I am trying to establish alternatives to the current budget proposals so I have been looking at areas that are either out of scope for cuts or areas which appear to be relatively unaffected. My post of yesterday, 29 November, gave details of the cost of senior staff as a group.
The education budget is the largest in the council and below you will see the costs of staff above the level of the head teachers. As far as I can see these are all out of scope in the current council administration proposals Again, if you read this and know any of the individuals, this is about the posts and the cost of them, not about people or personalities. Note also that the figures quoted include employment oncosts such as NI and pension.
More on this to follow.
1 Head of Service @ £93k
3 Education Managers @ £74k each
1 Principal Psychologist @£71k
10 Education Officers @£66k to £75k each
1 Administrative Officer @£29k
The total cost of the above posts comes to £1,131,720.
Cllr. Breslin
Re-education posts
Thank you for keeping us updated with these messages.
I am unsure as to what exactly these staff posts equate to. To me you are making the point that the 16 posts that you have listed, cost £1,131, 720, and nothing else. I, and I am sure most other people, will have absolutely no idea what all these staff do, never mind if they are all required, or not.
In my mind what is required, is to collate all the work, and tasks of the full department, then figure out how many posts are required to do everything, then structure the department. In simple terms, a complete analysis should be made of the dept, then re-structure it accordingly.
Having 16 senior posts means nothing, without knowing how many other posts are in the department. This reasoning obviously relates to the whole council, as I am sure the majority of the public, and no doubt councillors, do not really know if there are too many managers, too many staff overall, or a combination of these.
Regards
O.Carter.
Sent from myMail for iOS
Monday, 30 November 2015, 20:39 +0000 from comment-reply@wordpress.com : >Michael Breslin posted: “I am trying to establish alternatives to the current budget proposals so I have been looking at areas that are either out of scope for cuts or areas which appear to be relatively unaffected. My post of yesterday, 29 November, gave details of the cost of s” >
These are very fair points. The councillors who were excluded from the detail of what was given to the Service Choices project board are severely disadvantaged as a result. Context and need for posts is everything so all I am pointing out are areas currently out of scope. Further questions need asked, and they will be. Thanks.
At first sight and considering the population of Argyll & Bute, the Council does appear to be top heavy with senior admin. staff on the education front. Are you aware if the establishment outlined is in keeping with, and comparable to, other local authorities? Also, as regards the individual costs for “education officers” (not sure what specific functions they perform) how do they compare wIth head teachers?
Some head teachers cost more and some less than the posts shown.
Thanks Mike as the jigsaw comes together we can see where vast chunks of budget is spent it is not on the multitude of cheap cuts,where just a few expensive cuts are needed at management level,the closure of Kilmory,release some of the 150 million pounds they have in reserves,and sell some of the 520 million in assets they have..not rocket science just prudence.
I very much doubt your figures on reserves and assets but the general point is well made.
So top heavy, while people at the chalk face struggle for basic resources.