that there might be three seminars in the course of the year.
[Richard:] Er.
[David:] No I don't think it'd be, don't think it meant that, I thought we went, to could be two, we're going to have another one.
[Rob:] I think we had
[speaker006:] Yes.
[Rob:] in mind that we should have another one but er
[David:] Yes.
[Rob:] the previous one cost us I think two hundred pounds.
[Richard:] Erm, well I think we had budgetary provision in five hundred for it, and I think we've probably increased it, er was it unchanged originally? It means we might have some money left over after
[Rob:] Yes, right, okay.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Graham:] mine's more suited to that, I think next time er once we've got somewhere out of the way and can
[Richard:] That's right.
[Graham:] actually get these things done.
[Rob:] I was going to say, is there anything on the cards for local authority finance, or is that still awaiting?
[Graham:] Erm
[David:] Well, how about a memo about it to somebody saying can they suggest a potential person, you know. And we haven't had a reply back.
[Richard:] Alright, consultation on twenty six five, procedures. This is Teresa's response to the proposal. If anybody wants to comment on it, or any I think perhaps just confirm the calculation about being roughly one a day, that erm if you take the number of decisions that we made in the last twelve months, twenty one point eight percent of which were, erm, decisions to be put out by twenty six five, if we divide that by four, divide it by fifty two, and divide it by five you end up with point eight six per day, er
[David:] Is that right?
[Richard:] Quite sure why, how somebody else says that the number of twenty six five termination suggests that peers will be dealing with more than one file each day, well, but that's what the arithmetic says.
[Rob:] Mm.
[speaker006:] And also would agree that team secretaries wouldn't be involved.
[Richard:] Yeah.
[David:] Yes.
[Graham:] What, on the basis that if the P A isn't there the areas are going to to do it themselves.
[speaker006:] Or pass it for another.
[Marlene:] Yes.
[Rob:] Either that or if there was further weights redundant to an investigator. And there is certainly no plans for other complaints to go to P As.
[Richard:] Well, erm
[Rob:] Are there?
[David:] Stay with that a minute, erm, erm,... I mean I wouldn't have thought we were in a position to give an assurance that er erm, that that no other complaints which appear to be outside the local ombu ombudsman's restriction will be dealt with by support staff, I mean I should think we're continuing looking continually looking for ways of dealing with complaints at the most efficient and effective way, and if that
[Graham:] Certainly given assurance there's no plans.
[David:] Well there are no no immediate plans you could say.
[Rob:] Slightly disingenuous, in fact we are saying, there is a possibility that er
[David:] Hang on a minute, I just wan want to work out what happens if a complaint comes in against the Gas board?
[Rob:] Well the A D would perhaps, no I suppose it might not have reached me.
[Richard:] No it wouldn't.
[speaker006:] No.
[Rob:] Sometimes they do.
[David:] So.
[speaker006:] It's already been dealt with by support staff.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[David:] By support staff, and.
[Graham:] Mm, yeah.
[Rob:] Yes, Joe?
[David:] So I don't think you, I should think partly we just cannot give an assurance that no other complaints will be dealt with by support staff, really that we.
[Rob:] No, you can't, er, sorry, I was taking that literally that we we certainly not intending it, this was this was very much directed at twenty six five.
[David:] Erm, nor I think are there any proposals to change the grading or pay honorarium to P As to reflect there work on these files, er, I'm not sure whether the assumption that this wouldn't be taken into account by the W R is sound, because I think one of the principles that I recall was that he were meant to ensure that that each of these job evaluation panels had somebody from each office so that an account could be taken of the different practices, I mean I'm sure that, I'm sure that each of the three offices in the er deal with things in a different way, so that er what gets done by one person here is not necessarily done by people in Coventry and York, and that in fa in London, and that also holds good in the other way, I think. Do we see any difficulty in er in what were in effect saying, that the base says, we have no objection to the proposed wording from either the extra duties recognized in outline above, and they're not going to be.
[Rob:] Fine. Right.
[Graham:] Is it at at the bottom paragraph?
[Rob:] Yeah.
[Richard:] Mm.
[Rob:] I'm just trying to see what extra duties are recognized as outlined above, presumably, yeah. Well I don't have any problems with what you say.
[David:] Well, on the para four job evaluation erm it seems to me that this is an item that can be fed into the, would automatically be fed into the evaluation process.
[speaker001:] [cough]
[Rob:] Yeah.
[David:] Don't forget we're talking about changing people, somebody's job description to include a... Can you?
[Rob:] Yes.
[David:] Right, er next evening we settle the thirteenth of September then?
[speaker006:] Mhm. Outside the meeting can I just say I'm getting some of the new screening sheets through, you know first, but people don't seem to know what they're supposed to do with them and their in exactly the same position that they were before. [recording ends]