Spare a penny, gov?

The Conwy CBC statement of accounts for 2008/9 is now available and fascinating reading it makes. As with all such things, it ain’t easy for the layman (anyone who's not a chartered accountant) to read, but some juicy titbits are worth looking at. The full file can be found here:

http://www.conwy.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/391/Updated_200809_Statement_of_Accounts.pdf

The document should be easy to read; it is, after all, our money they’re spending, whether indirectly, through the RSG or directly through council tax. However, when faced with mysterious phrases like

STATEMENT OF TOTAL RECOGNISED GAINS AND LOSSES

it would be nice to know if the figure of £155,000,000 is a gain, a loss, or what. The accounts merely state

Total recognised (gains) or losses for the year.

It also seems that CCBC has £41,000,000 deposited with banks and building societies, which is worth noting given that our Council tax bills never, ever fall, despite the B of E’s assurances that we are currently in a period of almost negative inflation.

Education continues to consume the biggest slice of the cake, closely followed by Environmental and technical services. But perhaps the most interesting information is within  two categories:  Trading operations (p. 45) and Officers’ Emoluments (p.49). It’s here we learn that Venue Cymru has been running at a massive loss - over £1,100,000 last year alone, but the officers’ emoluments (that’s the money council officials get, in plain English) is even more interesting:

Looking at the chart, we see that there are eleven head teachers earning up to £70,000 pa, together with a similar number of council officers. What is more interesting, however, is that Conwy pays its officers handsomely. In what is a relatively small authority, there are no fewer than 8 employees which we - jointly - fund to the tune of more than £720,000 between them, with three earning more than £100,000 each and one on a staggering £180,000!

Conwy will no doubt argue it has to ‘pay the going rate’ for such people, but a going rate of more than £100,000 means that the employee in question had better be earning it, and one has to wonder how that is assessed. What are the criteria used to assess whether these highly-paid servants of ours are worth that much? It can’t be stress and pressure, otherwise the head teachers would be on double what they are.

Perhaps it’s time to start working out exactly what criteria should be used.  Their ability to manage the council so that council tax gets lowered instead of routinely raised might be a good start. But public accountability is something we have a right to expect from council officials. Hiding behind the councillors’ robes isn’t good enough;  we pay their wages and we need to know what our employees are doing to earn their cash.

Some years ago, California enacted state legislation that empowered the electorate to demand a cut in their state taxes -the equivalent of our council tax and VAT. The public did, and the result was that California management had to start shedding their over-paid managers and cutting back on councillor expenses.  Maybe it’s time to look at that right here.