After being awarded an extra £3m by the Scottish Government for 2021-22, the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority decided at their meeting on 15th March to delay deciding how to spend £965,000 of this until their June meeting (see here). One Board Member did ask Pete Wightman, the Director of Corporate Services, about whether the money might be used to address staffing gaps but was given an evasive reply.
Just two weeks later, the Chief Executive, Gordon Watson sent out an “operating model” to “delivery partners” setting out a revised staffing structure for the National Park Authority. This created a significant number of new management posts. It is scarcely conceivable that either Mr Watson or his senior management team decided all of this in the two weeks after the Board Meeting. Rather, it appears Mr Watson must have been working on it for some time but chose NOT to take his plan to the Board for a decision. The contrast with the Cairngorms National Park Authority, where there is a Board staffing sub-committee, and the Main Board meeting openly discusses and makes decisions about staffing matters is stark.
Its all Gordon, Pete and Jane, Anne Simon and Stuart – as if these people were as well known to the public as Nicola and Boris. But this is how chumocracy works, the only people who matter are those in the know.
That the LLTNPA Board had no part in the decision was confirmed by an email from Gordon Watson that accompanied the slides:
“As one of our delivery partners and key stakeholders, I wanted to let you know about some changes that I have recently made to the operating model and team responsibilities across the National Park Authority………………………Across our directorates I have reviewed the remit of some of the Executive Team to focus on our refreshed outcomes, as outlined in our 2021/22″………….
The “I” speaks for itself, though further down the email Mr Watson starts using “we” when referring to all the new management posts that are being created (the “we” presumably referring to the Senior Management Team) .
“Within the directorates we are also filling some existing vacancies and bringing in some new roles…………..which we will shortly be recruiting for”
There was no provision that I could see for these new management roles in the budget agreed by the Board in March so in effect Mr Watson has pre-empted any decision the LLTNPA might make on how to spend the additional £965k at their June Board Meeting. This is a public authority where the Chief Executive appears to manage the Board, rather than vice versa.
For a small organisation with 130 permanent staff, the LLTNPA has an inordinate number of managers. When pressed by the Board Member about the potential for new staff, Pete Wightman did refer to the need of some additional staff in his team. He mentioned “estates”, presumably to mop up the disasters that have resulted from the LLTNPA’s commercialisation agenda (see here), and “procurement”, presumably to speed up the implementation of the Automated Number Plate Recognition tender that has taken four years. But Mr Wightman made no mention of any “Corporate Performance Manager”. Why not?
Well, the task of this role is to “to take in the responsibilities of overseeing the running of our Board and Committees and all aspects of our corporate and annual operating planning work, project administration, information requests and complaints handling”. This is work that up until now appears to have been Mr Wightman’s responsibility. Perhaps he should explain what this will free him up to do?
Not to be left out, Simon Jones, currently Director of Conservation and Visitor operations, also gets a new post that will act as a buffer between him and three front-line managers. In the LLTNPA makeover, Kenny Auld, currently Manager of the Access Team – a team that is so hard pressed that the Outdoor Recreation Plan is now four years out of date (see here) – has been given a new responsibility for “Sustainable Travel”. Unless his team get a couple of additional staff, expect yet more delays.
By comparison to the other teams, the former “Communications Team” is slimline. There are no new managers and an Advisor who presumably manages no-one.
Public sector corporate speak, however, is alive and well, with “insights” replacing what was formerly known as research. More worrying is that Nik Turner, who was recruited as Litter Prevention Manager (see here) ,and had, to her credit, been trying to develop “binfrastructure” has transmogrified into a “Behaviour Change Manager”. Good luck with that! The LLTNPA is blind to the fact that the way to influence behaviour is to put infrastructure in place that encourages/facilitates people to do the right thing, to enjoy the National Park without doing damage or causing inconvenience to others.
Last but far from least, Stuart Mearns, formerly Director of Rural Development and Planning is to become Director of Place. I am sure that will delight those responsible for corporate speak at St Andrew’s House. It would also delight me if Mr Mearns now starts to pay attention to the quality of places like Lochgoilhead (see here). Perhaps the new Places Project Manager could start in Cowal, arguably the most degraded and neglected part of the National Park?
Further insights (a correct use of that term) are provided by Mr Watson’s description of this role:
“I[no mention of the Board] am looking to create a new Place Projects Team, led by a new Place Projects Manager role. This team will report to Stuart Mearns, whose expanded remit is reflected in his job title as our Director of Place. The Place Projects team will continue [how can it continue if its new?] to link to our Estates and Visitor Services teams to ensure projects are delivering needs in those areas [and what needs are these?]. The Place Projects Manager role that we’ll be recruiting for will also help with partner projects with other public bodies such as Forestry and Land Scotland and our local authority partners. With the Community Partnership being wound down from the end of March [again the decision about this appears to have been taken by Mr Watson, not the Board], our community support staff led by Susan Brooks (Communities & Place Planning Manager) will be giving more support on community projects and capacity building, whilst also working with a revamped Countryside Trust, who will be working with us on nature, travel and climate projects while engaging with communities [more on the “revamped” Community Trust in due course but its primary purpose appears to be a sort of money laundering vehicle, one that channels and allocates funds that could not be received by the LLTNPA directly].
