Dear John,
Every time I watch a State or Federal Politician spruke numbers and percentages I really wonder what they are trying to achieve.
No one knows the authenticity of their numbers, no one’s going to try to remember them, no one’s going to challenge them. It doesn’t make them look clever. It just makes it look like they are trying to act clever or get one over their opponent. That adds up to sneaky or conniving.
As such John, there’s little point hanging your hat on statistics, (e.g. more dollars to Capital works for the Mountain). What you are missing in the game is Perception.
The perceived service that yourself, the Councillors and your staff are providing the Shire.
You say you’re proud of your performance in regards to the amalgamation, but most of it was inherited with no leadership call from Council.
One example of the amalgamation downside was having to carry extra staff at inflated wages for 3 years and now that the 3 years have expired and your are finally in a position to put your own stamp on the business circumstances, we’re told by Richard Adams that your staffing level is about the same as other Councils of the same size.
From my perspective John, poor Managers gauge themselves on other Managers. Good Managers look at their own needs and create the staff levels and environments that suit their needs.
Scenic Rim just takes the easy way out and leans on other Council’s statistics.
It also seems you had to hire consultants to even make that decision. Is it at all possible that the CEO, the group of Councillors and Mayor that we elected to look after these very subjects couldn’t make a simple decision like staffing on their own merits?
No it appears you are all willing to throw more money down the drain to come up with the easiest way out so none of you are seen to be at blame for taking a decision.
I’ll give you an example in regard to staffing levels from the private sector where I worked for many years.
There would not be a chance in hell that we would look at our competition to decide our own staffing levels. Staff levels were largely a result of budgeted expenditure.
Just prior to the bringing down of the next FY budget, the call would go out from the Accountant and the General Manager to Departmental Managers to cut staff by 5% in their Departments.
No one ever questioned it, you just went about the business of looking hard at the staff and working out who you could do without and who could fill that role along with their present duties.
If you could save more than the specified 5% you did. No one complained, everyone just got on with the task at hand.
Sometimes the numbers grew again in the next budget, but usually because we had an optimistic view of technology, we would have revamped the systems by that time to make it unnecessary.
It was a decision, it was enacted, we went forward and we didn’t blame anyone else and never did we use an outside Consultant.
John, you and your CEO seem to use an aweful lot of Consultants. Why is that?
This use of expensive outsiders illustrates one of the complaints from Ratepayers. You have been wasteful use of their money.
For example. There have been long protracted court cases, when common sense could have resolved many of those issues.
I’m not sure of the number but somewhere around $500,000 on the plans and illustrations for the Library concept even before the ratepayers were informed of such a development being planned, consultants for this, consultants for that.
I agree that sometimes consultants may be necessary if there’s no one with that talent within Council, but this Council seems to have a dependence on them well above their need.
The more money you waste is the more money that must be raised from Ratepayers. Do you expect us to like it?
Next week John, I'd like to talk to you about your gang of five (or is it six) and what seems to be a lack of negotiating skills.