Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
Search
« Whitianga Medical Centre (2) | Main | Finally - The Zoom Zone Dry-Court Project Document »
Wednesday
Jun292016

2016/17 Annual Plan - Wages & Salaries

There a number of issues that arise as a result of the publication of the 2016/17 Annual Plan at today's Council meeting.

One that should give rise to considerable concern is the substantial increase in personnel costs from  $14.890m to $16.737m - a 12.4% increase over those paid in 2015/16. If we accept the staff numbers at around 220 (debateable), that is an average of $76,000 per employee - not bad considering every aspect of the average work-load, and professionalism that we have seen demonstrated, with some notable exceptions.

It would be interesting to see a comparison done with other comparable councils. I would suggest that such would be very revealing, and demonstrate a high level of troughing that generally  starts at the top. Lack of Council oversight provides a wonderful opportunity for increases that are totally self-generated within the organisation, and in no way related to market conditions.

Notes provide the ingenuous excuse that the increase is down to the movement of contractors into the wage and salary area (last year they denied there were any!), increased staff in the Thames Area Office (without any explanation - it used to be run by one man, part-time!) and an additional building inspector. Sorry, that does not cut the mustard. And a substantial increase in Kiwi-Saver contributions that was advised in December 2015 is not explained - are we to believe that that the 'Kiwi Saver' light suddenly came on, and staff rushed to join? A massive mis-calculation (advantaging staff of course) is more likely. 

Other matters will be identified in due course.

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

Well blow me down--not bad dosh for if you can get it. Leach once publicly said 'i got three years to get down to Thames put a blanket over the place and start choking it' .
With a 12.4% increase in wages [presumably an increase in staff] then obviously some have slipped out from under the blanket!
At one stage the Council were dismissing staff and rehiring them as contractors at a highly inflated hourly rate--now they say they are bringing more back into the fold. We must be getting very close Bill to the staff numbers you bandied around a few months back--some 248 from memory.
That is a massive increase --up from about 185 back in 2010 -- so much for the 'choking effort' Glen.

June 30, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterPick Me

The new CEO will identify the deadwood and there is plenty of that sitting in offices and the contractors that are now permanent through their connections will be exposed in due course. The staff numbers you presented last year Bill were accurate they just tried to pull the wool and silence you from the facts.

June 30, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterInsider observer

What of the unelected Economic Committee-- someone once mumbled that the members of that committee may earn up to a thousand big ones per meeting--if that is true-- were their payments factored into the mix???

June 30, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterPipi

These payments are buried in the EDC budget that isd not detailed in the Annual Plan - a disgraceful oversight designed precisely to disguise these facts. The whole future of this so-called Council committee will be up for review after election, and I would suggest that every candidate be requested to provide their view on its continuance in its present form. That should bring French out of the closet! I know the response that you would get from Gousie should she agree to stand.

July 4, 2016 | Registered CommenterBill Barclay

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>