What needs to happen?
None of these new management jobs appear to have been advertised as yet. The LLTNPA Board needs to step in, halt the whole process until there is a proper discussion in public about how the extra resources allocated by the Scottish Government should be spent and then make the decision itself. It would do well to follow the example of the CNPA, create a Staffing sub-committee and revise its Standing Orders so that all decisions about staff posts and whether or not to fill vacancies are taken by that Committee or the main Board.
If this “re-structure” is allowed to go ahead, 26 out of 130 permanent staff employed by the LLTNPA, will be Managers, that is one in every five. This is a top heavy management structure, with senior managers out of control and abusing their power to appoint more managers below them. These management ratios won’t change much even if Gordon Watson has used some of the £965k to create more new frontline posts and not bothered to tell the Park’s partners about this.
Frontline posts also need to be included in new Board decision making processes. There are two administrative jobs being advertised at present (see here), support assistants who “will be responsible for managing our camping booking system, assisting with virtual Board and Committee meetings as well as providing consistent and up to date information, advice and responding to enquiries for both internal and external customers”. The administrative costs of the camping byelaws, which the LLTNPA ceased to report on openly long ago, grow by the year. This is not wise use of public money and the Board should be taking a critical look at what has been happening.
Unfortunately, nothing is likely to change so long as the LLTNPA Board allow their Chief Executive, Gordon Watson, so much power or until politicians start calling for radical reform of the National Park Authority.
9 Comments on “The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park – a chief executive out of control”
If the consequences of all this was not so serious, the ineptitude on display could be seen as laughable . The song “last train to San Fernando” came winging into my mind as I read Nick’s post. The connection to this particular corporate “gravy train” was unbidden. The sooner these ‘conduits’ of QUANGO public money are brought back under reliable – legally regulated- fiscal oversight the better. Such elevated positions of trust across Scotland have to be held fully accountable, open and responsive to full public scrutiny against penalty of government enquiry -always. Only then will the gravy train that sustains closed group appointed individuals, within mini fiefdoms at public expense, halt. Hardly any surprise that those in receipt of such bountiful patronage and remuneration would seek to keep their surnames, what they actually do and how well they do it out of the public eye today ..is there?
Sounds very similar to West Dunbartonshire Council with the lack of accountability and transparency. A recent senior management team reorganisation implemented by the CEO resulted in eight individuals getting a rise of around £8,000 per year on top of an already very high salary, the CEO explained after she made the decision this was to create an “Agile” structure.
The only hope here is that they designed the restructuring themselves rather than paying consultants lots of money to do it for them. The pandemic has shown that all National Parks need to take practical steps to help visitors and look after the environment. The staff and the facilities on the ground are crucial to this. The upper echelons of management create layers in the middle to keep those pesky people that do the real stuff on the ground with the public at arms length. As the blog points out the investment should be going to front line staff and facilities.
Is it just the upper echelons of the LLTNPA or is it with the support of the Scottish Government ? They have rubber stamped the Sir Tom Hunter plans to desecrate the south bank of Loch Lomond , they have rubber stamped the designation of a country road as a core path ,and will promote it for family walkers and cyclists , even although it cuts through the middle of the only remaining dairy farm in the area , with cattle including a dairy bull , along the road twice per day .- so much for preserving the way of life as I think the Park was tasked with . Are they completely clueless , do they know how dangerous a bull can be , how much worse a new calved cow can be , and they will direct families into their path ? There will be more deaths in the countryside . Locals have NO voice , no representation , very many objections to the Hunter proposals were discarded as they did not have the correct referance number ,although they did mention the Sir Tom Hunter planning proposal , a FOI request would reveal a lot ! They will sound the death knell for dairy farming , traditional in this area . As farmers turn to beef and sheep , after all it is their livelihood and most manage on an income well below average ; sheep worrying will increase , beef cattle especially continental crosses can be very dangerous , is the farming sector going to survive? – or is Government policy to plant trees and rewild ? What exactly is the purpose of the Park ? All the Government money appears to be directed towards TREES and TOURISM . Blanket trees will destroy the scenary , will destroy famiy farms going back generations , will eventually destroy tourism , the only business the Park promotes . – it will be a midge tastic forrest park with a puddle the size of the Loch for them to breed in , just as the tick numbers are higher than they have ever been . PARADISE!!! If they had brains they would be dangerous !!! Farmers are the real custodians of the countryside , consider , they know about the ospreys , the hen harriers , the marsh harrier , all on the Ross Priory estate ; so much for RSPB , for SNH or whatever it is now called , for the LLTNPA experts , custodians ! , they do not know what they have got . Perhaps if they were up lambing at 5 in the morning , going round checking stock due to calve at midnight and through the night , shooting the foxes that are trapped in Glasgow and released locally and kill their lambs , they would know more – doing what the peasants do, would perhaps open their eyes , or, maybes eye maybes no, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see ; it does not reinforce their theories . I am trying to get photos of above mentioned birds , most do not have fancy mobiles that take photos, they tend to lose them as they chase sheep , lamb ewes , etc, etc so cheap ones are the order of the day . . A very concerned local .
