Could you weave gold into our services?

We don’t really expect you to possess the skills of a tailor. But if you have the gold thread needed to connect our services and communities, you could be ideal for this role.

Talking about communications departments, Islington Borough Council is searching for an Interim Head of Communications, paying £62,460 – £66,366 per annum. If Islington is anything like some of the councils I deal with, they should rename the post as Head of Miscommunication, as there are times when getting a straight answer to a straight question is virtually impossible.

Of course councils need communications officers, and therefore someone to manage them. To justify the salary on offer, the Head of Communications must be managing a fairly large team, and that raises questions in itself, but when you read the following in the job description, you begin to wonder what messages we are paying for:

The council is focused on making Islington fairer by reducing the gap between rich and poor and making a difference to the lives of those in our community who most need our help

The council is there to provide the services we pay our council tax for, therefore those in the community who require the most help should be helped. We do not pay our council tax so the council can try to reduce the gap between rich and poor. That is overtly political, and has nothing to do with its primary purpose. It seems as if Islington regards itself as the North London equivalent of Robin Hood, although it may find that if it tries to steal from the rich to give to the poor, many of them will up sticks and move to another area where the council does not adopt such a policy.

We’ve had Future Shape Programme Managers; Business Improvement Managers; Change Programme Managers. This week Merton Borough Council wants Business Improvement Advisors. Paying between £38,070-£40,716, the council is looking for an unspecified number of these advisors to ‘change the way it operates, leading to a leaner and more efficient organisation by 2015.’

What a pity those in charge didn’t think the council should have been  leaner and more efficient in the first place. With many senior officers receiving generous salaries and pension benefits, they should have been been seeking ways to make sure the ship was sailing in the most efficient way possible. It shouldn’t take reduced funding from central government grants to get them to start thinking of ways of saving taxpayers’ money.

Councils are supposed to be the most efficient part of government. It does make you worry just how bad the rest are!

UNISON issued a lazy response to this earlier, strewn with factual errors. They claim that:

Actually, the local government pension scheme costs the taxpayer just 5p in every £1 paid in council tax.

No, it really doesn’t. What UNISON seems to have done is calculate employer pensions contributions as a share of total council income. The response is so bad, that they even go on to explain their own miscalculation in the next line:

Councils get only 25% of their revenue from council tax, 75% comes from other sources, including business rates and local government grants.

Yes, councils get their revenue mainly from central government (that is still taxpayers’ money of course). But employer contributions are equivalent to a fifth of the revenue they receive in Council Tax.  If employer contributions were reduced by ten per cent, local authorities could afford a two per cent cut in council tax rates. This is all just simple maths.

Then they wheeled out this tired old line:

When dinner ladies, social workers and care staff retire, on average they will get just £4,000 a year, dropping to just £2,600 for women.

I wrote about this nonsense in a blog in November, when public sector workers were out on strike. But to repeat: if someone works for a council for a year, their pension pot will be small.  But they’ll have worked in other places for years and can accrue other pension entitlements while they’re there. That average is meaningless and a dishonest attempt to mislead the public about the value of public sector pensions. Those who spend their career in the public sector do very well out of their pension schemes.

Despite assurances that senior pay will be brought in line, once again we see a large salary being offered to someone who doesn’t necessarily have the qualifications in the field they will be in overall responsibility of. It’s rather like starting a Grand Prix from the back of the grid. It’s not impossible to win, but your chances are severely hampered.

Our next two offerings are hardly surprising. Once the government gave the green light to High Speed 2 (HS2) I’ve been waiting for all the non-jobs that will be on offer. It hasn’t taken long. Your taxes, and those of your children and grandchildren, will be paying for Community Liaison & Stakeholder Managers and Advisors, and Community Forums Managers. The salary on offer for both posts is between £33K-£60K per annum. We don’t how many there will be, although the advertisement does say there will be phased recruitment.

So what will these people be doing? Put simply, a PR exercise in trying to win over those who live along the route and are currently objecting to HS2. The following is part of the job description In the advert for a Community Liaison & Stakeholder Manager and Advisor.

