This is a copy of my weekly blog which I write for work and is published on the council's intranet.  The views I express in this log are my own, professional, views as the Head of Communications but do not necessarily reflect those of the authority itself.

Firstly this week a big 'shout out' to my newest loyal reader.  He is someone who will be familiar to you already.  He occupies a position of great importance in this organisation and is well respected.

Right, that's enough ego massaging.

He is of course ... Councillor Andrew Carter!

He has been introduced to Captain's log only in recent weeks but has told me he thinks it's 'excellent' which is very kind.

There's a story here though because of how Cllr Carter was ‘introduced’ to Captain's log.

He tells me that my log entry of March 16 was 'brought to his attention' (aka 'leaked') by someone in the council who told him that 'you'd better see what he [Andy] is saying about you' - the inference being, perhaps, that he might not like it.

Oh dear.

You'll remember the log entry in question.  It was the one where I reflected on the pros and cons of having the same name as the council leader.  It was also the log in which I recreated the conversation between James Rogers and Cllr Carter where my appointment was discussed.

Oh and I attributed the word 'bugger' to Cllr Carter as well.

So, as a result of all that - is this going to be my last log entry ....?

Well ... no as it happens.

Cllr Carter tells me he read the log entry in question and ... 'fell about laughing.'

Actually, 'fell about' isn't what he said.  It was a bit ruder than that, but given the nervous disposition of some of my loyal readers I don't want to cause offence or upset.

(After all, look at the trouble I caused when I used the made-up expletive 'buggeration' last year.)

I believe Cllr Carter may have even found time to read one or two other log entries as well just to find out what it is I waffle on about.

So, welcome Cllr Carter!

Right, on to other things now.

Today (Tuesday) is an exciting day for the council.  It's because the final round of interviews to find a new chief executive are getting underway.

We will know by next Wednesday afternoon who our new boss is going to be.  Full council is meeting to discuss the appointment on the 21st and once a decision is made, there's going to be a flurry of messages to inform colleagues across the council who it is.

As well as the publication of a Staffnews special, there will be plenty of material on the intranet.

I have dropped hints that at some point in the future, it would be fantastic if the new chief executive would take part in a live on-line forum, say over a lunch hour, so we can put our questions to him or her.

OK, moving on.

There has been some interesting discussion in the media over the last day or two about the 'price' of interviews.

The Guardian newspaper reports how some journalists are now being asked to pay for someone to provide a comment or be interviewed for a news story.

Sometimes expert comment is useful.

For instance, when I was a reporter and I needed an interviewee on say, house prices, I would go to my sales team and ask 'who is your best estate agent client?'

Then I'd call the person they'd suggest and ask them to come on-air.  Usually the kudos of getting their name and business mentioned in a news bulletin was enough to persuade them.

But now it seems cash is king. 

For instance there is a story of an author asking for money despite a newspaper suggesting 'a free plug for their book' in front of 80,000 readers should be enough.

So I've been thinking - perhaps we should apply the same rationale to the way we respond to the demands of the media.

I feel the time has come to introduce a tarriff at the council.  Here's one possible scale of charges:

Cllr Carter/Cllr Brett interview: £250 each
Other executive board member interview: £175
Statement: £20 each

The press and media team facilitated about 300 broadcast interviews alone in the last financial year, so even at the lower rate that could have brought in £5k.

Charging might also stop some reporters asking silly questions about things like why we've not cut a strip of grass less than a metre wide.

I'm sure that the Tax Payers Alliance would be very proud of us - after all we'd no longer be 'wasting money on PR and spin' - we might actually end up making some on it instead!

As usual - if you have any feedback or comments, please email me.

Until next week, enjoy the sun.