On Monday, the Echo broke the story that after 20 years Cory's will no longer be managing the Council's waste contract after being eliminated in the first round of procurement for the new waste contract to start in 2015. As the former portfolio holder for waste services it is an area which I still take a keen interest.
Since the elections in May I had noticed that around where I live in Shoebury had started to look a little shabby. Whilst standing in the queue to get my morning paper on Sunday, a woman unknown to me, remarked to the cashier that they could tell that Tony Cox is no longer their councillor as West Road was a mess. It was one of those rare occasions where I just kept quiet as I didn't need to say anything.
Before I digress further, under the stewardship of Cory during my time as the portfolio holder a plethora of awards were won for our waste services ranging from the cleanliness of our streets and beaches to our public loos. Recycling rates at 52% were an all time high. The winter gritting service ensured that Southend's roads were passable during the cold months.
I noted that the new portfolio holder Cllr Terry from the Echo article was now a convert to the need for eliminating as much waste from landfill as possible to reduce the £3 Million annual landfill costs despite opposing every measure that I took to do so including removing black sack provision and re-issuing food waste bins to every household.
I noticed that the local blogsphere has questioned the timing of the procurement of the new waste contract after Cllr Mark Flewitt has been a vocal critic at the manner of the announcement and the lack of member involvement in the decision.
To clear up the matter, when I was the portfolio holder the process was instigated as far members and the public were consulted as to what they would like to see in the new waste contract. The public consultation ended on the 10th March.
From that period until the 22nd May, I had not been told or made aware that an advertisment had gone out to companies to bid for the new waste contract or seen the final bid specification document. Therefore, I can only naturally assume that this had commenced under the new administration.
After involving members in the initial process, I had given the commitment that members would be informed of the start of the procurement and would see sight of the bid document before commencing.
I also gave the commitment that I would bring to the Waste Management Working Party the 'scoring' of the bids received before releasing the information to the press. Members would know my commitment to member involvement in waste management from the numerous sessions conducted before the joint waste agreement was signed with Essex.
Do I believe that the decision to not include Cory in the final four bidders of the procurement is the sole work of Cllr Terry? The honest answer is that I am not sure. I say this as the Waste Team headed up by Steve Crowther is one of the if not the best sets of Council Officers that I have come into contact with.
The Echo article also strongly hinted from Cllr Terry's quote that Cory did not progress due to the need to recycle more waste. I still recall Cllr Terry's stunt last year when he brought his pink sack into the Council Chamber to invite me to look at why his pink sack was rejected on collection day, although the offending items of pizza had been carefully removed. Could this run in have ultimately cost Cory the contract?
2 comments:
I do not recall reading a blog post from you complaining about how the decision was made to move the Seaway Coach Park to Warrior Square. Try to be consistent!
Julian, the post was merely stating what I had agreed to do to include members in the process and what had happened during the procurement whilst I was portfolio holder.
As you know, I wasn't the portfolio holder responsible for the new coach park. As we have spoken about it before, it would not be how I would have delt with it but everyone has their own style.
Anyway, does two wrongs make a right?
Post a Comment