You will play a pivotal role in working with local communities, HS2 area engineers and environmentalists, to identify local priorities and explore opportunities for developing local community benefits and brokering solutions.

As most major government projects never run to budget or to time, we can safely assume that HS2 will cost much more than the quoted £32 billion, and the line from London to Birmingham will not be up and running until after 2026. By the time it gets to Leeds and Manchester, those MPs so enthusiastic about the project will be enjoying their retirement, that’s assuming they have not left this mortal coil.

In the meantime even more money will be wasted as the spin machine drives forward at maximum speed in an attempt to win over those of us who know this is a white elephant. Expect timetable revisions, increased cost projections, and more non-jobs as the years roll by.

How is it in our interests to fund banks fighting for their political interests?

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which is 83 per cent owned by taxpayers, paid six firms last year despite losing more than £750m in six months. It also employs its own team of internal corporate lobbyists to influence ministers.

Lloyds Banking Group, which is 41 per cent owned by the Government, retained two lobbying companies.

[...]

RBS’s use of PR companies is far greater than its private banking competitors. HSBC and Barclays each employ two firms, while Santander retains three.

Tamasin Cabe from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency called this “offensive” and Labour called it “outrageous”. They’re quite right. This isn’t a normal company with shareholders who can sell if they think they are getting poor value, or who are – as a distinct economic interest – being represented, but one part of the public sector – the nationalised banks – lobbying another – the Government. The same thing does happen in other areas with councils and quangos hiring lobbyists but this is a particularly egregious example.

The Government’s response is disappointing. They said it “seemed ridiculous” and that the “firms might try and lobby us to do things but that does not mean that we do them”. But even if we trust that is the case, then that just means this is a waste of our money. I don’t want to see taxpayers’ cash spent on effective or ineffective lobbying for the nationalised banks.

Surely they can do better? If the Government, representing these banks’ biggest shareholders, told them to stop hiring lobbyists would RBS and Lloyds really be able to say no?

This is yet another reminder that we need to get the bailout money back as soon as possible, so that taxpayers aren’t on the hook for the banks’ spending decisions.

The outgoing Lancashire Police Authority is also looking for a PR professional . It is advertising for a Senior Press and Communications Officer for 12 months, subject to review. It could be argued that as the majority of people don’t have a clue who their local police authority chief executive is, or any idea who serves on the police authority, Lancashire is right to employ the services of someone who can raise its profile. I assume there has already been someone trying to do this for them, albeit not very successfully, but is now really the time to be looking to recruit and train a new communications officer when the police authority will soon be confined to the annals of history? Or could they use the services of someone in Lancashire County Council as and when they needed them?

If you live in Brent, you may be interested to know that your council has managed to find £35K under the mattress to fund a Political Assistant for the Labour Group. This classic non-job is being advertised when the council is closing libraries. I know where I would rather see my money spent, and its certainly not on spoon feeding councillors information about local, regional, and national political developments. This is something they should be doing for themselves.

The Role

Political Assistant – Labour Group

Salary up to £34,986 pa inc

We are seeking to recruiting a Political Assistant for the Leader and members of the ruling Labour Group

The successful applicant will have at least two years experience of working in a political environment and the organisational skills to deal with shifting priorities. You will need to demonstrate your awareness of new legislation and political developments (local, regional and national) with particular reference to the Labour Party.

This a post established under section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and is a full time fixed term contract until 10 May 2014.

Please note that redeployees who apply for this post will be given priority at interviews.

Newham Borough council is looking for a Hearty Lives Project Manager. The purpose of this job is to ‘increase children and young peoples [sic] physical activity levels and promote heart health activity to prevent ill health.’Children are already told about the benefits of eating well and importance of exercise during their lessons in school. Does it really need taxpayers to pour in another £1.5 million into a scheme that states the obvious? Isn’t it the responsibility of parents to ensure their children eat well? I think everyone by now knows that a constant diet of fried food, saturated fats, fizzy drinks and chocolate is not healthy!