If the consequences of all this was not so serious, the ineptitude on display could be seen as laughable . The song “last train to San Fernando” came winging into my mind as I read Nick’s post. The connection to this particular corporate “gravy train” was unbidden. The sooner these ‘conduits’ of QUANGO public money are brought back under reliable – legally regulated- fiscal oversight the better. Such elevated positions of trust across Scotland have to be held fully accountable, open and responsive to full public scrutiny against penalty of government enquiry -always. Only then will the gravy train that sustains closed group appointed individuals, within mini fiefdoms at public expense, halt. Hardly any surprise that those in receipt of such bountiful patronage and remuneration would seek to keep their surnames, what they actually do and how well they do it out of the public eye today ..is there?
Sounds very similar to West Dunbartonshire Council with the lack of accountability and transparency. A recent senior management team reorganisation implemented by the CEO resulted in eight individuals getting a rise of around £8,000 per year on top of an already very high salary, the CEO explained after she made the decision this was to create an “Agile” structure.
Will you please change the colour of the text from pale grey to black so that people with low vision can read it…thanks
Jean, I have tried to do so, please let me know if any better, Nick
The only hope here is that they designed the restructuring themselves rather than paying consultants lots of money to do it for them. The pandemic has shown that all National Parks need to take practical steps to help visitors and look after the environment. The staff and the facilities on the ground are crucial to this. The upper echelons of management create layers in the middle to keep those pesky people that do the real stuff on the ground with the public at arms length. As the blog points out the investment should be going to front line staff and facilities.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92278-we-trained-hard-but-it-seemed-that-every-time-we-were
Is it just the upper echelons of the LLTNPA or is it with the support of the Scottish Government ? They have rubber stamped the Sir Tom Hunter plans to desecrate the south bank of Loch Lomond , they have rubber stamped the designation of a country road as a core path ,and will promote it for family walkers and cyclists , even although it cuts through the middle of the only remaining dairy farm in the area , with cattle including a dairy bull , along the road twice per day .- so much for preserving the way of life as I think the Park was tasked with . Are they completely clueless , do they know how dangerous a bull can be , how much worse a new calved cow can be , and they will direct families into their path ? There will be more deaths in the countryside . Locals have NO voice , no representation , very many objections to the Hunter proposals were discarded as they did not have the correct referance number ,although they did mention the Sir Tom Hunter planning proposal , a FOI request would reveal a lot ! They will sound the death knell for dairy farming , traditional in this area . As farmers turn to beef and sheep , after all it is their livelihood and most manage on an income well below average ; sheep worrying will increase , beef cattle especially continental crosses can be very dangerous , is the farming sector going to survive? – or is Government policy to plant trees and rewild ? What exactly is the purpose of the Park ? All the Government money appears to be directed towards TREES and TOURISM . Blanket trees will destroy the scenary , will destroy famiy farms going back generations , will eventually destroy tourism , the only business the Park promotes . – it will be a midge tastic forrest park with a puddle the size of the Loch for them to breed in , just as the tick numbers are higher than they have ever been . PARADISE!!! If they had brains they would be dangerous !!! Farmers are the real custodians of the countryside , consider , they know about the ospreys , the hen harriers , the marsh harrier , all on the Ross Priory estate ; so much for RSPB , for SNH or whatever it is now called , for the LLTNPA experts , custodians ! , they do not know what they have got . Perhaps if they were up lambing at 5 in the morning , going round checking stock due to calve at midnight and through the night , shooting the foxes that are trapped in Glasgow and released locally and kill their lambs , they would know more – doing what the peasants do, would perhaps open their eyes , or, maybes eye maybes no, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see ; it does not reinforce their theories . I am trying to get photos of above mentioned birds , most do not have fancy mobiles that take photos, they tend to lose them as they chase sheep , lamb ewes , etc, etc so cheap ones are the order of the day . . A very concerned local .