Not strictly a Private Bill topic, but the best place for this.
As a concerned taxpayer, sailor and resident of the Broads Authority's "Executive Area," I have become concerned at recent events: the proposed Broads Bill, the lack of dredging, the ignoring (hiding?) of the DEFRA letter of May 28, the reports of the Acle meeting, and so on. Reading through the BA's website, I am quite simply appalled at the amount of time spent by the BA on "strategy" relative to the amount of time spent holding officials to account for actually doing something.

Q&A
So a week or so ago, I wrote to the BA, asking a number of questions, and today received a courteous reply. The Q&As are worth sharing.
(a) when was the current Chief Executive appointed?
March 20, 2001

(b) by whom?
He was appointed following a competitive interview with a group of
senior members.

(c) for how long is the appointment?
He is on a permanent contract.

(d) what is the process for the annual performance review of the Chief
Executive?
He receives an annual performance appraisal interview with
the Chairman of the Authority, usually in the Spring/early Summer.

(e) who reviews the annual performance of the Chief Executive and at
what time during the year?
Same answer

(f) what criteria are used for that review?
The Authority uses a format which covers matters such as
achievements, barriers to achievement, annual objectives and targets
(reviewing progress against these and setting new ones) and overall
performance.

(g) what was the result of the most recent review?
It would be inappropriate and improper to release details of the
result of the Chief Executive's appraisal, or indeed that of any other
individual member of staff.

(h) is that review subject to any external oversight from, for example,
DEFRA?
There is no independent oversight. The Authority is an autonomous
body.

(i) under what circumstances can the Chief Executive be removed before
the end of the contract term?
Usual employment law terms apply as with any other employee.

Shock
Now as many readers will know, I've lived overseas for most of the last 22 years and many things have surprised me on my return, but I have to say that these answers are truly shocking. Consider:
- This isn't a private company, where the shareholders can do what they want with regard to executive performance and pay.
- This isn't a public company, where you have a choice whether to invest or not. These days, Stock Exchanges impose very high standards of disclosure and corporate governance, when it comes to judgements on executive performance and pay. A CEO's pay is typically reviewed by a committee of outside directors.
- This is a quango with status somewhere akin to a council, but one where no-one is directly elected, and it's funded with our tax money.
- The Chief Executive's performance is reviewed by one person. Nowhere in a public company would this stand up to scrutiny. Where are the safeguards for proper use of public money?
- Worse, the criteria by which he is judged are allowed to include "barriers to achievement". Of course, in private industry, allowance is made for fluctuating market conditions when judging the performance of an executive, but such doesn't apply here. By the way, any executive approaching his/her review including the word "barriers" would be a candidate for the chop anyway. But here, there are no barriers: the BA makes its own rules, and there are no market conditions.
- By any objective measure, the BA is failing against two of its three goals, and yet the Chief Executive has all of the rights of a regular employee. In a private organization, he'd be gone by now.

Basically, he can't be dismissed. We are stuck with this guy until he chooses to leave or retire. No wonder he can sit there and not bother to reply to some questions at public meetings. No wonder the BA isn't too troubled by the concerns of the public, or and can even ignore DEFRA officials, for a while.

Good grief.

Astonishing. My ghast is surrounded by flabber.
Some - much even - of those answers might have drifted by the average earhole were it not for PH's superior understanding of effective business practice.
Economically this is very serious stuff.
Politically it is a bombshell.
The blue touch paper awaits. Light anyone?

Mardler wrote:

Something is VERY, VERY, WRONG!

2006/7 Toll income = £1,800,000 (projected), of which:- Waterway expenditure = £400,000

Tollpayers' quota of spend of their own input = 22.2%

IT'S GETTING SMALLER AS YOUR TOLLS GO UP 13% PER ANNUM AND YOU RUN AGROUND MORE OFTEN.