Oxford City Council is looking for a Service Manager Environmental Sustainability on £41,616 a year. The advert has all the buzzwords you would expect, including  ’build, develop and maintain effective networks & good working relationships – with key partners and stakeholders in the delivery of services in the job portfolio.’ It even states that a requirement of the job is to comply with the council’s Equal Opportunities Policy. As if they have any option!

It seems that the point of this job is to motivate staff, ensure they have all the training resources they need, and consult with the trade unions. It seems the whole point of the department is to ensure the council is seen to be green. If this the best way the council can think of to spend over £40K of our hard earned cash?

The winner this week is Cherwell District Council. It is advertising for a Head of Transformation on £73,000 a year. According to the council’s website, this is the person they are looking for:

You will play a critical role in the transformation of the organisations, ensuring that we develop a customer-centric approach to service delivery. Whilst the need for efficiencies is obvious, you will ensure that we also harness creativity and innovation to drive an effective people strategy that ensures high performance and continuous improvement. You will bring significant experience of leading and delivering organisational change and demonstrate a real appetite and drive to develop the organisations further to both exploit the opportunities afforded for shared services as well as recognising the distinct sovereignty of both Councils.

You would have hoped they already had a customer-centric approach. Is this an admission that they don’t? High performance and continuous improvement is something all managers should be doing anyway. They should be already be searching for ways to improve services and give taxpayers better value for money. Why do they need to employ someone else? Is this an admission of failure?

Mileage allowances are payments by employers to employees who have to use their car for work. The allowance is meant to compensate for the cost of petrol, vehicle depreciation and repairs. George Osborne increased the recommended allowance to 45p-a-mile in the Budget back in March, acknowledging the high cost of motoring and the pressure this puts on drivers who need their car for work.

TaxPayers’ Alliance research, however, has revealed that many council employees receive far in excess of the HMRC approved rate. In 2009-10, Cheshire East was one of the worst performing in the country, paying out a massive £4,045,601 in allowances to councillors and council employees. The research also revealed that the council increased allowances from 60.10p to 65p-per-mile between 2009-10 and 2010-11, a time when politicians and executives knew that necessary spending reductions would have to be made. While Council Leader Fitzgerald might claim that the agreed reduction is evidence of Cheshire East’s willingness to cut back on employees’ benefits, it’s more like a reversal of a disgraceful previous increase.

Another Cheshire East Councillor, Sam Corcoran, was more critical in November, and rightly so. He said that any payment above the HMRC recommended rate ‘not only wastes money but also adds to bureaucracy’. He also proposed the amendment that the council should only pay 45p-per-mile. Councillor Corcoran should be praised for acknowledging that any payment above HMRC recommendations involves extra administration for the Council alongside the excessive cost. The rest of the council would do well to take his recommendation on board.

Most importantly, however, the failure to reduce the allowance to 45p-per-mile is evidence that councillors are not making enough effort to find efficiency and waste savings before making reductions elsewhere. The reduction to 52.2p-per-mile for councillors will save £20,000 but the total cost of mileage allowances for council employees and councillors in Cheshire East was over £4 million in 2009-10. Council tax has almost doubled over the last decade and it is unacceptable that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund excessive benefits for council staff.

Some councils have been busy building large change and performance departments. Surrey County Council and Oxford City Council immediately spring to mind. Surrey has advertised for a Performance Manager, Performance Officer, Intelligence Officer, Change Officer, Senior Change Manager, and a Senior Performance and Research Officer (Intelligence). Oxford City Council have recruited similar officers and managers, as well as a Tenants Involvement and Development Officer.

Nottingham City Council (the only council not to publish its spending above £500) ironically recruited a Head of Quality and Efficiency Services, and Walsall Council was looking for a Smarter Workplaces Programme Manager. Also this year, the new Future Shape Programme Manager of North East Lincolnshire Council was revealed.

Reading Council was looking for no less than ten Seasonal Personal Travel Plan Advisers. Their job was to contact residents and discuss with them how they travel to work, school, and go shopping, etc. If you think this is bizarre, then what about Waltham Forest’s search for a Laughter Yoga Teacher?

This year, many councils have scrapped their newspapers, but Hackney (surprise, surprise) has not followed suit. Earlier this year it was looking for a new sub-editor for its propaganda rag newspaper, Hackney Today.

There has also been the usual raft of Climate Change Officers (something I highlighted repeatedly), Political Assistants, and Diversity Officers - including the BBC who was looking for a Diversity Talent Executive!

A London council was looking for a Governance Officer – Openness and Transparency. Ironically, we didn’t know which council this was, as they were recruiting anonymously through a recruitment agency! Those recruitment agencies have been a feature this year. Remember the Interim Head of Parking Services for an unnamed London Council? In March this was yours for £500-£600 a day! This was the most egregious salary of the year. When annualised, a parking manager was due to be paid more than the prime minister.

I could go on, and please have a look through these examples and the others from 2011. It does come with a health warning though. I don’t want your blood pressure to rise to dangerous levels.

I wish you all a very Happy Christmas, and here’s hoping 2012 will be a non-job free year!

This is despite the various leaflets already sent out to residents and businesses informing them of what they can and cannot recycle. Does it really need someone to be constantly haranguing them with the same messages? The EU landfill directive keeps increasing the burden on council taxpayers, so I can understand why councils are keen to push the recycling message. There does come a point though where you wonder just how far councils will go. With recycling rates already on target to hit 60% this financial year, this is one job North Somerset council taxpayers can do without.

A central government department is looking for a Senior Integrated Communications Officer based in Leeds, paying £180-£220 per day (£900-£1100 per week). This role requires the jobholder “to gather intelligence about the mood, activities, opinions of key stakeholder e.g. staff representative groups and professional bodies, the national media.”

The job description goes on to say they will be “supporting senior members of the team to deliver communications about pensions reform to staff. This will be vital as elements of the reform ratchet up over next 6 months and will also entail feeding into the Departments industry relations policy group.”

When we published our report on the taxpayer funding of trade unions, we were told by union leaders that union reps needed time off on our watch because it promoted harmony in the workplace. Recent strikes don’t back up that message, but leaving that to one side, it could be argued the government needs to communicate its message on public sector pensions reform more effectively. As TPA Research Director, John O’Connell wrote last week, there are many myths about pensions reform still being articulated in the media – mainly by unions.

Take a look at the job advert. This role predominantly involves communicating with staff and stakeholders, which in turn means the unions. We will be paying someone the equivalent of £45-55K per annum on a temporary full-time contract to tell the unions what they already know – or at least should know.

I appreciate there is more to this job, but as it’s a temporary contract on a daily rate, clearly it’s not going to last a long time. Once again though we don’t know which department it is, as the job is advertised through a recruitment agency, which will also incur additional fees.

This job is unneccessary as the government already has a team of negotiators working with the unions. The unions then pass on the information to their members, with additional employer information distributed to staff. This is an additional expense we can do without.

Apparently unaware of the irony, the council has spent £21,000 sending 230,000 leaflets to residents asking them for ideas how to save money, living up to Sir Humphey’s mantra that it’s more expensive to do them cheaply.

While it is obviously good for a council to talk to voters about a necessary reduction in funding and how to save money, it should be done when it can have a meaningful impact on all aspects of spending rather than at the tail end of the discussions.

The consultation is open until January 6^th leaving the Council just three months to prepare and adopt a budget to take effect in April 2012. The opposition Lib Dem leader, Shaffaq Mohammed, claims that decisions must have already been made about next year’s budget, “We are now almost at the door of the final closure of the budget process as far as I’m concerned.”

If this is just a smokescreen for councillors to use to defend their own plans when the outcome is already decided, it is a very cynical waste of money.

Julie Dore, the Labour-run council’s leader, claimed that it cost just 9p to produce each leaflet and this represented “value for money.” But the question isn’t whether they have bought the leaflets at a reasonable price but whether or not the project was worthwhile in the first place, whether it was a genuine attempt to engage with the public or just a presentational gimmick.  Taxpayers will suspect it was the latter.